Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: faberryman on September 28, 2019, 10:38:02 am

Title: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on September 28, 2019, 10:38:02 am
You may have Boris and Brexit, but we now have impeachment hearings this side of the pond to keep us entertained. And who knew you would get a different take on it depending on which papers you read and which news you watch.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on September 28, 2019, 10:41:57 am
They're not only going to be entertaining, they're going to hand the House back to the Republicans next year.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 28, 2019, 01:54:00 pm
Moderator, please move this thread to the "A Touch of Humor" one.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Ivo_B on September 28, 2019, 01:57:44 pm
So Biden and or his Son are / is doing business in l’Ukraine?

What’s wrong with you US guys? Some decades ago a person only mentioning the ussr would be hung as commie.

Now even Biden is dealing with them.

There are no certainties anymore...

At least your potus didn’t loose focus.  8)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 28, 2019, 02:29:57 pm
So Biden and or his Son are / is doing business in l’Ukraine?

What’s wrong with you US guys? Some decades ago a person only mentioning the ussr would be hung as commie.

Now even Biden is dealing with them.

There are no certainties anymore...

At least your potus didn’t loose focus.  8)
Problem is Democrat Joe Biden was Vice President at the time.  He put the squeeze on the Ukraine government to stop criminal investigations of his son Hunter Biden who was finagling there to make money.  The VP Biden squeeze is what may be illegal which ironically is what the Democrats are accusing Trump of doing asking Ukraine to start up the investigation again.  It's a small world. What goes around comes around. :)

In any case, there are more commies and socialists and leftists here in the USA then there any more in Russia.   The world is going topsy turvy. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 28, 2019, 02:33:47 pm
... In any case, there are more commies and socialists and leftists here in the USA then there any more in Russia.   The world is going topsy turvy. 

How true! And sad. This coming from a guy who thought he safely escaped them by coming here.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 28, 2019, 02:35:49 pm
Wanna see how it worked for the Bidens?

https://www.facebook.com/liberalprivilegeusa/videos/667744380375147/UzpfSTc2NjU5NzIyMjoxMDE1ODA5NTEzMjc5MjIyMw/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 28, 2019, 02:42:40 pm
How true! And sad. This coming from a guy who thought he safely escaped them by coming here.

More irony.  You see, the socialist dream was always here too.  It's just that because of the way WWII turned out what with the Red scare and the Iron Curtain and the USSR, Americans were afraid.  As a kid, I'd practice hiding under the desk at school in case there was a nuclear attack.   No one wanted to be on the side of anything that smacked of communism or socialism.  So they couldn't gain a foothold. 

So the collapse of the Soviet Union was both a blessing and a curse.  A blessing by freeing up those people held hostage behind the Curtain and ending the Cold War and M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction.  The curse of course being that now people have forgotten 30 years later just how much a menace socialism can be confirming Santayana's warning about people who forget history are doomed to repeat it.  Unfortunately, America has forgotten. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 28, 2019, 02:47:10 pm
Wanna see how it worked for the Bidens?

https://www.facebook.com/liberalprivilegeusa/videos/667744380375147/UzpfSTc2NjU5NzIyMjoxMDE1ODA5NTEzMjc5MjIyMw/
Beck is a nice guy but no one watches him.  Biden will continue to be protected by the leftist press.  Unless they decide to throw him under the bus for Pocahontas. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 28, 2019, 03:11:01 pm
Beck is a nice guy but no one watches him...

Especially our leftie friends here. They'll immediately go ad hominem, without watching a very illustrative timeline of events and players.

As a reminder, I spent eight years working in Moscow on behalf of several American companies, sometimes with Russian government agencies, often with Russian companies, and this (what Glen Beck illustrated) is exactly how business is conducted and influence peddled in Russia. Ukraine is more or less the same.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 28, 2019, 03:20:50 pm
Meanwhile the liberal press, CNN, has Cuomo protecting Biden as I said.   Look at 1:57 and watch how then Cuomo excuses Biden for doing what Trump apparently did.   https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/28/cuomo-closing-argument-trump-biden-comparison-ukraine-cpt-vpx.cnn

Of course CNN has more clout than Beck.  Just add the other liberal, usual suspects like the NY Times and Washington Post, and Biden's home free. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on September 28, 2019, 05:28:06 pm
You may have Boris and Brexit, but we now have impeachment hearings this side of the pond to keep us entertained. And who knew you would get a different take on it depending on which papers you read and which news you watch.
and what fora your read...!
It came to me as a surprise :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 28, 2019, 05:35:38 pm
and what fora your read...!
It came to me as a surprise :)

One doesn’t read “fora” but “forums.”
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 28, 2019, 06:52:03 pm
One reads both:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/forum

One can visit fora (in Rome), but can’t read them.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Ivo_B on September 29, 2019, 04:40:50 am
One doesn’t read “fora” but “forums.”

Wow. More Ad Hominem is difficult!
 :o
 ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: rabanito on September 29, 2019, 07:09:06 am
Sure, as one can equally well visit one forum (in Rome), but cannot read it.

https://grammarist.com/usage/fora-forums/

Any more distractions from the topic?

Well at least something interesting in this Coffee Corner  ;)

BTW Does somebody know why Marylin Monroe should be THAT important at all? I know, OT...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on September 29, 2019, 08:06:13 am
Wanna see how it worked for the Bidens?

https://www.facebook.com/liberalprivilegeusa/videos/667744380375147/UzpfSTc2NjU5NzIyMjoxMDE1ODA5NTEzMjc5MjIyMw/


No can do: they want me to join facebook, which I shall not.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on September 29, 2019, 08:35:26 am
Well at least something interesting in this Coffee Corner  ;)

BTW Does somebody know why Marylin Monroe should be THAT important at all? I know, OT...


Simple: she began her rise to fame as a calendar model and then exploited the dumb blonde ethic to its maximum. She did it very well indeed, but only in a very American way. Perhaps it was an exclusively American concept. Since Hollywood ruled the screens outwith maybe France and Italy, both of which countries produced their own hot favourites but with a decidedly smaller distribution muscle, Marilyn reigned as queen.

Then, through ber connection to various members of the Kennedy family, she moved beyond Hollywood into a different world, one that, and this is very important, many of us believe led to her death - or possible murder. That shock ending to her life is the movie star equivalent to the grassy knoll. On another level, her connection via Arthur M. to the intellectual arts world created the interest for many in the conflict or, should that be, perverse attraction between glamour and mental brilliance, and the reasons why so many people who thought about that may have found the situation irresistible to their ponderings.

Dying at their peak has never done stars any harm. But what was her peak? Her last movie, The Misfits saw her late for work, distressed, drugged and in what looks, in hindsight, to have been highly visible terminal decline. As with Elvis, why was nobody willing to be strong, and help?

She died a lonely death shrouded in mystery, and it continues for us, the public, to this day, though I am quite certain that some people still alive today know the truth.

Death was key to longevity. She died, beautiful in the Hollywood idiom; BB did not, and went on to age and deteriorate from goddess to old woman. To my tastes, in the 50s, BB was queen of them all. But then, I am half Italian - the more dominant half for sure - and allegiances often follow blood, and after all, France and Italy are not that far apart. Ask the Corsicans!

P.S. Both Marilyn and BB are far more interesting people to think about and try to understand than the obvious Trump! Thanks for the prandial diversion!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on September 29, 2019, 09:18:42 am
Problem is Democrat Joe Biden was Vice President at the time.  He put the squeeze on the Ukraine government to stop criminal investigations of his son Hunter Biden who was finagling there to make money.  The VP Biden squeeze is what may be illegal which ironically is what the Democrats are accusing Trump of doing asking Ukraine to start up the investigation again.  It's a small world. What goes around comes around. :)


This notion that Biden pressured Ukraine to not investigate his son is hogwash. For example, a quote from the Washington Post:

"No evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the Bidens has surfaced. Giuliani’s primary allegation — that Joe Biden pushed for the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor to quash a probe into the former minister and Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky — is not substantiated and has been widely disputed by former U.S. officials and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists."

But hey, we don't need no stinking facts--we're Republicans!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on September 29, 2019, 09:43:11 am
This notion that Biden pressured Ukraine to not investigate his son is hogwash. For example, a quote from the Washington Post:

"No evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the Bidens has surfaced. Giuliani’s primary allegation — that Joe Biden pushed for the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor to quash a probe into the former minister and Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky — is not substantiated and has been widely disputed by former U.S. officials and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists."

But hey, we don't need no stinking facts--we're Republicans!

I like that; it would fit nicely with reference to gun worshipers of any political leaning. I mean, every day in the city jungle exposes us to attack from panther, lion, rattler, elephant, crocodile and head-hunter. We need protection. Anyway, present dangers aside, supper depends on us shooting something to give to the wife to skin and to cook for supper in order to fuel and to satisfy us hungry men of action.

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on September 29, 2019, 09:47:12 am
...a quote from the Washington Post:

If you're depending on the Washington Post for facts, Peter, you're in serious trouble.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on September 29, 2019, 09:57:27 am
If you're depending on the Washington Post for facts, Peter, you're in serious trouble.
I suppose you get your alternate facts from Fox News, Breitbart, and InfoWars.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 29, 2019, 10:19:13 am

No can do: they want me to join facebook, which I shall not.

Just join the 21st century, Rob 😉
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 29, 2019, 10:30:29 am
This notion that Biden pressured Ukraine to not investigate his son is hogwash. For example, a quote from the Washington Post:

"No evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the Bidens has surfaced. Giuliani’s primary allegation — that Joe Biden pushed for the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor to quash a probe into the former minister and Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky — is not substantiated and has been widely disputed by former U.S. officials and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists."

But hey, we don't need no stinking facts--we're Republicans!

You quote a statement by the WP as facts!?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 29, 2019, 10:31:32 am
This notion that Biden pressured Ukraine to not investigate his son is hogwash. For example, a quote from the Washington Post:

"No evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the Bidens has surfaced. Giuliani’s primary allegation — that Joe Biden pushed for the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor to quash a probe into the former minister and Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky — is not substantiated and has been widely disputed by former U.S. officials and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists."

But hey, we don't need no stinking facts--we're Republicans!


Interesting that the anti-Trump, anti-Republican Washington Post and others for 2 1/2 years pushed the crime that Trump colluded with the Russians without having any evidence.  In fact, after two years of investigation, Mueller  cleared Trump, his family and everyone else in America.  But now, you're so quick to accept the Washington Post's theory that Democrat Biden's son, who they support, did not do the crime.  Even though VP Joe Biden admitted publicly that he pressured the Ukrainian government to shut down the investigation. 


Wouldn't it be fair to investigate VP Biden to see if there was collusion on his part with a foreign government?  Or do we just prosecute people we don;t like?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on September 29, 2019, 10:53:20 am
You quote a statement by the WT as facts!?

What's  the WT?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 29, 2019, 11:45:48 am
What's  the WT?

Sorry, WP (Washington Post). Corrected.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on September 29, 2019, 11:55:33 am
Kelleyanne Conway hit the nail on the head yesterday when she said something like: "Biden didn't mean what he said, but Trump meant what he didn't say."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: rabanito on September 29, 2019, 12:50:07 pm

Simple:
...
...

Thank you for the very clear and interesting explanation   :D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 29, 2019, 12:53:00 pm
... BTW, if you want to add a new topic on Biden and his son's dealings, please feel free to start a new thread. Let's stay on topic in this one.

That IS the same topic.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on September 29, 2019, 01:20:01 pm
Biden is not being impeached, and he is not called Donald Trump.
It is really pretty simple. Trump asked the president of a foreign country to work with his personal attorney and the attorney general to dig up dirt on a political rival. You can argue about whether there was a quid pro quo for military aid, but a quid pro quo is not necessary. The ask, by itself, constitutes abhorrent behavior.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 29, 2019, 01:33:02 pm
It is really pretty simple. Trump asked the president of a foreign country to work with his personal attorney and the attorney general to dig up dirt on a political rival. You can argue about whether there was a quid pro quo for military aid, but a quid pro quo is not necessary. The ask, by itself, constitutes abhorrent behavior.
Then Biden who used his office as Vice President and asked Ukraine to drop the investigation of his son is also guilty of abhorrent behavior.  But not impeachable.  We should use elections to remove presidents.

On the other hand, you know that Biden's competition including Harris, Warren, Sanders,  and the other Democrat candidates are thinking how they can stick it to Biden without being attacked. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 29, 2019, 01:37:13 pm
... The ask, by itself, constitutes abhorrent behavior.

How about not just ask, but pay for and use it? As in the Steele-dossier case, ordered and paid by DNC and ultimately approved by Hillary?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 29, 2019, 01:37:57 pm
Biden is not being impeached, and he is not called Donald Trump.
Get serious Bart,  The argument for Trump's impeachment has to do with Biden's and his son and what they did which may have been illegal, certainly Biden did what Trump apparently did.  Talk to the Ukrainians.  But if Biden's son did what he seems to have done, asking another country to investigate is not against the law or unusual.  Of course, there's the political issue which is serious.  But you can;t isolate one issue from the other.  Well, you can if you hate Trump and don;t want to hurt the Democrat in the process.  That's the nub of the problem, isn't it.   How to bury Trump without hurting Biden?  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 29, 2019, 01:39:21 pm
How about not just ask, but pay for and use it? As in the Steele-dossier case, ordered and paid by DNC and ultimately approved by Hillary?

Maybe they're all guilty.  Clinton, Biden and Trump.   They should share the same jail cell.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 29, 2019, 01:41:23 pm
... How to bury Trump without hurting Biden?  :)

Or as the chorus of Dem candidates clamors: "How to bury Trump AND hurt Biden" ;) Certainly looks like a trump card (pardon the pun) for the Jihad Squad.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on September 29, 2019, 01:49:55 pm
Just join the 21st century, Rob 😉


Not that version of it, thanks!

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on September 29, 2019, 01:57:01 pm
Thank you for the very clear and interesting explanation   :D


Thank you too; writing made me realise some things that I hadn't really thought much about before.

:-)

https://www.magnumphotos.com/arts-culture/eve-arnold-marilyn-monroe-an-appreciation/

I'd just add that this less-than-perfect style of public relations photography is far more interesting, personal and emotionally evocative - at least to me - than the current sort of material we see from those sessions controlled by PR people and the likes, where the best we get is the "best" that the retouchers can produce: waxworks.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 29, 2019, 02:28:00 pm
Wrong thread.

We should combine this thread with previous Russian Conspiracy threads into a single one: "Failed Democrats' Attempts at Soft Coup d'Etat."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on September 29, 2019, 02:32:16 pm
I like it more when you are on the attack, Slobodan, than when playing the apologist.

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on September 29, 2019, 05:06:42 pm
We should combine this thread with previous Russian Conspiracy threads into a single one: "Failed Democrats' Attempts at Soft Coup d'Etat."

And maybe there is also a link to Marilyn Monroe's death.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 29, 2019, 05:16:37 pm
And maybe there is also a link to Marilyn Monroe....

That would be a thread titled: "Democrat's Successful Attempt at Coup de Bra (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=coup%20de%20bra)." ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on September 30, 2019, 05:05:40 am
That would be a thread titled: "Democrat's Successful Attempt at Coup de Bra (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=coup%20de%20bra)." ;)

Slobodan, you have too much spare time on your hands; get a hobby!

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 30, 2019, 10:04:54 am
Slobodan, you have too much spare time on your hands; get a hobby!

My hobby, passion even, is at a stage where nobody cares anymore. When everyone is a photographer, nobody is. I started listing all my gear on eBay.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 30, 2019, 10:13:15 am
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/september/30/impeachment-or-cia-coup/

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 30, 2019, 10:55:48 am
My hobby, passion even, is at a stage where nobody cares anymore. When everyone is a photographer, nobody is. I started listing all my gear on eBay.
Give it away.  No, not the equipment, the prints.  Pick your best.  Blow them up and frame them beautifully.  Then give them to friends and family as gifts.  Portraits of family especially, but landscapes too.  They'll love you for it.  Then every time you're over their house there will be your work hanging in their homes being appreciated every day by the people you admire and love.  What can be better than that?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 30, 2019, 11:05:50 am
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/september/30/impeachment-or-cia-coup/


A political coup d'etat.  The deep state at work trying to destroy a presidency to advance themselves.  First the phoney "collusion".  Now the phone call. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on September 30, 2019, 11:19:53 am
It is really pretty simple. Trump asked the president of a foreign country to work with his personal attorney and the attorney general to dig up dirt on a political rival. You can argue about whether there was a quid pro quo for military aid, but a quid pro quo is not necessary. The ask, by itself, constitutes abhorrent behavior.

Although this may be true, it does not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors."  If you disagree, please state the criminal code which he violated. 

Anyway, Newt Gingrich had an interesting discussion on this whole thing last wee.  Essentially he stated that Pelosi can either risk looking stupid and talke about impeachment, or risk looking scary and talk about the policies the candidates are pushing (open borders, completely getting rid of private healthcare, giving free healthcare to illegal aliens, the green new deal, etc.). 

Looking stupid is probably the better path.  Those policies are sure to loose them elections. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on September 30, 2019, 11:21:28 am
Then Biden who used his office as Vice President and asked Ukraine to drop the investigation of his son is also guilty of abhorrent behavior.  But not impeachable.  We should use elections to remove presidents.

On the other hand, you know that Biden's competition including Harris, Warren, Sanders,  and the other Democrat candidates are thinking how they can stick it to Biden without being attacked.

Most of the canidates have already come out and said they would not allow their child to work for a foreign company.  Not sure how you prevent this though, since, they presumably, would be over 18 and can do what they want. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 30, 2019, 11:30:44 am
Most of the canidates have already come out and said they would not allow their child to work for a foreign company.  Not sure how you prevent this though, since, they presumably, would be over 18 and can do what they want. 

You recuse yourself then.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on September 30, 2019, 11:34:42 am
I think Bill Maher put this whole thing best.  At the end of the day, 40% will be on either side and it is the 20% in the middle you need to convince.  Will they be more worried about what Trump said on a phone call or more worried about their phone bill and whether congress has done anything to help? 

Since politicians cant walk and chew gum at the same time, this whole "impeachment thing" (no vote has been held yet, so it is not really an inquiry) will ensure nothing gets done, just like the last two years.  And it is directly the Dems' fault.

I strongly believe that this will go nowhere and those 20% swing voters will be more annoyed at the Dems then Trump for not doing anything.  So, those Dems in vulnerable districts will get voted out and the house will go back to the Republicans. 

Additionally, this all but ruins Bidens chances at winning, which mean Warren will get it, and then Romney's late 2016 prediction will come true.  That being that the Dems response to Trump winning will be to vote for someone so far to the left in 2020, like Warren, she will be un-relatable to the majority of the country and Trump will win a 2nd term. 

Pelosi deep down probably knows this to be true and the longer she can keep Warren's policies out of the news cycle the better.  But it will probably be a failing strategy; eventually people are going to start looking at the policies, especially in the swing states.  No body is really going to care about a phone call. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on September 30, 2019, 12:36:58 pm
No body is really going to care about a phone call.

Because, hey. "It's nothing personal.  It's just business."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 30, 2019, 12:53:44 pm
Although this may be true, it does not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors."  If you disagree, please state the criminal code which he violated. 

Anyway, Newt Gingrich had an interesting discussion on this whole thing last wee.  Essentially he stated that Pelosi can either risk looking stupid and talke about impeachment, or risk looking scary and talk about the policies the candidates are pushing (open borders, completely getting rid of private healthcare, giving free healthcare to illegal aliens, the green new deal, etc.). 

Looking stupid is probably the better path.  Those policies are sure to loose them elections. 
The whole thing about impeachment is that the Dems want to keep the discussion going until the election.  They really don't care about actually impeaching him.   Then they will make Trump the issue for the campaign not their policies. That worked well for them in 2018. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on September 30, 2019, 12:54:56 pm

Since politicians cant walk and chew gum at the same time, this whole "impeachment thing" (no vote has been held yet, so it is not really an inquiry) will ensure nothing gets done, just like the last two years.  And it is directly the Dems' fault.


Well, Trump played a part too, I'd say.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on September 30, 2019, 02:04:24 pm
Well, Trump played a part too, I'd say.  :)

But at least he has gotten stuff done.  The economy is doing very well, someone has finally taken China to task, the judiciary is completely changed, new tax policy (which contrary to Liberals has helped every one, including myself), etc. 

The only thing the Dems have done policy wise is colossally screw up and capitulated to the Senate with the border bill because they refused to address the issue until the last minute.  If they had taken it for what it was when it started, they probably would have gotten something out of it.  A total loss for them and a win/win for the Republicans. 

So yes, the Dems have squandered their time.  Even Governor Cuomo agrees this impeachment will be a waste of time and a distraction. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on September 30, 2019, 02:26:05 pm
You recuse yourself then.

Actually I mis-quoted, they said they would not allow their VP's children from working at a major foreign company. 

Oh what a lovely out that statement gets them. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on September 30, 2019, 02:57:38 pm
My hobby, passion even, is at a stage where nobody cares anymore. When everyone is a photographer, nobody is. I started listing all my gear on eBay.

I hope you are joking.

You do photography extremely well; don't betray your talent. Or at the very least, decide on the body and single lens you find give you most joy and keep them.

There is always tomorow. Photography has saved my sanity these past (almost) eleven years.

I have seldom been more serious than in my writing of this.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on September 30, 2019, 03:20:07 pm
I'm with Rob on this one, Slobodan. You're a damn good photographer. That has nothing to do with the throngs of people who are snapping away with their cellphones. When I hear somebody say something like this I always flash on the Impressionist exhibition in Paris in 1874, and the vast quantity of artworks in the Salon, few if any of which anyone could identify today, while the Impressionists banished to Nadar's studio brought on a whole new world of art. The quantity of crap out there has absolutely nothing to do with your own talent. I'm also with Rob when he says that photography has saved his sanity. It's saved mine too, if I ever had such a thing. Leaving my mountains for good was a shock, but I can keep on shooting, and that makes life worthwhile. Get your ass out there and make some photographs.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on September 30, 2019, 04:13:16 pm
Three House Committees today subpoenaed Rudy Giuliani to produce Ukraine related documents. This follows up a subpoena to Mike Pompeo on Friday. Speaking of Mike Pompeo, it turns out he was on the call between Trump and the President of Ukraine.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 30, 2019, 10:38:52 pm
And now something totally unrelated:

Golfing in the Hamptons with Devon Archer, who served on the board of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings with Hunter.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 01, 2019, 03:45:58 am
My club is bigger than your club.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 01, 2019, 07:36:04 am
And now something totally unrelated:

Golfing in the Hamptons with Devon Archer, who served on the board of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings with Hunter.

If it’s what you say, I love it!

PS - don’t give up photography.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: josh.reichmann on October 01, 2019, 09:48:55 am
I hope you are joking.

You do photography extremely well; don't betray your talent. Or at the very least, decide on the body and single lens you find give you most joy and keep them.

There is always tomorow. Photography has saved my sanity these past (almost) eleven years.

I have seldom been more serious than in my writing of this.

Rob

I effectively “quit music” and sold my gear over a few years (including a 1969 telecaster) when Pro Tools (the virtual studio program) became common on every aspiring musician’s Mac. It “got worse” when this evolved into the application Garage Band which actually comes with every new Mac. It has plug ins which replicate Fender twins, Gibson’s, broken amps, stage and stadium rigs, every and any old 1920’s mic and most rare and common stock guitar peddle to amp configurations. Stuff one spends decades toying with or never accessing without this new tool.

You can now sequence beats and lift and sample your own work or others and make “music” in hours or less using your voice (turning your voice into any instrument etc) and a dinky keyboard which would have been an inaccessible process for everyone and for %99 of musicians an impossible mission of gear sourcing, until about a decade ago.

 You can obviously promote and make your own videos with similar online tools now.

You know what? People still use professional studios. Still need video directors and producers. I just went to a professional studio with my non virtual gear in hand.

People also still hire PR, and they still press vinyl . All of these are resurgent because easy access and the ability to tinker for curious people or dilettantes does not a serious musician make, and art is clearly the subtle membrane separating the joy of “can” with the questing for “why?”.

But as I said, my years feeling uniquely qualified and proud of my personal gear and the sound I got for live performing and for in-studio were altered in the face of ubiquitous new tool access. I got dismayed.

It has taken me 10 years to start on a new album. Studios are better than ever and all that the plug in online sound revolution did was accentuate the ability for a studio to cater to a musician’s needs, by mixing the new tools with the old.

It’s turning out through the insta / phone revolution that most people (even with an eye) put little time into deepening process and most Landscape photography observably differs (despite filters) from a snap by a tourist to a person on the hunt with a proper camera.

Old tools, like an actual amp, with a guitar which has been “broken in”, with a real spring reverb laid across the room, the right room, the time spent on song writing, the right band mates or engineer, and the awareness of sound as a flowing properly outside of the computer, moving through the electricity in the air - is an entirely undefeatable endeavour.

So it is with photography. No one can replicate the hours spent, the tactile relationship to a camera made to be brought to the eye, the meaning behind the activity which emboldens beyond quick fix satisfaction.

Don’t give up.

You’ll come back anyways. If it truly called you to begin with.

It keeps happening for me with music, photography, teaching meditation (in the face of the mindfulness trend), visual art- after seeing what is popular.

 I quit every year, multiple times a year, wonder why, become exhausted, I become cynical... something calls it all back.  I do it because deep down I have to

I try and remember that.

(Oh, and the impeachment seems a confused flailing plan if desirable for many)

🥂
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 01, 2019, 11:09:19 am
...Old tools, like an actual amp, with a guitar which has been “broken in”, with a real spring reverb laid across the room, the right room, the time spent on song writing, the right band mates or engineer, and the awareness of sound as a flowing properly outside of the computer, moving through the electricity in the air - is an entirely undefeatable endeavour.

So it is with photography. No one can replicate the hours spent, the tactile relationship to a camera made to be brought to the eye, the meaning behind the activity which emboldens beyond quick fix satisfaction...


When I want to slow down and contemplate my navel, I grab my film equipment, tripod and hand held light meter.  If I take three shots in that day, it's a lot.  I get peaceful, one with nature, and myself. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 01, 2019, 12:10:19 pm
Let's try to stay on topic folks. Navel gazing about why you are a photographer deserves its own thread.

On impeachment, Special Envoy Volker, who resigned on Friday, and acted as a go-between between Giuliani and President Zelensky's aide, is set to be deposed on Thursday. Pompeo is crying he and his underlings need more time to prepare for depositions and produce documents than the October 4th deadline Schiff et al. has given them. After all, Schiff gave Giuliani until the 15th to produce his documents. Meanwhile, Trump is desperately trying to find out the identity of the whistleblower, whose anonymity is protected under federal whistleblower law.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 01, 2019, 12:16:20 pm
Of seemingly little importance to the Trump apologists here is the fact that the Trump administration deemed it necessary hide the call record.

The only thing worse than hiding is being caught hiding.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 01, 2019, 12:23:35 pm
Of seemingly little importance to the Trump apologists here is the fact that the Trump administration deemed it necessary hide the call record...

It should have stayed hidden (classified). Making it public is doing more damage to the US foreign policy than hundred phone calls like that. There is a reason things are classified.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 01, 2019, 12:39:28 pm
It's amazing how serious this situation is and yet, Pelosi let her house leave on a two week recess.  You would think impeachment and treason and a "betrayal of his oath of office," as Pelosi put it, would warrant immediate action and forgoing of any vacations.  But I guess everyone, even Democrats, need a little away time from work to blow off steam.   

Anyway, until there is an actual vote on the floor that gets enough ya's to pass (maybe 4th time will be charm since, you know, they voted 3 times before and failed), this is all theatre.  But I really doubt a vote will ever happen that actually gets enough votes.  Pelosi will surely see any floored impeachment inquiry gets just enough votes to please the progressives but never actually passes.  Why? 

An interesting aspect about parliamentary procedure is that only the majority party has subpoena power, allowing them to control the conversation ... unless there is a formal impeachment investigation.  Then the minority party can start making subpoenas and forcing their side of the story.  Not a great idea when still half the country is against impeachment and a sizable portion are still undecided. 

As I said before, at the end of the day, this will go nowhere, yet again, except that Biden's campaign is ruined and Liberals will have the exceptionally difficult task of convincing swing states to back the far left wing policies of Warren.  Good luck with that! 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 01, 2019, 12:45:21 pm
It should have stayed hidden (classified). Making it public is doing more damage to the US foreign policy than hundred phone calls like that. There is a reason things are classified.

Why?  Trump himself termed the call "perfect".  Why hide perfection?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 01, 2019, 01:56:20 pm
Why?  Trump himself termed the call "perfect".  Why hide perfection?
Presidential phone calls with foreign leaders are classified as a regular procedure. Trump declassified it and released it immediately to clear up the matter. Yet you criticize him.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 01, 2019, 02:22:11 pm
Presidential phone calls with foreign leaders are classified as a regular procedure. Trump declassified it and released it immediately to clear up the matter. Yet you criticize him.
It did not exactly clear things up.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 01, 2019, 03:34:22 pm
It did not exactly clear things up.

The call was buried at a deeper level, on a higher-security server than "normal" presidential phone calls.

You didn't answer the question: "Why?"

And he released a redacted voice-to-text version. Apparently the call wasn't audio recorded.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 01, 2019, 04:34:24 pm
The call was buried at a deeper level, on a higher-security server than "normal" presidential phone calls.

You didn't answer the question: "Why?"

And he released a redacted voice-to-text version. Apparently the call wasn't audio recorded.
This is starting to sound like the collusion controversy that lasted 2 1/2 years.    Meanwhile no one is discussing the real issues of the country. It's all politics.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 01, 2019, 05:00:10 pm
This is starting to sound like the collusion controversy that lasted 2 1/2 years.    Meanwhile no one is discussing the real issues of the country. It's all politics.

Although I do not normally like to reference Fox News, since I find it too partisan like MSNBC, there is an interesting take on this by a former Democratic DC operative.  Before going on to give his take, one thing we all need to remember is that many house Dems are in primary challenges with far left wing progressives who are foaming at the mouth over impeachment, and no one wants to become a victim of the next AOC.  This is a big part of the reason so many Dems are backing impeachment. 

So, according to the article, Pelosi has timed this so that the impeachment inquiry will be active throughout the primaries, leaving those in progressive districts safe.  But, more then likely, this will blow over just afterwards so that those in moderate or Trump districts will be able to campaign on policy. 

Of course, the writer does point out the flaw that this will probably destroy Joe Biden and the Dems will be stuck with defending and selling ultra-progressive policies of Warren.  He predicts that Warren will probably out perform HRC in NY and CA, but is questionable whether she would ever appeal to swing state voters. 

I personally feel Warren would loose NY, especially if you take into account De Blasio's failed time in office and the pushing away of Amazon.  Additionally, I just cant see what those Dems in moderate districts could possibly run on policy wise since they have accomplished nothing to sell. 

Anyway, this is just a one ring circus at this point.  If an official impeachment investigation passes the house floor and the house Republicans get subpoena power, that is when Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus comes out of retirement. 

Biden may survive this current situation, but an official investigation will bring never ending subpoenas of Hunter Biden and associates to the hill.  I just cant imagine anyone else but Biden giving Trump a run for his money in the swing states. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 01, 2019, 05:30:06 pm
Although I do not normally like to reference Fox News, since I find it too partisan like MSNBC, there is an interesting take on this by a former Democratic DC operative.  Before going on to give his take, one thing we all need to remember is that many house Dems are in primary challenges with far left wing progressives who are foaming at the mouth over impeachment, and no one wants to become a victim of the next AOC.  This is a big part of the reason so many Dems are backing impeachment. 

So, according to the article, Pelosi has timed this so that the impeachment inquiry will be active throughout the primaries, leaving those in progressive districts safe.  But, more then likely, this will blow over just afterwards so that those in moderate or Trump districts will be able to campaign on policy. 

Of course, the writer does point out the flaw that this will probably destroy Joe Biden and the Dems will be stuck with defending and selling ultra-progressive policies of Warren.  He predicts that Warren will probably out perform HRC in NY and CA, but is questionable whether she would ever appeal to swing state voters. 

I personally feel Warren would loose NY, especially if you take into account De Blasio's failed time in office and the pushing away of Amazon.  Additionally, I just cant see what those Dems in moderate districts could possibly run on policy wise since they have accomplished nothing to sell. 

Anyway, this is just a one ring circus at this point.  If an official impeachment investigation passes the house floor and the house Republicans get subpoena power, that is when Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus comes out of retirement. 

Biden may survive this current situation, but an official investigation will bring never ending subpoenas of Hunter Biden and associates to the hill.  I just cant imagine anyone else but Biden giving Trump a run for his money in the swing states. 

If Biden starts dropping in the polls, you could see Hillary jump in again to pick up the "moderate" banner.  Blacks especially in the South in the early nomination process like the Clintons.  They don;t identify with Indian Princess Warren who tried to fake her minority status. Also, she's too professorial for middle American whites.  She's got a strange tick the way her body moves like someone who can;t dance who's trying to do the lindy hop.

NY and CA will never vote for Trump even if he promised them lifetime greens fee passes to all his golf courses.  I agree about the impeachment.  It's just to keep the investigation going to keep on hurting Trump because they want to make the election about Trump.  The Dems haven't done anything important since he was elected except to try to impeach him.  We use to wait for elections to get rid of presidents we didn't like.  What the Dems forget is what goes around comes around.  One day they'll be a Democrat president and a Republican House.  So the wheel will turn.  On the other hand, this may just be the Dems chance to get even for the 1990's Bill Clinton impeachment, another stupid waste of time that hurt the country.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 01, 2019, 05:42:22 pm
I thought this was an interesting article about telephone security https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/01/white-house-trump-leaks-code-015194 (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/01/white-house-trump-leaks-code-015194). I am kind of surprised to hear that the President didn't already have the best that money can buy.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 01, 2019, 07:52:52 pm
This is starting to sound like the collusion controversy that lasted 2 1/2 years.    Meanwhile no one is discussing the real issues of the country. It's all politics.

So, it's not important what he appears to have done?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 01, 2019, 08:23:21 pm
I thought this was an interesting article about telephone security https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/01/white-house-trump-leaks-code-015194 (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/01/white-house-trump-leaks-code-015194). I am kind of surprised to hear that the President didn't already have the best that money can buy.

I have some familiarity with the types of national secrets stored on the "system" referred to in this Politico account, although not the particular White House server, itself, and the report about a recent access-control "upgrade" during the Trump Administration doesn't ring true: any connection always should have been logged to identify the specific individual, the particular information, and the type of access.  I've read several stories today that attempt to explain how information of this kind is restricted and they all contain what appear to me to be errors.  I suspect these are the result of people in the government (who really shouldn't be discussing this stuff except with appropriate executive branch agencies and the two congressional intelligence committees) trying to be discreet to avoid revealing sensitive information to reporters, who in turn aren't equipped to understand what their sources are telling them.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 01, 2019, 08:36:06 pm
So, it's not important what he appears to have done?
The "appearance" that Trump colluded with the Russians was a setup by Democrats and people who hate Trump.  So we wasted 2 1/2 years down the rabbit hole chasing our tails for no reason.  Sure, it helped Democrats win the House.  But it didn't help the country.  So now we'll chase our tails for another year or so until  the next election.  It might help the Democrats win more power, what this whole thing is all about anyway.  But it also won't help the country.  The whole thing just sucked all the oxygen out of the room.  We can't discuss anything else that's really important. 

Surprisingly, despite the attacks and not much happening in Washington, Trump somehow manages to keep things going: NK, China, trade, taxes, deregulation, immigration, the wall, etc.  He learned in business how his personal power can get things done and has applied that as president during his stay in Washington.  Once he's out of office, and people can relax and think more calmly , there will be a real analysis of what he's singularly accomplished that people just didn't have the time to notice while he was doing it.  The fact he can do these things while under the pressure he's under makes it twice as amazing. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 01, 2019, 08:50:55 pm
I have some familiarity with the types of national secrets stored on the "system" referred to in this Politico account, although not the particular White House server, itself, and the report about a recent access-control "upgrade" during the Trump Administration doesn't ring true: any connection always should have been logged to identify the specific individual, the particular information, and the type of access.  I've read several stories today that attempt to explain how information of this kind is restricted and they all contain what appear to me to be errors.  I suspect these are the result of people in the government (who really shouldn't be discussing this stuff except with appropriate executive branch agencies and the two congressional intelligence committees) trying to be discreet to avoid revealing sensitive information to reporters, who in turn aren't equipped to understand what their sources are telling them.
Chris, You dangled some sweet fruit in front of us.  Then pulled it away.  Thanks.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 01, 2019, 08:54:53 pm
The "appearance" that Trump colluded with the Russians was a setup by Democrats and people who hate Trump.

Nice deflection.  I didn't ask about Russia, I asked about Ukraine.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 01, 2019, 08:57:28 pm
Nice deflection.  I didn't ask about Russia, I asked about Ukraine.
Well of course,  Russian collusion didn't work.  Obstruction fizzled out.  So now you'll try Ukraine.   What's after that? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 01, 2019, 09:11:17 pm
So, it's not important what he appears to have done?

What he did was neither a high crime nor misdemeanor.  If you feel otherwise, please provide the criminal code he violated. 

Dont worry though, you will be able to vote against him in 2020, which is how it is suppose to work. 

This is like the boy who cried wolf.  Nobody but bleeding hearts really care.  Show me an actual crime and you have my attention, not some supposed quid pro quo Schiff literally had to make up because the actual text did not support it. 

What people really care about are stories like this: South Jersey officials firing back after accused child rapist released before deportation proceedings (https://6abc.com/accused-child-rapist-on-the-run-after-being-released-from-nj-jail/5583071/).  When voters go to the polls next year, these are the stories that will be on peoples' minds.  Not some phone call Trump made with a foreign leader that had no actual criminal activity in it.  All politics is local! 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 01, 2019, 10:00:52 pm
What he did was neither a high crime nor misdemeanor. 

I suggested nothing. I asked Alan if what he (Trump) appeared to have done was important.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 01, 2019, 10:23:07 pm
I suggested nothing. I asked Alan if what he (Trump) appeared to have done was important.
Well I want to know if beating your wife is important?   :-\
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Ivo_B on October 02, 2019, 12:11:17 am
Well of course,  Russian collusion didn't work.  Obstruction fizzled out.  So now you'll try Ukraine.   What's after that?

A juicy #MeToo complaint!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 02, 2019, 08:55:14 am
It could prove interesting to discover the proportion of Republican voter that, whilst faithful to party, come what may, actually disapproves of Trump, the man. And by extension, whether loyalty to party extends even to times when that party goes against the particular voter's own beliefs.

I had always been an arch Tory, but now, I could never vote for them again unless they became something quite different to the vicious, blindly rabid tail - tail? not even a tail, but a tiny inner cancer - that is currently wagging the entire dog.

Rob

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 02, 2019, 09:07:25 am

I had always been an arch Tory, but now, I could never vote for them again unless they became something quite different to the vicious, blindly rabid tail - tail? not even a tail, but a tiny inner cancer - that is currently wagging the entire dog.


Conservative doesn't mean what it used to. Neither does progressive. Human society has obviously evolved into mixed economies because the extremes don't work. If they worked, we'd be living in them. We should be tweaking things, trying to make like better. But we don't do that, it's too boring maybe.

So we have left-wing loonies lost in their "safe space" fantasy world instead of worrying about the loss of middle-calls income in the last generation, something they could actually do something about. And we have "right-wing" crazies who think they have the right to tell other women what to do with their bodies while decrying "religious" head scarves in other cultures. It's 24/7 wall-to-wall bullsh*t now.

People who are lost vote for strong men thinking that the strong men are on their side, but strong men are only ever on their own side.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: degrub on October 02, 2019, 09:21:05 am
....as it ever was and ever will be...as humanity marches to it doom.  :o
Mordor and the White Tower....
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 02, 2019, 09:39:36 am
C'mon you guys. According to history we've been through worse crap than this. General craziness, like the climate, goes in cycles. All we really can do is wait it out.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 02, 2019, 09:42:05 am
Conservative doesn't mean what it used to. Neither does progressive. Human society has obviously evolved into mixed economies because the extremes don't work. If they worked, we'd be living in them. We should be tweaking things, trying to make like better. But we don't do that, it's too boring maybe.

So we have left-wing loonies lost in their "safe space" fantasy world instead of worrying about the loss of middle-calls income in the last generation, something they could actually do something about. And we have "right-wing" crazies who think they have the right to tell other women what to do with their bodies while decrying "religious" head scarves in other cultures. It's 24/7 wall-to-wall bullsh*t now.

People who are lost vote for strong men thinking that the strong men are on their side, but strong men are only ever on their own side.

I agree with you that there are strong men on all sides who would have government and them impose their beliefs on us.  Which is why you need a strong and respected Constitution that limits governmental power.  Unfortunately, people are lazy, ignorant, and greedy and think "their" guy won;t be a tyrant.  One day they wake up and they're living in Venezuela.  Or worse. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 02, 2019, 09:47:37 am
I agree with you that there are strong men on all sides who would have government and them impose their beliefs on us.  Which is why you need a strong and respected Constitution that limits governmental power.  Unfortunately, people are lazy, ignorant, and greedy and think "their" guy won;t be a tyrant.  One day they wake up and they're living in Venezuela.  Or worse.
Oh, the irony.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 02, 2019, 09:52:46 am
It could prove interesting to discover the proportion of Republican voter that, whilst faithful to party, come what may, actually disapproves of Trump, the man. And by extension, whether loyalty to party extends even to times when that party goes against the particular voter's own beliefs.

I had always been an arch Tory, but now, I could never vote for them again unless they became something quite different to the vicious, blindly rabid tail - tail? not even a tail, but a tiny inner cancer - that is currently wagging the entire dog.

Rob

The problem here is that the Dems need to elect someone who is not batshit crazy. 

Trump vs Biden is very much up in the air.  I am not liking the role Giuliani played in this whole thing; he is Trump's personal lawyer and should not be involved with state affairs.  So, who knows in that election whom I would vote for. 

However with Warren, there is no way I would ever vote for her.  Her policies' would be disastrous.  I am also not a believer in 3rd party candidates since they never stand a chance.  I would enthusiastically vote against Warren with little to no concern for what her opponent did. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 02, 2019, 10:37:58 am
It could prove interesting to discover the proportion of Republican voter that, whilst faithful to party, come what may, actually disapproves of Trump, the man. And by extension, whether loyalty to party extends even to times when that party goes against the particular voter's own beliefs.

Yes, indeed: the three significant policy initiatives of the Trump Administration that are genuinely Trumpian—more restrictive border controls, protectionist tariffs on imports, and an isolationist approach to foreign relations—are more closely aligned with national Democratic than Republican doctrine.  (The fourth major policy initiative, an income tax reduction skewed to provide most of its benefit to businesses and wealthy individuals in order to encourage capital formation, is consistent with the views of traditional Republicans.  However, it was the product of negotiation between Paul Ryan, then the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives,* and the anti-tax "Freedom Coalition" faction of his party; based on his claims that it was intended to benefit the middle class, it's not clear whether Trump ever actually understood the new tax provisions.)

But with respect to impeachment, I suspect what will determine whether Trump is removed from office will be the political calculation of the Republican members of the House of Representatives, which would vote whether to bring Trump to trial, and the Senate, where the trial would be conducted.**  I wouldn't be surprised if a considerable number of the Republicans in both chambers would prefer to be running with someone other than Trump as their presidential candidate next year, but they're also leery of offending the Trump "base," which contains a high proportion of non-traditional Republican voters.  The latter are highly motivated, and capable of threatening the careers of incumbent Republicans who they consider anti-Trump by challenging them in the intraparty state "primary" elections that will be held in the spring.

Timing will be important to these on-the-fence Republican members of Congress.  If the votes in the House of Representatives (impeachment) and Senate (conviction) come after the primary election season, and if the evidence against Trump appears convincing, the persuadable Republicans may feel that removing him and selecting a different presidential candidate would both improve their own chances of being re-elected and of holding the White House for another four-year term.  Especially if the Democrats appear on the way to selecting a presidential candidate from the left wing of their party, for example Senator Elizabeth Warren, a traditional Republican like Mitt Romney, senator from Utah and a former presidential candidate, would be able to run from the center and possibly secure a larger proportion of the critical suburban vote than Trump.

―――
*In the United States, the speaker of the House of Representatives is a party leader, not a neutral presiding officer of the chamber.

**The Democratic majority in the House of Representatives has enough votes to impeach Trump, assuming not too many of its members dissent.  But the participation of a significant number of Republican representatives would no doubt increase the probability of conviction in the Senate.  A two-thirds supermajority would be needed to remove Trump from office, which would require Republican votes.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 02, 2019, 11:01:29 am
The use of impeachment to get rid of presidents we don't like is terrible for governance.  That's what elections are for. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 02, 2019, 11:11:52 am
It could prove interesting to discover the proportion of Republican voter that, whilst faithful to party, come what may, actually disapproves of Trump, the man. And by extension, whether loyalty to party extends even to times when that party goes against the particular voter's own beliefs.

I had always been an arch Tory, but now, I could never vote for them again unless they became something quite different to the vicious, blindly rabid tail - tail? not even a tail, but a tiny inner cancer - that is currently wagging the entire dog.

Rob

Hi Rob, It gets pretty complicated: As a person, I think Trump stinks. But I have to consider what he's done and against whom he's running. Trump made promises during the election and followed through on all of them, or at least tried. That fact is almost unique in political history. In spite of the left-wing propaganda put out by our captive "press," the results have been very favorable, especially for the middle class and "people of color." The "press" never will admit that, but statistics make clear it's true. The other complication is the array of people running against him in the coming election. They all seem obviously insane, except for "lunch-bucket" Joe Biden, who turns out to be nothing more than a befuddled liar. Seems a nice guy, but the crap he's done with son Hunter in Ukraine makes it clear he's also a crook.

So, whaddya do? I know what I'll do: I'll vote for the guy who stinks, but honestly tries to improve things. He's got way too big a mouth, and I think he's wrong about a lot of stuff, especially his tariffs, but. . . what the hell? I've gotta look at the alternatives. Seems to me most of life is like that. Wish it were simpler, but it just ain't.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 02, 2019, 12:51:26 pm
Oh, the irony.

Wasted.

The <insert usual suspects here> think that irony is something to do with laundry.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 02, 2019, 12:53:20 pm
Well I want to know if beating your wife is important?   :-\

Another (but not-so-nice) deflection. In fact, quite a telling response.
You really, really don't want to answer that question, do you, Alan?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 02, 2019, 05:17:40 pm
Another (but not-so-nice) deflection. In fact, quite a telling response.
You really, really don't want to answer that question, do you, Alan?
Well, there was no intent to insult.  I was trying to make a point about the old saw in trials that you can;t ask a double question assuming the answer to the first is true.  The opposing counseling would object to the judge.  You assumed what Trump did was wrong than asked if I thought it was important.  That's like asking the witness when he stopped beating his wife assuming without proving he was beating her in the first place.  Maybe my analogy was too deep.  Sorry. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: degrub on October 02, 2019, 07:34:01 pm
Hi Rob, It gets pretty complicated: As a person, I think Trump stinks. But I have to consider what he's done and against whom he's running. Trump made promises during the election and followed through on all of them, or at least tried. That fact is almost unique in political history. In spite of the left-wing propaganda put out by our captive "press," the results have been very favorable, especially for the middle class and "people of color." The "press" never will admit that, but statistics make clear it's true. The other complication is the array of people running against him in the coming election. They all seem obviously insane, except for "lunch-bucket" Joe Biden, who turns out to be nothing more than a befuddled liar. Seems a nice guy, but the crap he's done with son Hunter in Ukraine makes it clear he's also a crook.

So, whaddya do? I know what I'll do: I'll vote for the guy who stinks, but honestly tries to improve things. He's got way too big a mouth, and I think he's wrong about a lot of stuff, especially his tariffs, but. . . what the hell? I've gotta look at the alternatives. Seems to me most of life is like that. Wish it were simpler, but it just ain't.

He reminds me of a Teddy Roosevelt, but a very impolite version.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 03, 2019, 01:00:23 am
Bloomberg reports that the stock market has barely moved the last two years under Trump.

Quote
Trump loves touting equity gains more than his predecessors, who were usually wary of taking credit for unpredictable returns largely out of anyone’s control. And while the president’s record remains a solid one by historical standards, with the S&P 500 up almost 43% including dividends since his election victory, on a price basis it’s the same return he could’ve claimed in January 2018. Amid uneven economic data and a two-year trade war, the market hasn’t budged since.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-02/the-donald-trump-stock-market-hasn-t-budged-for-almost-two-years
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 03, 2019, 01:46:30 am
My hobby, passion even, is at a stage where nobody cares anymore. When everyone is a photographer, nobody is. I started listing all my gear on eBay.

Slobodan, the other photographers are not quite as good as you.

(http://www.postfun.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/money-with-camera-28652-79518.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bulbe on October 03, 2019, 02:50:30 am
There will be no impeachment, it is natural, this was utter nonsense from the very beginning.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 03, 2019, 06:57:22 am
Bart, I'm sure your "media" is telling you this crap, but as the Duke said: "If you believe that, you will believe anything. Check the statistics. Ignore the opinions.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 03, 2019, 06:59:29 am
Bart, I'm sure your "media" is telling you this crap, but as the Duke said: "If you believe that, you will believe anything. Check the statistics. Ignore the opinions.

I hear there are even people dumb enough to believe what they see on Fox.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 03, 2019, 07:46:19 am
Trump's approval has jumped to a 2019 high as a result of the impeachment kabuki performance, and millions are rolling in to finance his campaign.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 03, 2019, 07:49:19 am
Trump's approval has jumped to a 2019 high as a result of the impeachment kabuki performance, and millions are rolling in to finance his campaign.

Thanks for bringing attention back to the real issue. For a moment we were in danger of thinking it was about the president breaking the law :-(
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 03, 2019, 08:36:05 am
I'm sure you were "in danger" of thinking that, Jeremy. As usual, The media on both sides of the Atlantic are going out of their way to make everyone believe Trump's breaking the law, and as Barnum pointed out, "There's s sucker born every minute." So far, we've seen a lot of bad judgement on Trump's part, but nobody's been able to come up with an actual law he's broken. Every time they come up with what they think is a law he's broken, it turns out that "law" was broken by Obama over and over, and it turns out it isn't a "law" at all.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 03, 2019, 09:10:24 am

.... nothing ....

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 03, 2019, 09:19:59 am
Now that's what I like to see. The throwing of hands in the air, widely spaced.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 03, 2019, 10:03:54 am
. . .the country is in many ways worse off than before he took office.

Bart, I was in a hurry this morning, so I went back over your outburst a second time. Give me some examples of these "many ways." You're putting forth opinions without support. With the charts, at least you were attempting to support your opinions. Of course the charts were based on biased guesses and BS, but at least it was an attempt.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 10:17:08 am
I hear there are even people dumb enough to believe what they see on Fox.
Actually, I watch what you watch - MSNBC and CNN.  Then I figure the truth is everything opposite what they say.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on October 03, 2019, 10:21:38 am
Actually, I watch what you watch - MSNBC and CNN.  Then I figure the truth is everything opposite what they say.  :)
Based on what?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 10:28:52 am
Based on what?
That they hate Trump and provide biased one-sided news.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 10:42:02 am
Hi Russ,

From my perspective, most of what Trump has done is undo what the previous administration has done. Hardly constructive, and the country is in many ways worse off than before he took office. The international standing of the USA is at a record low, if it were not for those who go against the government's intentions. The only remaining friends (buyers of defense equipment) are folks like Mohammad bin Salman, and they try to let the USA do his dirty work with Iran, and Kim Jong-un, another dictator.

In fact, it's still the Steve Bannon playbook of destroying the cohesion of the nation on many levels, and then take over control. Divide and conquer. But Trump is unfit for that latter part of the strategy. Trump only cares about Trump, the rest is collateral damage to him, which he couldn't care less about. The economy was already picking up during Obama, and despite Trump's policies has not collapsed yet (at the expense of the national deficit). Now he's looking for a Tradewar with Europe (who will return the favor).

...

Cheers,
Bart
Trump has:
1. Destroyed ISIS territory and made what's left a rump organization helping the whole world including you guys in Europe.  I haven;t heard any thank you's.
2. Challenged China with trade war to get them to stop stealing intellectual property from us and you.  If we get get them to stop, you will gain a lot of advantages as we do as they'll stop stealing your stuff too.  You're welcome.  By the way, as usual it's America who's taking the economic hit mainly with tariffs while you guys sit back and let us do all the dirty work.
3. He sat down with Kim and stopped them  from testing ICBMs and nuclear weapons.  Not a bad start.  So there's still peace on the Korean peninsula.  What have you guys done there to keep the peace?
4. Spearheaded new tax regulation that have increase capital investment and helped the American economy.
5.  Created the lowest unemployment rate ever for minorities,  The best in 70 years for everyone else.
6.  Stock market at the highest ever.
7. Re-vamped NAFTA trade for better deals for America with Canada and Mexico.  Europe is next.  Of course, you might not like what he does.  But he's our president protecting us, not you.  I'm sure you understand.  Well, maybe you don't.  After Obama, everyone in the world thought our presidents worked for them. 
8. Challenged China territory grab in the South China Sea to keep the world free from their heavy hand.  Lately British, Australian and other navies have joined in to help out.  That's appreciated.  After all, it's your ocean as well.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 03, 2019, 10:53:17 am
"5.  Created the lowest unemployment rate ever for minorities,  The best in 70 years for everyone else"

(https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/media:bba1835ca6914355bacb45e51ebc2659/800.jpeg)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 11:03:30 am
"5.  Created the lowest unemployment rate ever for minorities,  The best in 70 years for everyone else"

(https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/media:bba1835ca6914355bacb45e51ebc2659/800.jpeg)
Presidents get credit or blame for what's going on during their term.  In any case, all economists give Trump credit for a good economy although many don't like his trade policies.  By the way, you only flagged item 5.  Thanks for  agreeing with all the others that he did a great job on.  That's appreciated. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 03, 2019, 11:06:38 am
Presidents get credit or blame for what's going on during their term.  In any case, all economists give Trump credit for a good economy although many don't like his trade policies.  By the way, you only flagged item 5.  Thanks for  agreeing with all the others that he did a great job on.  That's appreciated.

That's "Alan logic" in a nutshell.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 11:17:27 am
Have they?
Yes, Democrat leaders have called for Trump to be put in solitary confinement.

"Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters over her recent twitter attack on Donald Trump. In a tweet on Tuesday, Waters said impeachment wasn't enough for the president, adding: "He needs to be imprisoned and put in solitary confinement."
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/10/03/anderson-cooper-presses-maxine-waters-on-controversial-trump-tweet/23825879/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 11:18:35 am
That's "Alan logic" in a nutshell.
You only objected with #5.  So the others are true unless you don't agree.  I'm listening.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 03, 2019, 11:29:27 am
You only objected with #5.  So the others are true unless you don't agree.  I'm listening.

Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on October 03, 2019, 11:49:18 am
You only objected with #5.  So the others are true unless you don't agree.  I'm listening.
Jeremy did not object to no5 -
It was the facts that were in conflict with your so called "facts based on what you see and hear"

have it your way:
So the others are also untrue unless you don't agree.  I'm listening.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 03, 2019, 11:51:06 am
One could easily refute each and every one of the <insert usual suspects here> claims, but, as we've seen over and over, they'd either ignore the refutations or dispute them with deflections and whataboutisms.  Distract, delay, deny.

In other words, a waste of keystrokes.  Just like this post. :(
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 11:51:27 am
Jeremy did not object to no5 -
It was the facts that were in conflict with your so called "facts based on what you see and hear"

have it your way:
So the others are also untrue unless you don't agree.  I'm listening.
Huh? ???
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 11:53:18 am
One could easily refute each and every one of the <insert usual suspects here> claims, but, as we've seen over and over, they'd either ignore the refutations or dispute them with deflections and whataboutisms.  Distract, delay, deny.

In other words, a waste of keystrokes.  Just like this post. :(
You're either too lazy to respond or can't come up with the proof to prove me wrong. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 03, 2019, 11:55:12 am
Outburst? If you don't like me using charts, I'll have to use words.

- Denying climate change instead of adapting to it or, heaven forbid, preparing for the consequences.
- Dismantling of the EPA, and thus creating health risks for American citizens.
- Destroying the current and future markets for, e.g. Soybean, producers. Brasil thanks you for developing a new market for them, China.
- Europe pulled out of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) due to an untrustworthy partner, i.e. the USA.
- Creating distrust between intelligence partners, e.g. Europe has become more careful about what to share, since it may well end up being shared with the wrong countries, which is a risk for assets.
- Trust issues between NATO partners due to the president's underestimation of Putin's gameplan.
And more things that are not the main topic of this thread, e.g. healthcare.

On topic, what is your opinion on:

5 potential offenses in the phone-transcript
1. The president 'threatening'  to misuse congressionally appropriated (military) funds,
2. extortion from a foreign head of state, of
3. a foreign intervention into the US political and electoral process,
4. through the mechanism of the gross violation of the civil liberties of 2 US citizens,
5. extorting the dishing of dirt on a political opponent


Attempted hiding of information to frustrate the work of house members (to ensure that the Constitution is respected).
Threatening the life of whistleblowers, by labeling them as spies (that can face the death penalty), could be added.

Cheers,
Bart

Bert, please, this is all inference.  He did not, once, during the phone call bring up the military funds let along threaten to with hold or misuse them.  Trump asked Ukraine to help with an investigation his AG Bill Barr was conducting and to look into the  Bidens' actions, which on the surface do not appear innocent.  (And the whole no evidence has not been found is a horrible argument since no investigation has yet to be conducted.  This excuse would not have worked with Trump on Russia.)  On top of that, by treaty, Ukraine is suppose to help us with investigation, just like they did with the Russian investigation the Dems were so willing to receive help on. 

How is investigating someone a violation of civil liberties?  Please explain. 

Last, I get it, asking a foreign leader to drudge up dirt on a political opponent does not sound good, for either Trump in this situation or for the Dems with the Russian Collusion.  But, politics is a blood sport and if it was good for the Dems, then it should be good for Trump. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 03, 2019, 11:58:10 am
You're either too lazy to respond or can't come up with the proof to prove me wrong.
Actually, they just don't want to waste their time going down a rabbit hole with you. And you still have not said whether you think Trump asking Ukraine President Zelensky to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son was wrong. So, according to your logic, we can deem as admitted that you do think it was wrong.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 03, 2019, 12:02:24 pm
In the beginning of this whole thing, I was kind of interested in seeing what was going on. 

Then the transcript was released and I read it over.  Not one example of a quid pro quo or extortion. 

So a couple of days ago, I was thinking well, maybe there is still other things here worth looking at. 

Then last night it comes out that Schiff's staff had direct contact with the whistleblower a few days before the complaint was submitted (and rejected I might add since he had no first hand knowledge of the phone call) after Schiff repeatably denied he or his staff had contacts with the whistleblower. 

Last week, when some Republicans made the claim that the report was too well written, in favor of the Dems, to have been only written by the CIA operative without help from the opposition, I was thinking this is crazy talk.  Now I have to give this claim a high level of credence. 

This is looking more and more like a political theatre by the Dems, especially with Pelosi not even making it official and holding a vote. 

Another interesting thing I heard today, impeachment is like a run away train once it starts.  There is no controlling it or stopping it.  Pelosi wants to keep this hyper-focused and on the Dems terms, but then again AOC and Schumer want to use everything and the kitchen sink, and the Republicans want to start talking about the Bidens, maybe even HRC will come up again. 

This thing is going to spiral out of control, especially with no actual criminal violation, and come back around to crush those who started the whole mess, the Dems. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 12:03:34 pm
Bert, please, this is all inference.  He did not, once, during the phone call bring up the military funds let along threaten to with hold or misuse them.  Trump asked Ukraine to help with an investigation his AG Bill Barr was conducting and to look into the  Bidens' actions, which on the surface do not appear innocent.  (And the whole no evidence has not been found is a horrible argument since no investigation has yet to be conducted.  This excuse would not have worked with Trump on Russia.)  On top of that, by treaty, Ukraine is suppose to help us with investigation, just like they did with the Russian investigation the Dems were so willing to receive help on. 

How is investigating someone a violation of civil liberties?  Please explain. 

Last, I get it, asking a foreign leader to drudge up dirt on a political opponent does not sound good, for either Trump in this situation or for the Dems with the Russian Collusion.  But, politics is a blood sport and if it was good for the Dems, then it should be good for Trump. 



You mean like when Hillary paid $10 million dollars to get a British spy to collude with Russian spies to develop the phoney dossier to smear Trump with dirt and be used to start a phoney investigation for two years by Mueller?  At least with the Bidens, they appear to have been involved in something shady.  But certainly worthy of an investigation. In any case, the Democratic congressional leadership wil twist this with the anti-Trump press into something worse.  Politics is dirty.  And the press is against Trump.  They've always been against Republicans and conservatism..
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 12:06:49 pm
In the beginning of this whole thing, I was kind of interested in seeing what was going on. 

Then the transcript was released and I read it over.  Not one example of a quid pro quo or extortion. 

So a couple of days ago, I was thinking well, maybe there is still other things here worth looking at. 

Then last night it comes out that Schiff's staff had direct contact with the whistleblower a few days before the complaint was submitted (and rejected I might add since he had no first hand knowledge of the phone call) after Schiff repeatably denied he or his staff had contacts with the whistleblower. 

Last week, when some Republicans made the claim that the report was too well written, in favor of the Dems, to have been only written by the CIA operative without help from the opposition, I was thinking this is crazy talk.  Now I have to give this claim a high level of credence. 

This is looking more and more like a political theatre by the Dems, especially with Pelosi not even making it official and holding a vote. 

I just wonder if independents are getting the Democrat gameplan to attack TRump.  You can always find things to twist into what you want.  If the independents don't get it, Trump is toast in the election.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 03, 2019, 12:10:33 pm
You're either too lazy to respond or can't come up with the proof to prove me wrong.

It's not a question of being lazy, Alan.  It's a question of stopping beating one's head against a brick wall.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 12:12:45 pm
Actually, they just don't want to waste their time going down a rabbit hole with you. And you still have not said whether you think Trump asking Ukraine President Zelensky to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son was wrong. So, according to your logic, we can deem as admitted that you do think it was wrong.
See my response #136 re-printed below.  Of course, it's sleazy.  Politics is sleazy.  Hillary was sleazy.  The Dems are sleazy.  Trump is sleazy. They're all sleazy.  How do they all sleep at night? 

#136:
You mean like when Hillary paid $10 million dollars to get a British spy to collude with Russian spies to develop the phoney dossier to smear Trump with dirt and be used to start a phoney investigation for two years by Mueller?  At least with the Bidens, they appear to have been involved in something shady.  But certainly worthy of an investigation. In any case, the Democratic congressional leadership wil twist this with the anti-Trump press into something worse.  Politics is dirty.  And the press is against Trump.  They've always been against Republicans and conservatism..
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 12:15:01 pm
It's not a question of being lazy, Alan. It's a question of stopping beating one's head against a brick wall.
Since when has that stopped us all from posting?  All these pages and we still got another 13 months to the next election.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on October 03, 2019, 12:54:29 pm
Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?

If you are unable to write something constructive, or at the very least sensible, rather than resorting to abuse, it would be better if you were to remain silent.

Yes, that is a warning to you - and to everyone else.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 01:09:54 pm
Slobodan, the other photographers are not quite as good as you.

(http://www.postfun.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/money-with-camera-28652-79518.jpg)

That looks like the Nikon I lost a while back. Do you think he'd take a couple of bananas and return it to me?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 03, 2019, 03:16:27 pm
Outburst? If you don't like me using charts, I'll have to use words.

- Denying climate change instead of adapting to it or, heaven forbid, preparing for the consequences.
- Dismantling of the EPA, and thus creating health risks for American citizens.
- Destroying the current and future markets for, e.g. Soybean, producers. Brasil thanks you for developing a new market for them, China.
- Europe pulled out of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) due to an untrustworthy partner, i.e. the USA.
- Creating distrust between intelligence partners, e.g. Europe has become more careful about what to share, since it may well end up being shared with the wrong countries, which is a risk for assets.
- Trust issues between NATO partners due to the president's underestimation of Putin's gameplan.
And more things that are not the main topic of this thread, e.g. healthcare.

On topic, what is your opinion on:

5 potential offenses in the phone-transcript
1. The president 'threatening'  to misuse congressionally appropriated (military) funds,
2. extortion from a foreign head of state, of
3. a foreign intervention into the US political and electoral process,
4. through the mechanism of the gross violation of the civil liberties of 2 US citizens,
5. extorting the dishing of dirt on a political opponent

Attempted hiding of information to frustrate the work of house members (to ensure that the Constitution is respected).
Threatening the life of whistleblowers, by labeling them as spies (that can face the death penalty), could be added.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart, I don’t really have time for this, but let’s look at some of your arguments. Then I’m outta here.

- Denying climate change instead of adapting to it or, heaven forbid, preparing for the consequences.

You’re begging the question. You start with the baked-in assumption that climate change is damaging and driven by human activity. That’s nothing more than your personal opinion, absorbed from the crap you’re seeing in your news media. Climate has been changing throughout geologic history. There are plenty of “climate experts” who disagree with the assumptions you’re swallowing.

- Dismantling of the EPA, and thus creating health risks for American citizens.

Begging the question again. You always seem to start with a baked-in assumption. If you’re going to accept that this creates health risks for people, you’re going to have to prove it with some actual data. The statistics I see don’t agree with that assumption at all. We’ve been all over this subject elsewhere. In the U.S., you can walk into any hospital’s emergency room and be taken care of. Taken care of right now, I might add.

- Destroying the current and future markets for, e.g. Soybean, producers. Brasil thanks you for developing a new market for them, China.

I happen to agree with you on this one. I don’t like Trump’s tariffs. I think he’s making a mistake. On the other hand, not all the evidence is in. I’ll wait to see what happens.
 
- Europe pulled out of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) due to an untrustworthy partner, i.e. the USA.

The TTIP negotiations were launched in 2013 and ended without conclusion at the end of 2016. Trump wasn’t president until 2017.

- Creating distrust between intelligence partners, e.g. Europe has become more careful about what to share, since it may well end up being shared with the wrong countries, which is a risk for assets.

Yes. I don’t like this either. I also recall one of the main reasons for that: Hillary was using an unsecure server in a bathroom for top secret, limited access material. Had I done that while I was in the Air Force I’d have spent the rest of my life in jail.
 
- Trust issues between NATO partners due to the president's underestimation of Putin's gameplan.

Are these the “partners” that won’t come up with enough money to support their agreements on defense forces? Germany comes to mind.

As far as the “phone transcript” is concerned, have you read it? The 5 “offenses” you list are all bullshit pushed by the raging, red-eyed, Trump-hating “media.” They’re not in the transcript. And, as far as your assessment of what the House is doing, you’re making me ROTFL. What the House is attempting is called a “coup.” The Democrats have been trying to find ways to do this from the day Trump took office. There have been several coup attempts, beginning with Stormy Daniels and culminating in the limp tool of Mueller. They want to impeach him because they hate him, and “Hillary should have won.” But I’m glad they’re doing this. Trump’s approval rating has jumped up since they started, and millions of dollars for his coming campaign are flowing in. The whole thing is going to blow up in their faces, just as the Mueller thing did. Keep watching.

Cheers, yourself.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 03, 2019, 03:49:58 pm
Of course, it's sleazy.  Politics is sleazy.  Hillary was sleazy.  The Dems are sleazy.  Trump is sleazy. They're all sleazy.

So do you fall in the sleazy but not an impeachable offense category?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 03, 2019, 04:12:01 pm
So do you fall in the sleazy but not an impeachable offense category?

I would say this is about right. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 03, 2019, 04:51:35 pm
I would say this is about right.

Bear in mind that "high crimes and misdemeanors" isn't another way of saying "breaking the law," rather it's used historically (at least by some of the founders) as a catch-all term for malfeasance or incompetence in office.   This is clear from reading contemporary (18th century) arguments on the issue, specifically as they pertain to the adoption of the Constitution.  Here (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/what-the-founders-thought-about-impeachment-and-the-president) is a short, but decent summary on what the language meant to various authors of the actual language.

Considering that, I'd argue that Trump has been rolling up impeachable acts from the start by naming his utterly unqualified and conflicted kids (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/06/ivanka-trump-gets-initial-approval-from-china-for-16-trademarks.html) to manage important government business, and by refusing to properly study (https://time.com/5518947/donald-trump-intelligence-briefings-national-security/) information critical to governance. 

This latest thing?  The President is using governmental leverage to attempt to harm a political opponent.(And no, Obama didn't do the same thing) (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-11-20/gop-surrenders-cherished-irs-scandal-at-last). That's wholly unethical, and easily meets the intended bar of being unfit for office, like so much else that Trump does.  And let's not forget that he's not under indictment already for obstruction because, essentially, the AG said "it's not illegal when the President does it."

The really sad thing here is that I see so many people admitting as much, but qualifying with, "...but I agree what he claims he does, so I'll just put up with his total lack of competence."  I voted for Obama in '08 - it was a tight call for me, and were it not for the joke of a (R) VP candidate and the rising tide of far right backbenchers running down ballot, McCain could have had my vote.  In '12 I did not vote for Obama - he didn't carry through on his promises to deal with some issues that I think are central to the fabric of our nation - the PATRIOT Act, a variety of stupid "war on terror" nonsense. 

If only some of my friends on the right could look inside themselves and understand that admitting you're wrong is ok, and "deregulation" is a pretty sorry reason to suffer the fool that resides in the white house, now that we have years of evidence to that effect.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 03, 2019, 06:08:39 pm


If only some of my friends on the right could look inside themselves and understand that admitting you're wrong is ok, and "deregulation" is a pretty sorry reason to suffer the fool that resides in the white house, now that we have years of evidence to that effect.

There is no way, regardless of what might come of this, that Warren would ever have my vote.  Her policies, all of them, are lunacy. 

And all this is doing is ensuring Biden is ruined and Warren gets on the ticket. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 03, 2019, 09:03:34 pm
There is no way, regardless of what might come of this, that Warren would ever have my vote.  Her policies, all of them, are lunacy.

Not all of them, but she's certainly not my preferred candidate.   Then again, she's clearly more suited to the office than Donald Trump, not that that's saying much. 

And all this is doing is ensuring Biden is ruined and Warren gets on the ticket.

Yeah - I think you're right about this.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 03, 2019, 09:40:02 pm
Not all of them, but she's certainly not my preferred candidate.   Then again, she's clearly more suited to the office than Donald Trump, not that that's saying much. 

Yeah - I think you're right about this.

Nope! 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 10:30:09 pm
I still think that Trump was the whistleblower to get rid of Biden.  On the other hand, it could have been Dems on the left who wanted to get rid of both Biden and Trump and found a very left whistleblower to file the papers.    Another reason why the guy or gal should be known.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 03, 2019, 10:51:51 pm
Nope!

I mean, it's not really debatable.   You may not like her policy proposals, and you may love the proposals that are coming out of the Republican party right now, but there's no logical way to argue that Donald Trump is more capable or suited to making critical decisions that impact 365 million people, even if you don't like the answers she comes up with.  He's demonstrably ignorant and shows no inclination to learn, because he thinks he knows it all already.  He's driven by emotional reactions to slights real and imagined, and he's making not even a pretense of being a leader for the entirety of the nation.  He has few policy positions that show any understanding of the range of complexity that such things require, and he surrounds himself with ideologues and yes-men who show loyalty to Trump over loyalty to America. He's incompetent, petty, stupid, and arrogant, and that's a horrible, horrible combination for the most important position, literally, in the world.     

And balanced against this, Warren wants to advocate for a $15 minimum wage and heath care of all?  She also wants to get rid of mandatory minimums for non-violent offenders, and a host of other things that are imminently reasonable (In addition to the policy positions she has that are absolutely unreasonable like the wholesale wiping out of student debt and using the government to break up companies she deems dangerous),  BUT... 1) You can't tell me that Trump doesn't have an equal number of nonsense policy positions, AND, 2) That's what Congress is for - to pass laws. They should stop abrogating that duty to the executive and then we wouldn't have to worry about our elected executive doing outrageously stupid stuff (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/george-conway-trump-unfit-office/599128/).  (Just read that, and if that paints a picture of fitness for office, I don't know what else to tell you.)




Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 03, 2019, 10:57:02 pm
I still think that Trump was the whistleblower to get rid of Biden.  On the other hand, it could have been Dems on the left who wanted to get rid of both Biden and Trump and found a very left whistleblower to file the papers.    Another reason why the guy or gal should be known.

Huh?  May I remind you that the *Trump-appointed IG* found the report credible and relevant.  I know the narrative today is that the whistleblower is some far-left mole that conspired with Adam Schiff to fabricate the entirety of the story, but frankly that's absurd.  The actual facts of the matter seem to be that the whistleblower came to the relevant congressional committee with the report, and the staffer told them, correctly, to take it to the IG.  (You can distinguish this from the WRONG way to do it by looking at what the Trump team did when the Russians came to them with alleged info on Trump.  in THAT case they eagerly took the meeting and then lied about it, while never informing the FBI as is proper)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 04, 2019, 12:03:13 am
Huh?  May I remind you that the *Trump-appointed IG* found the report credible and relevant.  I know the narrative today is that the whistleblower is some far-left mole that conspired with Adam Schiff to fabricate the entirety of the story, but frankly that's absurd.  The actual facts of the matter seem to be that the whistleblower came to the relevant congressional committee with the report, and the staffer told them, correctly, to take it to the IG.  (You can distinguish this from the WRONG way to do it by looking at what the Trump team did when the Russians came to them with alleged info on Trump.  in THAT case they eagerly took the meeting and then lied about it, while never informing the FBI as is proper)

James, I was being ironic.  I was trying to make the point that Trump couldn't have done a better job of destroying Biden, his biggest competitor if he wins the nomination, if he was the whistleblower himself.  Now Trump is doubling down asking China to investigate the Bidens calling them crooks.  Warren must be smiling.  The House is putting away Biden for her by trying to impeach Trump because he's calling the Bidens crooks and asking for investigations.     Of course, Trump is doing this for political reasons.  But the press won;t be able to defend Biden too much longer by ignoring in the media what happened in Ukraine and now China.  With Sanders sick with heart problems, the left vote will go increasingly to Warren.  She'll take the lead and Biden will soon be asking for immunity from prosecution.  Then Trump will ask for an investigation of Warren for lying about her heritage.  Minorities will be pissed at her for doing that trying to steal their heritage.  They won't vote for her.  Maybe Hillary will get back into the race. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 04, 2019, 12:05:10 am
Here's the article on CHina.

Trump Publicly Urges China to Investigate the Bidens
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/politics/trump-china-bidens.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/politics/trump-china-bidens.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 04, 2019, 12:44:11 am
I mean, it's not really debatable.   You may not like her policy proposals, and you may love the proposals that are coming out of the Republican party right now, but there's no logical way to argue that Donald Trump is more capable or suited to making critical decisions that impact 365 million people, even if you don't like the answers she comes up with.  He's demonstrably ignorant and shows no inclination to learn, because he thinks he knows it all already.  He's driven by emotional reactions to slights real and imagined, and he's making not even a pretense of being a leader for the entirety of the nation.  He has few policy positions that show any understanding of the range of complexity that such things require, and he surrounds himself with ideologues and yes-men who show loyalty to Trump over loyalty to America. He's incompetent, petty, stupid, and arrogant, and that's a horrible, horrible combination for the most important position, literally, in the world.     

And balanced against this, Warren wants to advocate for a $15 minimum wage and heath care of all?  She also wants to get rid of mandatory minimums for non-violent offenders, and a host of other things that are imminently reasonable (In addition to the policy positions she has that are absolutely unreasonable like the wholesale wiping out of student debt and using the government to break up companies she deems dangerous),  BUT... 1) You can't tell me that Trump doesn't have an equal number of nonsense policy positions, AND, 2) That's what Congress is for - to pass laws. They should stop abrogating that duty to the executive and then we wouldn't have to worry about our elected executive doing outrageously stupid stuff (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/george-conway-trump-unfit-office/599128/).  (Just read that, and if that paints a picture of fitness for office, I don't know what else to tell you.)





Trump wants to expand Medicare.  What's Warren offering?  That doesn't seem so stupid.  Seems fit for office to me. 


"Targeting 'Medicare For All' Proposals, Trump Lays Out His Vision For Medicare"
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/10/03/766816709/targeting-medicare-for-all-proposals-trump-lays-out-his-vision-for-medicare (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/10/03/766816709/targeting-medicare-for-all-proposals-trump-lays-out-his-vision-for-medicare)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 04, 2019, 04:14:42 am
But isn't a person in authority supposed to act for all, and not pick sides?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 04, 2019, 06:05:41 am
But isn't a person in authority supposed to act for all, and not pick sides?

Don't be silly: the person in authority has but one single, sacred duty: to ensure re-election next time.

Unless that person is BoJo, of course, where the responsibility is to do the above while creating the biggest social mess and upheaval this side of war. And no, it's no egalitarian fantasy that is being proposed: quite the opposite.

And that's my take on both matters.

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 04, 2019, 09:45:23 am
Anybody reading about the "impeachment" blowing up in the Democrats' faces, or do your "news media" ignore that kind of news?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 04, 2019, 09:57:38 am
I mean, it's not really debatable.   You may not like her policy proposals, and you may love the proposals that are coming out of the Republican party right now, but there's no logical way to argue that Donald Trump is more capable or suited to making critical decisions that impact 365 million people, even if you don't like the answers she comes up with.  He's demonstrably ignorant and shows no inclination to learn, because he thinks he knows it all already.  He's driven by emotional reactions to slights real and imagined, and he's making not even a pretense of being a leader for the entirety of the nation.  He has few policy positions that show any understanding of the range of complexity that such things require, and he surrounds himself with ideologues and yes-men who show loyalty to Trump over loyalty to America. He's incompetent, petty, stupid, and arrogant, and that's a horrible, horrible combination for the most important position, literally, in the world.     

And balanced against this, Warren wants to advocate for a $15 minimum wage and heath care of all?  She also wants to get rid of mandatory minimums for non-violent offenders, and a host of other things that are imminently reasonable (In addition to the policy positions she has that are absolutely unreasonable like the wholesale wiping out of student debt and using the government to break up companies she deems dangerous),  BUT... 1) You can't tell me that Trump doesn't have an equal number of nonsense policy positions, AND, 2) That's what Congress is for - to pass laws. They should stop abrogating that duty to the executive and then we wouldn't have to worry about our elected executive doing outrageously stupid stuff (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/george-conway-trump-unfit-office/599128/).  (Just read that, and if that paints a picture of fitness for office, I don't know what else to tell you.)

You have to look at the whole package, which means you need to consider Warren's policies.  The policies she has been selling 24/7 at her rallies are beyond nuts, including the $15 minimum wage btw.  (Yes, that is nuts, it would be a total shock to the economy, would only increase automation at a much higher rate and keep young people from getting their first job.  No teenager is worth $15 a hour.) 

In a Trump vs. Warren race, there is nothing you could say to convince me to vote for Warren.  She has already ruined herself due to the super far left ideas she is pushing, and I would bet the majority of those in the swing states would agree. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 04, 2019, 02:28:46 pm
You have to look at the whole package, which means you need to consider Warren's policies.  The policies she has been selling 24/7 at her rallies are beyond nuts, including the $15 minimum wage btw.  (Yes, that is nuts, it would be a total shock to the economy, would only increase automation at a much higher rate and keep young people from getting their first job.  No teenager is worth $15 a hour.) 

In a Trump vs. Warren race, there is nothing you could say to convince me to vote for Warren.  She has already ruined herself due to the super far left ideas she is pushing, and I would bet the majority of those in the swing states would agree.


Looks like a lot of assumptions there; do you really believe that automation, to the max affordable and possible, is being hampered out of some desire to keep paying employees a salary? You have to be kidding. Business is about getting the most out for the least in; with a qualifier: artists and also shamateur photographers who have an ability to live on air and ego. Instead of cheap photos and paintings, they should conspire to market that ability to thrive on nothing. They would clean up big time, not a couple of cents on the dollar.

Regarding teenagers and their worth not topping fifteen bucks an hour: you are badly out of touch: consider influencers and sports people and musos. And they are just the media-visible ones, and don't include those working their way through college and mowing lawns and washing cars. I won't mention the red light "workers" and drugs mules etc. etc. all of whom are worth a great deal more. The child labour market is supposed to be officially dead; many teens can do the same job as older people whose only attribute is an older passport number.

In fact, your position reads like something my grandparents might have espoused in the 50s.

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 04, 2019, 03:55:23 pm
Wages should be determined between employers and employees, not the government.  Setting wage levels is like the government setting minimum or maximum costs for products.  Product pricing create black markets.  Minimum wages just eliminate jobs at the lower end for the very people who need jobs.  So instead of helping, it hurts them.  It encourages illegal immigration where low paying jobs go to foreigners who actually earn less than the minimum wage eliminating jobs for low level citizens.  The rest of us just pay through taxes for medical, schools, and other care for families of illegals.  Then we build walls, create safe cities for illegals,  and fight about immigration.  Government should mind its business and go fight a war.  That would be less destructive.  :o
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 04, 2019, 04:29:39 pm
Trump demands vote on impeachment investigation by whole Congress before he'll release documents to their subpoenas which he claims are not legal until the House votes.  This will pressure both Democrats and Republican congressmen  to vote where they are creating problems for themselves.  Pelosi is stuck between a rock and a hard spot.
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/04/767205170/trump-demands-full-house-vote-on-impeachment-before-complying-with-lawmakers
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 04, 2019, 04:41:54 pm
Trump demands vote on impeachment investigation by whole Congress before he'll release documents to their subpoenas which he claims are not legal until the House votes.  This will pressure both Democrats and Republican congressmen  to vote where they are creating problems for themselves.  Pelosi is stuck between a rock and a hard spot.
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/04/767205170/trump-demands-full-house-vote-on-impeachment-before-complying-with-lawmakers

This assumes that what Trump "claims" is true.  If I had a dollar etc. etc.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 04, 2019, 04:42:00 pm
Wages should be determined between employers and employees, not the government.  Setting wage levels is like the government setting minimum or maximum costs for products.  Product pricing create black markets.  Minimum wages just eliminate jobs at the lower end for the very people who need jobs.  So instead of helping, it hurts them.  It encourages illegal immigration where low paying jobs go to foreigners who actually earn less than the minimum wage eliminating jobs for low level citizens.  The rest of us just pay through taxes for medical, schools, and other care for families of illegals.  Then we build walls, create safe cities for illegals,  and fight about immigration.  Government should mind its business and go fight a war.  That would be less destructive.  :o

Don't see what this has to do with impeachment. Should employers and employees be allowed to come to a work for food agreement? Maybe indentured servitude?  Would you allow unions?  Where and how would you draw the line at the type of employment contract that is allowed?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 04, 2019, 04:48:44 pm
Don't see what this has to do with impeachment.

Nothing. It is a deflection. Right out of the Trump playbook. It is insidious.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 04, 2019, 04:49:47 pm
Don't see what this has to do with impeachment. Should employers and employees be allowed to come to a work for food agreement? Maybe indentured servitude?  Would you allow unions?  Where and how would you draw the line at the type of employment contract that is allowed?
There are plenty of rules that protect employees and unions.  But the government should not get involved with setting wage levels for the reasons I mentioned above.  I'm the only person I know who is an indentured servant - in my home.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 04, 2019, 04:52:23 pm
Nothing. It is a deflection. Right out of the Trump playbook. It is insidious.
Trump is fighting back.  You don't really think he'll just roll over do you? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 04, 2019, 04:54:37 pm
Trump is fighting back.  You don't really think he'll just roll over do you?
Is that what you are doing? Fighting back? By deflecting the discussion to other topics?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 04, 2019, 04:57:33 pm
I was responding to other posts about wages.  Go complain to them. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 04, 2019, 09:40:31 pm

Looks like a lot of assumptions there; do you really believe that automation, to the max affordable and possible, is being hampered out of some desire to keep paying employees a salary? You have to be kidding. Business is about getting the most out for the least in; with a qualifier: artists and also shamateur photographers who have an ability to live on air and ego. Instead of cheap photos and paintings, they should conspire to market that ability to thrive on nothing. They would clean up big time, not a couple of cents on the dollar.

Regarding teenagers and their worth not topping fifteen bucks an hour: you are badly out of touch: consider influencers and sports people and musos. And they are just the media-visible ones, and don't include those working their way through college and mowing lawns and washing cars. I won't mention the red light "workers" and drugs mules etc. etc. all of whom are worth a great deal more. The child labour market is supposed to be officially dead; many teens can do the same job as older people whose only attribute is an older passport number.

In fact, your position reads like something my grandparents might have espoused in the 50s.

:-)

Rob, with current wages, automation and using robots/machines are too expensive.  It is cheaper to use labor, which is why it has not taken off yet.  However, if wages were suddenly and artificially raised to $15 an hour, automating jobs with machines becomes cheaper that using labor.  So business will start to use machines instead of people for many more jobs. 

Insofar as you teenager example, you are siting very exceptional and unique kids, by far not the norm.  A normal teenager who is more concerned with partying and chasing girls, or guys, around and who has no skills yet is not worth $15 an hour.  No employer would hire a kid for that much. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 05, 2019, 04:06:53 am
Rob, with current wages, automation and using robots/machines are too expensive.  It is cheaper to use labor, which is why it has not taken off yet.  However, if wages were suddenly and artificially raised to $15 an hour, automating jobs with machines becomes cheaper that using labor.  So business will start to use machines instead of people for many more jobs. 

Insofar as you teenager example, you are siting very exceptional and unique kids, by far not the norm.  A normal teenager who is more concerned with partying and chasing girls, or guys, around and who has no skills yet is not worth $15 an hour.  No employer would hire a kid for that much.

Automation has taken off; look at car factories, for one example. They used to be full of human drones, but now there are mainly robots and skilled workers tending robots. A few months ago I watched a fascinating programme about the making of BMW's Mini. Mostly robotic poduction, extreme accuracy and, get this: being the product it is, BMW still manages to market them way above the comparative value level of what the things are. Automation has brought them huge benefits in profitability. And mobility: as the company never ceases to warn the ardent Brexiteers.

Regarding the teenagers: yes, of couse the ones I quoted are notable exceptions; it was a response to your blanket assertion that none was worth that sum.

My daughter is a teacher in Scotland. One of her problems is finding a convincing reply to those unwilling students kept in school by law and age, who ask her why they are being held captive, being taught a lot of irrelevant stuff whilst their mate is out there as a plumber or electrician and making a thousand quid a week, which is close to double what a fully qualified, highly educated school teacher normally makes...

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 05, 2019, 07:31:49 am
Automation has taken off; look at car factories, for one example. They used to be full of human drones, but now there are mainly robots and skilled workers tending robots. A few months ago I watched a fascinating programme about the making of BMW's Mini. Mostly robotic poduction, extreme accuracy and, get this: being the product it is, BMW still manages to market them way above the comparative value level of what the things are. Automation has brought them huge benefits in profitability. And mobility: as the company never ceases to warn the ardent Brexiteers.

Regarding the teenagers: yes, of couse the ones I quoted are notable exceptions; it was a response to your blanket assertion that none was worth that sum.

My daughter is a teacher in Scotland. One of her problems is finding a convincing reply to those unwilling students kept in school by law and age, who ask her why they are being held captive, being taught a lot of irrelevant stuff whilst their mate is out there as a plumber or electrician and making a thousand quid a week, which is close to double what a fully qualified, highly educated school teacher normally makes...

Rob

For manufacturing, yes automation has taken off, but it could be more so.  In retail and service, it has not yet, but that will change if the wages up. 

Insofar as your plumber and electrician examples, for years we have been teaching all kids like they should college bound and put our noses up at craft-mans.  So there is a shortage of these people, which means they can charge a decent amount.  Supply and demand. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 05, 2019, 07:39:15 am
That's why in my country we use a progressive scale, 'Minimum Youth Wage' starting at the age of 15 to 21, and 'Minimum Wage' for ages 21 and more it's at a fixed level.

BTW, Letting people earn a living wage can also boost the economy. That's more likely to happen than with giving tax-breaks to the super rich. Afterall how many additional meals can that upper 1 % buy...?

But, we're engaged in topic drift.

Cheers,
Bart

First, interesting idea on the progressive scale.  Over here I would not hold my breath in getting something like this passed though.  With our current political status, it appears to all or nothing nowadays. 

2nd, lets not forget the super rich typically have their capital invested in the economy some how.  The idea that most are like Scrooge McDuck hoarding all of their money in a giant vault is false.  Not to mention, well designed tax breaks do help normal people too.  Even though the left in my country will never admit it, the Trump tax cuts helped everyone.  For example, he gave a 20% discount on the taxable income for all pass through businesses (those business where the money passes directly to the owner without using payroll), and nearly all small businesses are pass through.  Only C corporations have no pass through process.  It was a nice break for me when I did my taxes. 

Even my brother, who is a self-employed left wing political consultant, got a nice break, although he would never admit it publicly. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on October 05, 2019, 12:39:38 pm
That's why in my country we use a progressive scale, 'Minimum Youth Wage' starting at the age of 15 to 21, and 'Minimum Wage' for ages 21 and more it's at a fixed level.

Ah, the socialist ideal! Control the masses, including how much to pay a teenager. Guess why we moved from the Netherlands to the US?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 05, 2019, 01:25:01 pm
More thread drift. Is everyone ADD?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 05, 2019, 03:07:16 pm
It's not "thread drift" at all, Fab. Who do you think has been trying to mount a coup against Trump since the day the election returns were in? Answer: the whole wild socialist lineup. They couldn't even stand "lunch bucket" Joe Biden, even though he kowtowed to the far left in order to stay in the race. These people want exactly what Bart's describing.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 05, 2019, 03:19:09 pm
The thread isn't drifting talking about socialist drift for the country.  The key candidate, Democrat Elizabeth Warren, suggests major takeover by government.  The attacks on Trump are  an attempt to eliminate his pro-business, anti socialism re-election.  Installing a major socialist like Warren will have permanent economic effects on America and the world.  Hate to say it, but I'd rather have Hillary Clinton.

Frans is right about minimum wage however you structure it.  It's government getting involved in deciding what best for business and people.  A terrible idea.  Picking winners and losers is a losing proposition for the country - any country.  In any case, minimum wage, as Joe described, will drive business more to automation eliminating jobs at the lower end for poorer people and teens.  Of course there will be more jobs for manufacturing computers (in China?) and of course there will be higher paying jobs for technicians and installers.  Have you been in McDonald's lately.  There's only one person taking orders when there were more before.  They pick up the orders with computer ordering screens where customers tap in their orders and pay with their credit cards.  There's no human taking your order.  More low income jobs lost.  I see it in other fast food places.  Pretty soon the government will limit salaries for high paying jobs and then middle income jobs too.  Central planning is next; takeover of business afterwards.  That's what Sanders and a bunch of the other candidates want.  Then you lose your liberty.  The economy suffers.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 05, 2019, 03:49:16 pm
Trumps approval rating up since the Ukraine issue started.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464072-trumps-approval-ticks-to-up-to-highest-level-since-december (https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464072-trumps-approval-ticks-to-up-to-highest-level-since-december)

People are OK with him investigating those crooks the Bidens.  That's why he was elected.  To clean up the swamp.

"To really be mad at Trump for asking foreign leaders to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden or Hillary Clinton, the voters need to believe that Clinton and the Bidens aren’t inherently corrupt. They must also believe that just about all the rules and established groups within American government, especially the intelligence community, deserve unquestioned respect.

Here’s a newsflash: a very large number of Americans don’t have that trust and respect, and they’re generally OK with Trump being the junkyard dog who digs it all out.

This is Donald Trump’s brand."

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/04/heres-why-trumps-poll-numbers-are-defying-the-impeachment-mess.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/04/heres-why-trumps-poll-numbers-are-defying-the-impeachment-mess.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 05, 2019, 05:21:35 pm
Have you been in McDonald's lately.  There's only one person taking orders when there were more before.  They pick up the orders with computer ordering screens where customers tap in their orders and pay with their credit cards.  There's no human taking your order.  More low income jobs lost.
I don't frequent fast food joints, so I guess I am out of the loop. I guess Egg McMuffins make themselves nowadays.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 05, 2019, 05:51:58 pm
I don't frequent fast food joints, so I guess I am out of the loop. I guess Egg McMuffins make themselves nowadays.

Here in Mallorca, the difficulty is hanging on to cooks. They come and go, and the same with waiters; some actually do return to places they abandoned and seem to be taken back with open arms, and all of this despite high youth unemployment. A lot really is work-shy. And again, it comes down to talent and also the ability to get along with and survive the nerve tantrums of owners with so much riding on the last meal a customer enjoys - or not.

Free lunches are rare, either side of the kitchen doors.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 05, 2019, 07:34:38 pm
So you can pay someone who is 21+ years old a wage befitting a 15 year old?
The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour (€6.6/hour). Twenty-nine states have higher minimum wages.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 05, 2019, 09:07:34 pm
It's not "thread drift" at all, Fab. Who do you think has been trying to mount a coup against Trump since the day the election returns were in? Answer: the whole wild socialist lineup. They couldn't even stand "lunch bucket" Joe Biden, even though he kowtowed to the far left in order to stay in the race. These people want exactly what Bart's describing.

Who needs a coup when Trump himself is demonstrating this clearly his unfitness for the job?

Aren’t you concerned that your candidate doesn’t understand that he is violating the same constitution he uses all the time to justify mass shootings?

How blind do you need to be to see where this is taking you?

Your very concerns about how far left things could go if the Democrats won should be ample proof that Joe Biden is the main adversary of Trump and that it is both illegal and unethical to try to use foreign influences to dig dirt on your main opponent?

Is democracy still important for you?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 05, 2019, 09:25:57 pm
Stockholm syndrome.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 05, 2019, 10:21:36 pm
Who needs a coup when Trump himself is demonstrating this clearly his unfitness for the job?

Aren’t you concerned that your candidate doesn’t understand that he is violating the same constitution he uses all the time to justify mass shootings?

How blind do you need to be to see where this is taking you?

Your very concerns about how far left things could go if the Democrats won should be ample proof that Joe Biden is the main adversary of Trump and that it is both illegal and unethical to try to use foreign influences to dig dirt on your main opponent?

Is democracy still important for you?

Cheers,
Bernard

It seems you only want to draw the line on Trump.  Yet you apparently approve that Joe Biden used his position as Vice President to stop a foreign investigation of criminal activity related to his son Hunter Biden's work in the Ukraine.  Isn't what Biden did criminal?  Shouldn't that be investigated? Or do you think only Trump should be investigated for collusion with the Russians in 2016 based on a dossier prepared by British and Russian spies who were paid $10 million dollars by Trump's presidential opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton?  Just where do you draw the lines? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 05, 2019, 10:36:56 pm
I don't frequent fast food joints, so I guess I am out of the loop. I guess Egg McMuffins make themselves nowadays.
I said there are less order takers not less cooks or preparers.  On the other hand, it's possible fast food restaurants are using more automation to prepare the food as well.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 05, 2019, 11:27:19 pm
Impeaching Trump may be the only way to beat him.

U.S. Sees 50-Year Low Unemployment Rate
"“Thanks to our pro-American agenda, the economy is booming, wages are rising and poverty is plummeting,” said President Trump. “3.5 percent — people didn’t think they were going to see that."[/size]
https://www.oann.com/u-s-sees-50-year-low-unemployment-rate/ (https://www.oann.com/u-s-sees-50-year-low-unemployment-rate/)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 12:58:04 am
There was a discussion about American antique muscle cars either here in this or another recent thread.  Forget which.  Anyway, our community had an antique and late model muscle car show here in New Jersey in my community today.  We do it once a year.  Thought you'd be interested in seeing some hot cars.  Mainly American cars but there was a Triumph or MG and a Spitfire owned by some Scottish lad there with a thick accent and kilts.  He's in there too. You can tune into the video up to 4K bandwidth or smaller.  Hit full screen for better view. Good muscle car music with it from The Beach Boys.  So turn up the volume. Here's the Youtube link. About 4 minutes run time.  Enjoy.
https://youtu.be/MogdCeRNqBM (https://youtu.be/MogdCeRNqBM)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 06, 2019, 01:08:06 am
Alan, there is thread called Cars Again in the Coffee Corner. It might be better to move your Antique Cars post there.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 01:10:44 am
Thanks Les.  Just posted there. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 03:28:41 am
It seems you only want to draw the line on Trump.  Yet you apparently approve that Joe Biden used his position as Vice President to stop a foreign investigation of criminal activity related to his son Hunter Biden's work in the Ukraine.  Isn't what Biden did criminal?  Shouldn't that be investigated? Or do you think only Trump should be investigated for collusion with the Russians in 2016 based on a dossier prepared by British and Russian spies who were paid $10 million dollars by Trump's presidential opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton?  Just where do you draw the lines?

Both of them should be fired if proof is made of their culpability.

Trump confessed of his crime so that part is already clear.

You are the one making this a political story by trying to find equal guilt on the Democrat side. The only relevant story here is Trump, the president of the US, clearly violating the constitution.

With or without quid pro quo btw. That corruption would only be an aggravating factor.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 03:31:20 am
Impeaching Trump may be the only way to beat him.

U.S. Sees 50-Year Low Unemployment Rate
"“Thanks to our pro-American agenda, the economy is booming, wages are rising and poverty is plummeting,” said President Trump. “3.5 percent — people didn’t think they were going to see that."[/size]
https://www.oann.com/u-s-sees-50-year-low-unemployment-rate/ (https://www.oann.com/u-s-sees-50-year-low-unemployment-rate/)

Impreaching Trump is mostly about preventing him from doing more damage in the coming year, such as violating the constitution again.

His defeat in the next elections is 99% sure regardless.

Only hard core Republicans think otherwise and the extent to which your daydreaming departs from reality is becoming increasingly grotesque.

The question you should ask yourself now is what Trump would have to do for you to stop blindly support him. Would he have to start to send muslims to camps? Would that cross the line or would still support him then? If less is needed then what is the line?

Will you say you didn’t know like Trump is implicitly saying he didn’t know requesting help from a foreign leader to dig dirt on a political opponent is a violation of the constitution? Only do we all know you are way smarter and do know as we speak.

No need to answer me, this is between you and your conscience.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 06, 2019, 06:08:51 am
Yet you apparently approve that Joe Biden used his position as Vice President to stop a foreign investigation of criminal activity related to his son Hunter Biden's work in the Ukraine.  I

Evidence please.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 06, 2019, 07:52:02 am
Okay Bart, "evidence please." I realize that's what your screaming, off the wall, terminally biased sources of opinion say, but they have no more actual evidence of it than Mueller had in his more than two year coup attempt. This one isn't even gonna taxi fast, much less get off the ground.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 07:58:04 am
Okay Bart, "evidence please." I realize that's what your screaming, off the wall, terminally biased sources of opinion say, but they have no more actual evidence of it than Mueller had in his more than two year coup attempt. This one isn't even gonna taxi fast, much less get off the ground.

Russ,

Trump has admitted in public having requested a foreign leader help to dig dirt on a political rival. This is unconstitutional.

There is no need to prove anything else.

The quid pro quo, another word for corruption, did obviously happen but isn’t needed to impeach Trump.

Even Fox TV couldn’t deny this truth... so this isn’t liberal media plotting a coup, it is the truth being impossible to bend this time because there is a clear constitution and clear facts violating it.

When you use illegal means to attempt to eliminate a political rival, democracy is at risk and I am totally puzzled that you consider Trump’s actions to be aligned with the GOP’s values. I don’t think you would be fine with Trump ordering Biden to be executed by a killer. Well what he attempted to do is just as illegal and as unethical.

If I were you I would think about the relationship between values and the means needed to enforce them. When you compromise too much ethically on the means, you end up becoming the unethical means you use to reach what you believe to be a higher end. So how far are you willing to go to win?

Even if you have given up on ethics, think about what your example means to your grand children.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 06, 2019, 09:41:05 am
It's a no brainer all right, Bart, but not the kind of no brainer you and Snopes think it is. Snopes? Snopes has been declaring conservative points and comments in satire that even starts with a notice it's satire as being "wrong." It's not a source I'd use to try to "prove" anything. There's no question Trump asked Ukraine to look into the illegal acts of Biden and his crooked son. The only question is whether or not the President of the United States has the right -- even the duty -- to ask for something like that. Were he not President or a Senator or Representative or a member of law enforcement, it might be a crime, as Hillalry's and the DNC's payoff to generate the fake dirt that got Mueller going clearly was.

That's enough. This whole thing just gets sillier and sillier. Yes, the press hates Trump, and they're making that very clear, but so what? Doesn't "prove" a damned thing. Well, I guess what it does prove from what I see here is the old Barnum principle: "There's a sucker born every minute.

I'm outta here.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 06, 2019, 09:45:01 am
It's a no brainer all right, Bart, but not the kind of no brainer you and Snopes think it is.

So go ahead - provide the evidence.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 10:10:47 am
Both of them should be fired if proof is made of their culpability.

Trump confessed of his crime so that part is already clear.

You are the one making this a political story by trying to find equal guilt on the Democrat side. The only relevant story here is Trump, the president of the US, clearly violating the constitution.

With or without quid pro quo btw. That corruption would only be an aggravating factor.

Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, you're conflicting.  The only way the prove Biden is culpable is to re-open the investigation in Ukraine.  Maybe have an investigation in the US too.  That requires the US president to request the Ukraine President to investigate.  It's the only way to get to the bottom of what the Bidens did.  If Trump doesn't ask, it won't happen. 


If the press was honest, and not anti-Trump, they would be calling for an investigation of the Bidens.  But they're protecting them.  Look at all the accusations against Trump for his foreign business dealings.  Why isn't the press as demanding and make similar accusation and demands for investigation of the Bidens?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 10:13:37 am
PS>  With Biden also running for President, Biden's malfeasance and violating the constitution or not is part of the story. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 06, 2019, 10:23:57 am
The only way the prove Biden is culpable is to re-open the investigation in Ukraine.

The new Ukraine prosecutor has said he is going to audit the previous investigation which found no wrongdoing. Of course, that won't be enough for the Trumpers. They will just dream up another conspiracy theory. Maybe the Clinton server is in a pizza parlor basement in Ukraine. Besides, Trump's call with Zelinsky was all Rick Perry's fault. Apparently, Trump can't make his own decisions on who to call. Meanwhile, White House staffers are "genuinely horrified" with Trump's calls to foreign leaders. That's why they are all on a secret server. And North Korea has called off nuclear talks with Trump. How is that trade deal with China working out? So many wins.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 10:25:35 am
Bernard, you're conflicting.  The only way the prove Biden is culpable is to re-open the investigation in Ukraine.  Maybe have an investigation in the US too.  That requires the US president to request the Ukraine President to investigate.  It's the only way to get to the bottom of what the Bidens did.  If Trump doesn't ask, it won't happen. 

If the press was honest, and not anti-Trump, they would be calling for an investigation of the Bidens.  But they're protecting them.  Look at all the accusations against Trump for his foreign business dealings.  Why isn't the press as demanding and make similar accusation and demands for investigation of the Bidens?

Alan,

With all due respect, you are not making sense.

There is zero need to connect the violation of the constitution Trump committed to anything else. It stands by itself.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 10:54:38 am
Alan,

With all due respect, you are not making sense.

There is zero need to connect the violation of the constitution Trump committed to anything else. It stands by itself.

Cheers,
Bernard

No it doesn't.  We should get to the bottom if Biden used his position as VP to help his son in a criminal investigation.  After all, Biden is running for president in 2020 too.   Only Trump could call for the investigation in the Ukraine. Don;t you want to know if Biden is a crook?   Or do you only want to go after Trump?  The point is if Biden did wrong, the president is responsible for calling for an investigation and the only person capable of asking for it.    If he happens to get political benefit, well, what alternative would there be?  Let Biden get away with breaking the law as VP? 

In any case, when the dust settles, Biden will be done as the Democrat candidate because of Ukraine and Trump will still be president, probably facing Pocahontas.  Then Trump will call for an investigation of Warren for lying on her application claiming she's a minority to make it easier to get legal license and jobs at Harvard and advance her political career. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 06, 2019, 11:26:31 am
Then Trump will call for an investigation of Warren for lying on her application claiming she's a minority to make it easier to get legal license...
You get your license to practice law by passing the bar exam, not checking a box on an application form.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 06, 2019, 01:19:03 pm
Pocahontas.

Tired of the racism, Alan.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on October 06, 2019, 01:58:34 pm
Tired of the racism, Alan.

What racism? It's a derogatory term, certainly, but it's unclear how it can be said to be racist.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 02:42:28 pm
Tired of the racism, Alan.
Typical liberal response calling someone a racist that calls attention to truth through parody.   It is Warren who lied about her heritage, taking minority status to advance herself.  She was the one who apologized to the Indian Nation,  the Cherokees,  for slanting them and stealing their identity.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 06, 2019, 03:08:57 pm
Typical liberal response calling someone a racist that calls attention to truth through parody.
So using derogatory ethnic terms is parody? Who is laughing at the "comic effect" of doing so?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 06, 2019, 04:55:56 pm
So there you have it, kids: the place you get to when your head honcho deserts diplomacy for the insane pleasures of tweeting like an demented bird.

And to think Slobodan advised me to get with it, be modern and join effbook, which to me, lives in the same cage.

Where is Slobodan today; haven't noticed a post yet.

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 06, 2019, 05:02:06 pm
Where is Slobodan today; haven't noticed a post yet.

He occasionally takes a few days off. Unless, like a lot of Republicans, he is ducking for cover and avoiding commenting.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 06:27:19 pm
No it doesn't.  We should get to the bottom if Biden used his position as VP to help his son in a criminal investigation.  After all, Biden is running for president in 2020 too.   Only Trump could call for the investigation in the Ukraine. Don;t you want to know if Biden is a crook?   Or do you only want to go after Trump?  The point is if Biden did wrong, the president is responsible for calling for an investigation and the only person capable of asking for it.    If he happens to get political benefit, well, what alternative would there be?  Let Biden get away with breaking the law as VP? 

In any case, when the dust settles, Biden will be done as the Democrat candidate because of Ukraine and Trump will still be president, probably facing Pocahontas.  Then Trump will call for an investigation of Warren for lying on her application claiming she's a minority to make it easier to get legal license and jobs at Harvard and advance her political career.

By the standard you are defending, it would be excusable to kill someone to proof that he is a murderer.

Everybody but you thinks this is crazy.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 06, 2019, 06:52:37 pm
Only Trump could call for the investigation in the Ukraine. Don;t you want to know if Biden is a crook? . . .  The point is if Biden did wrong, the president is responsible for calling for an investigation and the only person capable of asking for it.

There are established international channels for governments of one country to request that governments of another country provide investigative assistance in criminal prosecutions.

When the U.S. Justice Department requires foreign assistance for one of its investigations, it asks the corresponding agency of the other government to help—typically with the U.S. State Department and the foreign ministry of the second government serving, at least initially, as intermediaries.

Federal criminal investigations are undertaken under the authority of the U.S. attorneys, who are political appointees, by members of their career professional staffs.

A president might be informed that such an investigation had been requested if the target was a high-profile figure like a former vice president, but should never initiate a criminal investigation.  Trump's claim that he had an "obligation" and "duty" to make the request to his Ukrainian counterpart was a transparent fabrication.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 07:06:26 pm
So using derogatory ethnic terms is parody? Who is laughing at the "comic effect" of doing so?
Pocahontas is not a derogatory ethnic term. It's a female Indian name.  It's the same as calling her Maria if she had impersonated a Latina..   And I'm not telling a joke.  This is to remind everyone that she's a phoney and a fraud.   

What I find interesting is that you haven't said anything negative about what she did.  So you approve of people impersonating minorities to advance themselves? Don't think that smacks of racism? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 07:14:44 pm
By the standard you are defending, it would be excusable to kill someone to proof that he is a murderer.

Everybody but you thinks this is crazy.

Cheers,
Bernard


That's what makes horse races. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 07:19:11 pm
...and forums.  Can you imagine if everyone thought the same here?  We'd be bored and the forum would die. 

PS.  I'm not quite sure what your example means in this case.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 08:02:33 pm
...and forums.  Can you imagine if everyone thought the same here?  We'd be bored and the forum would die. 

PS.  I'm not quite sure what your example means in this case.

Alan,

You are saying that it was excusable for Trump to violate the constitution to investigate a possible violation of the constitution by Biden years ago.

By the same standard, it would be excusable to kill someone to proof that he is a murderer.

And again, I have not seen anybody else but you come forward and tell us this is sound thinking. This is just not "not sound", it's plain crazy.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 06, 2019, 08:05:58 pm
Where is Slobodan today; haven't noticed a post yet.

Far be it from me to cast aspersions on a fellow poster to this forum, but is it possible he has slunk away furtively to engage in ... photography?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 06, 2019, 08:17:44 pm
Far be it from me to case aspersions on a fellow poster to this forum, but is it possible he has slunk away furtively to engage in ... photography?

Hopefully, he is taking pictures of architecture, not nature.
At the Big Cypress National Preserve they just caught a second 18ft python.

(https://www.irishexaminer.com/remote/content.assets.pressassociation.io/2019/10/06181446/b522a66e-623c-49b0-b9c8-9b79121c978d.jpg?width=600&s=ie-955328)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 06, 2019, 08:22:49 pm
At the Big Cypress National Preserve they just caught a second 18ft python.

Hmmm.  Perhaps a future resident of el señor Loco's moat?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 08:46:29 pm
Alan,

You are saying that it was excusable for Trump to violate the constitution to investigate a possible violation of the constitution by Biden years ago.

By the same standard, it would be excusable to kill someone to proof that he is a murderer.

And again, I have not seen anybody else but you come forward and tell us this is sound thinking. This is just not "not sound", it's plain crazy.

Cheers,
Bernard

Politicians do all kinds of things for political reasons.  That's why we call them politicians.  But if the constitution allows a president to enforce the law and prosecute a potential violator of it, then it's constitutional.  He may get a political benefit from it coincidentally.  But he's doing his job.  Otherwise, how would an Administration ever prosecute a political "enemy".  It will always be said that he's doing it for political reasons.  If someone may have committed a crime, shouldn't he be investigated for it? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 09:08:48 pm
Politicians do all kinds of things for political reasons.  That's why we call them politicians.  But if the constitution allows a president to enforce the law and prosecute a potential violator of it, then it's constitutional.  He may get a political benefit from it coincidentally.  But he's doing his job.  Otherwise, how would an Administration ever prosecute a political "enemy".  It will always be said that he's doing it for political reasons.  If someone may have committed a crime, shouldn't he be investigated for it?

Alan,

Repeating the same non sense again and again won't magically make it better.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 09:10:30 pm
Alan,

Repeating the same non sense again and again won't magically make it better.

Cheers,
Bernard

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 09:25:35 pm
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

We can agree to disagree, but it doesn't make you any more right.

This agreement on disagreement in in no way an agreement that this is a matter of opinion.

This is just constituion vs facts.

There is nothing to discuss really about whether Trump's behaviour will result in Impeachement.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 06, 2019, 09:35:37 pm
Hopefully, he is taking pictures of architecture, not nature.
At the Big Cypress National Preserve they just caught a second 18ft python.

(https://www.irishexaminer.com/remote/content.assets.pressassociation.io/2019/10/06181446/b522a66e-623c-49b0-b9c8-9b79121c978d.jpg?width=600&s=ie-955328)

Hopefully; I always enjoyed is work. 

I, though, was stuck building it today; I always liked the flemish bond (nothing to do with Flanders for some reason).  I cant explain to you how sore my wrists are right now (but a Cohiba Maduro is helping out), and I'm still not finished.  I have whole new respect for brick layers!

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 09:41:44 pm
We can agree to disagree, but it doesn't make you any more right.

This agreement on disagreement in in no way an agreement that this is a matter of opinion.

This is just constituion vs facts.

There is nothing to discuss really about whether Trump's behaviour will result in Impeachement.

Cheers,
Bernard

Of course, when Obama used his administration to go after Trump, nobody flinched.  Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

In any case, the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot.  By pressing this issue, the whole world now considers Joe Biden as being involved in a coverup for his son. The more the Democrats shoot at TRump, the more they'll hit Biden.   He'll soon be out of the nomination parade.  And Trump will still be president.  Clever move on the Democratic part.  While tut-tutting in public, Warren is laughing herself silly in private. :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 06, 2019, 09:54:05 pm
Of course, when Obama used his administration to go after Trump, nobody flinched.  Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The problem you have is that your premise is wrong, but you keep stating it like a fact.  Theres no evidence that either Biden did anything illegal. There’s no justification for an investigation, and multiple sources confirm this.  Just because Trump keeps babbling on about “Corrupt Bidens” doesn’t make it any more true than the other 30 things Trump makes up / lies about daily. He’s a liar, Alan.   A blatant, stupid, ignorant liar and it’s not like you have to dig deep to figure that out.

The laughable thing about it is that Trump has the unmitigated gall to talk about Biden’s son while his own kids sit in positions of power and control that they have zero business being in, while at the same time maintaining their own outside business interests.

The pathetic thing is that Trumpers seem utterly oblivious to it.  His entire administration is one giant conflict of interest and y’all brush it off like Donald Trump is the paragon of integrity.  It’s totally flippin’ absurd.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 10:00:06 pm
In any case, the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot.  By pressing this issue, the whole world now considers Joe Biden as being involved in a coverup for his son. The more the Democrats shoot at TRump, the more they'll hit Biden.   He'll soon be out of the nomination parade.  And Trump will still be president.  Clever move on the Democratic part.  While tut-tutting in public, Warren is laughing herself silly in private. :)

- The whole world knows full well that whatever Biden did  or didn't do has nothing to do with the impreachment of Trump,
- The whole world knows full well that if Biden had broken the law, the Republicans would have uncovered this when he was Vice-President. And this is demonstrated in a totally clear way by how hard they are trying now,
- The whole world knows full well that a large majority of honest working people in the US are tired of the corrupt Trump administration. They have to play by the rules every day and are trying hard to teach their kids that they have to play by the rules, only to find out that their President doesn't.

Although I may not agree with some of their positions, I used to respect many of the values of the GOP. And it really saddens me to see so many of the Republican politicans having to compromise this badly with the basic of ethics in a desperate, and pathetic, attempt to save their political ass.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 10:11:50 pm
(1)- The whole world knows full well that whatever Biden did  or didn't do has nothing to do with the impreachment of Trump,
(2)- The whole world knows full well that if Biden had broken the law, the Republicans would have uncovered this when he was Vice-President. And this is demonstrated in a totally clear way by how hard they are trying now,
(3)- The whole world knows full well that a large majority of honest working people in the US are tired of the corrupt Trump administration. They have to play by the rules every day and are trying hard to teach their kids that they have to play by the rules, only to find out that their President doesn't.

Although I may not agree with some of their positions, I used to respect many of the values of the GOP. And it really saddens me to see so many of the Republican politicans having to compromise this badly with the basic of ethics in a desperate, and pathetic, attempt to save their political ass.

Cheers,
Bernard

(1) Sure It does.  They're both running for president in 2020.
(2) When Biden "broke the law", he was VP.  No one cares about VP's.  As one VP once said, the job isn;t worth a bucket of "spit". In any case, the President at that time wa Obama, a Democrat.  He was his running mate.  DOn;t you think Obama wanted the whole Ukraine investigation to disappear as well?
(3) People are tired of corruption.  That's why they hired Trump -to clean out the swamp.  They figure it takes one to know one.  Now Biden appears to be corrupt.  That he didn't play by the rules when it came to his son finagling in the Ukraine. Now that I mentioned it, Warren is another corrupt individual.  She lied about her heritage to gain personal advantages.  So was Hillary who used her position many people say as Secretary of State to shake down foreign leaders to contribute millions to the Clinton Foundation. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on October 06, 2019, 10:19:16 pm
So you can pay someone who is 21+ years old a wage befitting a 15 year old?

Ever hear of the concept of a free market? What an employer and employee agree between themselves should be a voluntary, private contract and the government shouldn't have any involvement.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 10:23:05 pm
Ever hear of the concept of a free market? What an employer and employee agree between themselves should be a voluntary, private contract and the government shouldn't have any involvement.
Many people want to be treated like children by Big Daddy government who will take care of them.  But Big Daddy has curfews and other requirements that don't give you the freedom to live your own life.  Some people don;t mind.  They like being treated like children.  They think they're safer. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 10:48:08 pm
(1) Sure It does.  They're both running for president in 2020.

No it doesn't. The proven violation of the constitution performed by Trump remains a violation, regardless of the reason why he violated it.

(2) When Biden "broke the law", he was VP.  No one cares about VP's.  As one VP once said, the job isn;t worth a bucket of "spit". In any case, the President at that time wa Obama, a Democrat.  He was his running mate.  DOn;t you think Obama wanted the whole Ukraine investigation to disappear as well?

That's not even close to being true. If the Republicans had had legitimate bullets against Biden when he was VP, they would have used them to hurt Obama. This is 100% sure. You know it as well as I do.

(3) People are tired of corruption.  That's why they hired Trump -to clean out the swamp.  They figure it takes one to know one.  Now Biden appears to be corrupt.  That he didn't play by the rules when it came to his son finagling in the Ukraine. Now that I mentioned it, Warren is another corrupt individual.  She lied about her heritage to gain personal advantages.  So was Hillary who used her position many people say as Secretary of State to shake down foreign leaders to contribute millions to the Clinton Foundation. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

And it should be very clear by now that the expectations Trump raised about clearing the swamp were pure lies. Never has an administration been as swampy as Trump's own. Starting with Trump himself and extending to his family.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 10:56:22 pm
Well, Bernard, I guess you'll be voting against Trump. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 10:58:51 pm
Well, Bernard, I guess you'll be voting against Trump.

I don't think that Trump will be a candidate.

I believe that the Republican Senate will understand that the credibilty of the GOP is more important than Trump.

They will stop supporting him based on the additional evidence that are starting to emerge.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 11:00:32 pm
I don't think that Trump will be a candidate.

Cheers,
Bernard

Then you'll be voting for someone else.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 07, 2019, 01:17:03 am
What racism? It's a derogatory term, certainly, but it's unclear how it can be said to be racist.

Jeremy

Just as calling an Indian "Gunga Din" is racist, or shopping at a "Paki shop". is racist  However, I realise that someone who takes his lead from Rod Liddle is unlkely to see a problem.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 07, 2019, 04:01:38 am
Even a 'free' market has rules and regulations. Unless one lives in a banana republic *).

*) In economics, a banana republic is a country with an economy of state capitalism, by which economic model the country is operated as a private commercial enterprise for the exclusive profit of the ruling class. Such exploitation is enabled by collusion between the state and favored economic monopolies, in which the profit, derived from the private exploitation of public lands, is private property, while the debts incurred thereby are the financial responsibility of the public treasury.

That's the sort of muddle-minded socialism that has ruined the chimney-sweeping trade :-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 07, 2019, 08:44:02 am
Proof, or just innuendo and libel?
So was the collusion charge against Trump accusing him of treason. Yet the Democrats spent 2 1/2 years trying to impeach the victim of a phony charge.   Using the secret services of the last administration to spy on his campaign and people and to start a phony investigation.  Yet, you have no problem with that.  No apologies.  No I'm sorries.  Now when the situation is reversed, and Biden, who admitted to shutting down the Ukraine investigation of his son as VP, the new administration asks for an investigation to see if there was wrong doing, you again want to impeach Trump.  It seems there's a double standard and a lot of hypocrisy going around. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 07, 2019, 09:19:00 am
Just as calling an Indian "Gunga Din" is racist, or shopping at a "Paki shop". is racist  However, I realise that someone who takes his lead from Rod Liddle is unlkely to see a problem.
Being an American, I'm not familiar with your interpretation.  But there was an American movie by that name made before I was born that I thought made this individual into a hero.   I remember seing it in the fifties and that how I remember him portrayed.   I just looked Ginga Din up in Google.  I got this interpretation.  How is that racist?  It seems calling someone by his name is a complement.  Of course, they may be other interpretations Americans aren't familiar with.  So if there are, let me know what they are. 

"Whenever I tell someone ‘You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din!’ it’s a compliment.  It will always be a compliment because it is referring to Din, an Indian Bhishti of unexpected character and bravery.  So, the next time someone refers to you using this phrase, thank them for the compliment and their insight."
https://www.theleadermaker.com/youre-a-better-man-than-i-am-gunga-din/ (https://www.theleadermaker.com/youre-a-better-man-than-i-am-gunga-din/)



In any case, Pocohontas, unlike Gunga DIn, was a very important person in her own right. 


"Pocahontas was a Native American woman born around 1595. She was the daughter of the powerful Chief Powhatan, the ruler of the Powhatan tribal nation, which at its strongest included around 30 Algonquian communities located in the Tidewater region of Virginia.....Pocahontas became known by the colonists as an important Powhatan emissary. She occasionally brought the hungry settlers food and helped successfully negotiate the release of Powhatan prisoners in 1608. ....She married an American leader....While in captivity, Pocahontas lived in the settlement of Henricus under the care of a minister named Alexander Whitaker where she learned about Christianity, English culture and how to speak English. Pocahontas converted to Christianity, was baptized and given the name “Rebecca.”....(She moved to England with her husband)In London, Pocahontas was revered as a princess and referred to as “Lady Rebecca Wolfe.” She attended plays and balls and was even presented to the royal family..."


So calling someone Pocahontas seems to me an honor certainly one that shouldn't even be bestowed on Elizabeth Warren.  She doesn't have the qualities of Pocahontas. Certainly, I wouldn;t refer to Warren as a princess and call her Lady Rebecca Wolfe as Pocahontas was called. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 07, 2019, 09:19:39 am
Pocahontas history:
https://www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/pocahontas
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 07, 2019, 09:48:43 am
That's the sort of muddle-minded socialism that has ruined the chimney-sweeping trade :-)


No, not in the least: the job has morphed. The single time we had it done here in Spain, the work was done by builders; quite a digital sort of performance. They took a couple of plastic bags and filled them with stones, tied that to the end of a rope, and proceeded to go up to the roof from whence they pushed the bag down the stainless steel pipe that runs from the back of our stove, through the cement outer stack, right up to the skies; yanked said plastic bags up and down a few times, and after filling the wood burner with hard, burned cinders, declared the job done...

Not a small boy was either trapped, bruised, cajoled, bribed or otherwise harmed during the entire cleansing process. We have come a long way.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 07, 2019, 10:25:30 am
So you admit it is just innuendo and libel on your part.
 


FYI, the Biden case has been investigated earlier and nothing illegal was found. The replacement of a Ukranian prosecutor was an international cooperative effort.

Trump, on the other hand, did violate the constitution by soliciting foreign interference in the election process by (now) multiple countries, admitted to doing it, and more proof of other violations is surfacing as a result.
No, not innuendo.  Biden admitted to shutting down the investigation when he was VP.  Trump did not violate the constitution as he is charged as president with enforcing laws.  Only he could ask a foreign president to help in a potential criminal case.  That's his job.  Or he can ask the Attorney General or his ambassador to speak to the foreign leader.  Even Rudy.  In any case, if he gets side political benefit, well that's the way it is.  His acting under his authority as president makes it legal and constitutional. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 07, 2019, 10:33:45 am
His acting under his authority as president makes it legal and constitutional.

L'état, c'est lui?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 07, 2019, 10:49:53 am
L'état, c'est lui?
Please.  Trump isn't a king.  The authority I was referring to is his constitutionally.  He's charged with making deals with foreign leaders under the advice and consent of the Senate.  Enforcing law of the US are part of his responsibility.  So asking a foreign leader to intervene in a potential criminal case affecting American law is within that authority.  Of course, I recognize there are political implications.  No more so than when Obama was involved when he authorized surveillance of Trump's people during the election.  We all understand what happened in both cases that there are political ramifications.  But let's not be simple yokels.  Let's not have double standards that gives one side the legal right to do stuff but not the other.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on October 07, 2019, 12:55:00 pm
Just as calling an Indian "Gunga Din" is racist, or shopping at a "Paki shop". is racist  However, I realise that someone who takes his lead from Rod Liddle is unlkely to see a problem.

But Warren, despite having no, or no significant, native American ancestry, has claimed that she does; that's why Trump uses the term, which is mocking but cannot be racist. Calling you "Gunga Din" or a "Paki" would be foolish, but not racist (assuming your race is as your photograph suggests). The use of the term is yet another example of its misappropriation in order to claim moral high ground and suppress argument.

I fail to see the relevance of your reference to Rod Liddle. Doubtless it makes sense, to you at least.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 07, 2019, 01:03:39 pm
Completely unfit to serve.  Yes, this is 100% real and no, it's not a parody account.  This is the President of the United States of America, and shameful can't begin to describe it.


Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 07, 2019, 01:31:23 pm
Calling you "Gunga Din" or a "Paki" would be foolish, but not racist (assuming your race is as your photograph suggests).

Obviously it would, since it would suggest that being (say) a Pakistani is somehow a negative characteristic. Likewise if I called someone a Jew, regardless of their race.

Quote
I fail to see the relevance of your reference to Rod Liddle. Doubtless it makes sense, to you at least.

Perhaps it was someone else who wrote:
Rod Liddle, a political commentator in the UK, generally spells with word with multiple "a"s, aptly mimicking the usual pronunciation of those who resort to it.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 07, 2019, 02:03:45 pm
Trump has:
1. Destroyed ISIS territory and made what's left a rump organization

Well, that didn't last long, did it?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 07, 2019, 02:18:09 pm
Again, I find myself at odds with others over the definitions - for they are many - of racism.

Paki, to me, is always an abbreviation of Pakistani, in exactly the same way as Rob is of Robert. There is simply no more to it than that.

However, if I may slip into the mindset of those who think otherwise, for a moment: in that frame of reference, then, the assumption has to have been made that Paki or Pakistani is a form of insult because either is, somehow, a definition of belonging to an inferior breed of human being, something not purely English, or whatever one prefers to choose as standard of reference of measure of what constitutes a worthy human being.

Frankly, it is simply silly to make such an assumption - I trust - and so to avoid that, one has to accept that Paki and/or Pakistani are nothing more or less than the names by which we recognize people from a particular country.

Rob aka Robert.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 07, 2019, 02:30:28 pm
Completely unfit to serve.  Yes, this is 100% real and no, it's not a parody account.  This is the President of the United States of America, and shameful can't begin to describe it.



I don;t like walking away from allies who fought with us on the battlefield.  But, Americans have had it with the Middle East.  We been fighting their for decades even before 9-11.  Didn't we save Kuwait in the first Middle East War in 1991?  We walked out on the Kurds then too, as I recall and many died by the hand of Saddam.  If China invades Taiwan, should we fight there?  How about South Korea?  Japan?  What about Eastern Europe against Russia? (not that I think they'll attack).   Should we stay in Afghanistan after waring there for 18 years?  When is enough, enough?  I've been pretty much of a warmonger over the years.  But even I'm getting tired of it.  Let them sort out their differences among themselves.  We tend to mess it up anyway when we stay involved.  Let's hope Trump is right and Turkey isn't going to walk over them.  I hope not.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 07, 2019, 02:59:15 pm
Let's hope Trump is right and Turkey isn't going to walk over them.  I hope not.
Turkey is going to annihilate the Kurds. They have said so. Why else would they be invading northern Syria?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 07, 2019, 03:00:33 pm
Turkey is going to annihilate the Kurds. They have said so. Why else would they be invading northern Syria?

Maybe you should send your son to help them. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 07, 2019, 06:11:04 pm
No, not innuendo.  Biden admitted to shutting down the investigation when he was VP. 

No, he did not.

Your continuous attempts to rewrite history to match your delusions strangely reminds me about the way Trump turns facts into something they are not. Otherwise called fake news.

Trump did not violate the constitution as he is charged as president with enforcing laws.  Only he could ask a foreign president to help in a potential criminal case.  That's his job.  Or he can ask the Attorney General or his ambassador to speak to the foreign leader.  Even Rudy.  In any case, if he gets side political benefit, well that's the way it is.  His acting under his authority as president makes it legal and constitutional.

Absolutely not.

It has been said again and again that there procedures between states to request legitimate help on such matters.

It was clearly not Trump's job and what he did is against the law as a violation of the constitution.

Again, you repeating the same misinformation again and again won't make them true.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 07, 2019, 06:29:55 pm
Your continuous attempts to rewrite history to match your delusions strangely reminds me about the way Trump turns facts into something they are not.

Interesting point.  Confining this comment solely to Trump's elected supporters in the Congress — obviously, what participants in social media forums say is irrelevant to the impeachment inquiry — it appears to me that as Trump becomes increasingly fearful regarding his future, his public statements are becoming correspondingly bizarre (admittedly, that's a high bar) and therefore, synchronously, so are those of his supporters.  I can't quite figure out if the latter are expressing their anxieties or simply mimicking his own.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 07, 2019, 06:39:09 pm
Interesting point.  Confining this comment solely to Trump's elected supporters in the Congress — obviously, what participants in social media forums say is irrelevant to the impeachment inquiry — it appears to me that as Trump becomes increasingly fearful regarding his future, his public statements are becoming correspondingly bizarre (admittedly, that's a high bar) and therefore, synchronously, so are those of his supporters.  I can't quite figure out if the latter are expressing their own anxieties or simply mimicking his own.

Well, at the end of the day, and, not saying I 100% agree here, this is all a moot point if Warrens gets on the ticket.  She would be Trump's best re-election asset, and considering how Biden is handling this, it is almost a certainty at this point. 

I would be willing to bet the next debate will destroy Biden.  I cant see his fellow front runners ignoring this and not indirectly, at the very least, attacking him. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 07, 2019, 09:56:56 pm

 
[/size]
Well, at the end of the day, and, not saying I 100% agree here, this is all a moot point if Warrens gets on the ticket.  She would be Trump's best re-election asset, and considering how Biden is handling this, it is almost a certainty at this point. 


I would be willing to bet the next debate will destroy Biden.  I cant see his fellow front runners ignoring this and not indirectly, at the very least, attacking him. 
[/size]


Biden's Democrat opponents have plenty to attack him on.


""In December of 2013, Joe Biden flies to Beijing, China on Air Force Two. On the plane with him is his son, Hunter Biden," Schweizer stated. "Frankly, he gets criticized on the trip for going soft on Beijing. What we now know is that ten days after they returned from that trip, Hunter Biden's small investment firm announced a $1.5 billion private equity deal with the Chinese government."

"In February 2014, the Yanukovich government falls, the Russians move into Crimea, there is a crisis situation. Joe Biden becomes the point person on the Western response in Ukraine," Schweizer continued. "Literally two months after that event, Hunter Biden and Devin Archer are appointed to the board of directors of Burisma, which is a notoriously corrupt energy company."

"The problem is," he said. "Just like in China, in the case of Ukraine, he has no background that would warrant him getting this position. He has no background in energy policy, and he certainly has no background and Ukraine.""
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/04/schweizer_bidens_son_cashed_in_on_vp_being_point_man_for_obama_in_ukraine_and_china.html


If people call Trump corrupt because of his business dealings, they better have clean hands themselves if they intend to run for office.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 08, 2019, 03:53:53 am

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/04/schweizer_bidens_son_cashed_in_on_vp_being_point_man_for_obama_in_ukraine_and_china.html

If people call Trump corrupt because of his business dealings, they better have clean hands themselves if they intend to run for office.

If people quote news organisations to call people corrupt, they better have clean hands themselves if they want to be taken seriously.

https://politicalwire.com/2019/10/07/secret-far-right-site-linked-to-realclearpolitics/

More than anyone really wants to know about the Biden family:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-biden-jeopardize-his-fathers-campaign
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 10:22:15 am
If people quote news organisations to call people corrupt, they better have clean hands themselves if they want to be taken seriously.

https://politicalwire.com/2019/10/07/secret-far-right-site-linked-to-realclearpolitics/

More than anyone really wants to know about the Biden family:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-biden-jeopardize-his-fathers-campaign


The liberal press really doesn;t want Biden as president.  They prefer someone more radical and left like Warren.  So they won't protect him like they did Obama.  The more Democrats go after Trump regarding the Biden-Ukraine issue, the worse it will be for Biden. Not Trump.  Pure irony.  Frankly, Biden's toast.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 08, 2019, 10:24:56 am
The more Democrats go after Trump regarding the Biden-Ukraine issue, the worse it will be for Biden. Not Trump.  Pure irony.  Frankly, Biden's toast.
Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 10:26:42 am
Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
What sounds like wishful thinking?  That the press wants someone like Warren not Biden?  Or that Biden is toast?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 08, 2019, 10:33:52 am
What sounds like wishful thinking?  That the press wants someone like Warren not Biden?  Or that Biden is toast?

Why the deflection to Biden in a thread about what Trump may have done wrong? Biden isn't in office anywhere at the moment, Trump is. Even if Biden was found to be in bed with the mob and the drug cartels combined, would Trump's methods be acceptable, that's the question, isn't it? Who cares about Biden. If he's toast, he's toast, just another has-been politician, plenty of those to go round. You seem to be awfully concerned about him.

Is there anything that Trump would dobe that would meet with your disapproval, I'm just curious. Given your stated problems with those old terrible royal family ruling elites, I would have thought that you'd be a little displeased at Trump hiring only members of his family for jobs for which they don't seem obviously prepared. Should they have jobs in the administration just because they're related to the guy? And related to that, I'm surprised you're not more concerned with the unusually high turnover in senior personnel, isn't that a red flag to you? Not to mention that many top jobs remained unfilled, probably because no one with experience or knowledge wants to work for him. Doesn't this worry you? Why doesn't it?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 08, 2019, 10:41:48 am
Don't expect consistency from Alan. It is like the 40% of Republicans who deny Trump even mentioned Biden's name in the phone call, and the other 60% claiming that he did but there is nothing wrong with Trump asking Zelinsky to dig up dirt on Biden. It's tough to maintain a consistent message when Trump keeps undermining it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 08, 2019, 10:47:57 am
Trump got cold feet this morning and ordered Ambassador to the EU Sondlund not to testify. If the Zellinksy call was "perfect", what's the problem?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 10:49:07 am
Why the deflection to Biden in a thread about what Trump may have done wrong? Biden isn't in office anywhere at the moment, Trump is. Even if Biden was found to be in bed with the mob and the drug cartels combined, would Trump's methods be acceptable, that's the question, isn't it? Who cares about Biden. If he's toast, he's toast, just another has-been politician, plenty of those to go round. You seem to be awfully concerned about him.

Is there anything that Trump would be that would meet with your disapproval, I'm just curious. Given your stated problems with those old terrible royal family ruling elites, I would have thought that you'd be a little displeased at Trump hiring only members of his family for jobs for which they don't seem obviously prepared. Should they have jobs in the administration just because they're related to the guy? And related to that, I'm surprised you're not more concerned with the unusually high turnover in senior personnel, isn't that a red flag to you? Not to mention that many top jobs remained unfilled, probably because no one with experience or knowledge wants to work for him. Doesn't this worry you? Why doesn't it?
Trump does a lot of things I don't like.  But at the end of the day, when you vote, you have a choice between two people. Warren and Sanders are too liberal, practically Marxists.  Biden's toast because of his own incompetence.  Warren is also a fraud who got ahead in life using a false claim of minority status.  That's pretty despicable. So no one's hands are clean.  The country is doing pretty well under Trump.  Socialists will just screw it up worse.  So you hold your nose when you vote.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 08, 2019, 10:51:28 am
What sounds like wishful thinking?  That the press wants someone like Warren not Biden?  Or that Biden is toast?
No, that, as you stated, Biden will be worse off that Trump because of the impeachment inquiry. It's lunacy that you could believe that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 08, 2019, 10:52:24 am
  So you hold your nose when you vote.

Of course, but you're not voting you're discussing (*) on a forum.  Your vote will still count the same if you say here that Trump is a lying fool. But you're always just tooting his horn no matter how dumb it is.

(* not really - just mouthing slogans, but you get the idea)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 08, 2019, 11:38:07 am
Trump does a lot of things I don't like.  But at the end of the day, when you vote, you have a choice between two people... The country is doing pretty well under Trump.  Socialists will just screw it up worse.  So you hold your nose when you vote.
Apparently, given your defense of Trump, you are not really holding your nose. You are cheering him on, even in the face of the most despicable behavior.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 11:47:47 am
What I don;t understand is why you foreigners are so obsessed with Trump.  I mean I look at Boris Johnson, and go , "meh", seems a little weird and I wonder of he knows what he's doing.  But I don't obsess about him like my neighbors wife.  You don;t live here.  You don't pay taxes here?  You don't have to send your son off to American wars.  You don't vote here.  Just what is it that drives you to think about this guy all the time? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 11:51:04 am
...to hate him so much?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 08, 2019, 11:51:14 am
you foreigners

Let me guess - "go back where you came from".
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 08, 2019, 11:53:10 am
What I don;t understand is why you foreigners are so obsessed with Trump.  I mean I look at Boris Johnson, and go , "meh", seems a little weird and I wonder of he knows what he's doing.  But I don't obsess about him like my neighbors wife.  You don;t live here.  You don't pay taxes here?  You don't have to send your son off to American wars.  You don't vote here.  Just what is it that drives you to think about this guy all the time?
It is an international forum and the topic of the thread is Trump. What you see as obsession is really just staying on topic. Of course, given your unwavering support of Trump, you would see it as obsession. I'm sure if someone started a thread on Boris Johnson, you would see more posts about Boris Johnson.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 11:53:20 am
Let me guess - "go back where you came from".
Thanks for making my point.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 11:56:08 am
It is an international forum and the topic of the thread is Trump. What you see as obsession is really just staying on topic. I'm sure if someone started a thread on Boris Johnson, you would see more posts about Boris Johnson.
The Brexit thread says a lot about Johnson.  And I've contributed a lot there.  But I don't obsess about Johnson.  I don't hate him.  He's your problem, not mine. You guys obsess about Trump.  Hate him so much.  I'm curious.  Why is that? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 08, 2019, 12:12:46 pm
Maybe because Trump is a president like no other.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 08, 2019, 12:25:39 pm
Warren and Sanders are too liberal, practically Marxists.

It is very difficult to take your statements seriously.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 12:33:28 pm
Maybe because Trump is a president like no other.

He does suck all the oxygen out of the room.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 12:41:10 pm
It is very difficult to take your statements seriously.
Why is that?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 08, 2019, 01:36:38 pm
Warren and Sanders are too liberal, practically Marxists.   

It is very difficult to take your statements seriously.

Why is that?

Because your statements are hyperbolic in the extreme. I'd wager you haven't read The Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 04:37:10 pm
Because your statements are hyperbolic in the extreme. I'd wager you haven't read The Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital.
No I haven't.  But Sanders did.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 08, 2019, 05:03:58 pm
Because your statements are hyperbolic in the extreme. I'd wager you haven't read The Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital.

The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital or 50 Shades Of Gray. All equally off-putting.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 08, 2019, 05:44:23 pm
The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital or 50 Shades Of Gray. All equally off-putting.

Years ago, I made a video adaptation of that last one: https://vimeo.com/46547105 (https://vimeo.com/46547105). Let me apologize in advance.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 08, 2019, 06:24:27 pm
The Brexit thread says a lot about Johnson.  And I've contributed a lot there.  But I don't obsess about Johnson.  I don't hate him.  He's your problem, not mine. You guys obsess about Trump.  Hate him so much.  I'm curious.  Why is that?

Another attempt to turn him into a victim while he is the perpetrator.

Do I hate Trump? No.
Do I dislike him? Yes.

Why so?
- because I think that he is taking the world in the wrong direction in terms of philosophy. Although I believe that state should really promote equality of opportunities for all and help those in the need, I am also a firm believer in the power of free enterprise and open trade - be it under the control of the state to avoid the market becoming unbalanced if some entities become too powerful, be it biased towards sustainability. And Trump has been the worst offender against free trade for tens of years. Way worse than what you keep calling "socialist European countries"
- because I believe that debt is the worse kind of dependance, and his tax policy - focusing on reducing tax for the richest - is create debt, and the Reagan years have demonstrated clearly that this doesn't result in a more dynamic economy, it only result in the super rich getting hyper rich
- because, although I believe that private life should stay private, I believe that leaders should fare reasonably well in terms of moral authority, and Trump has been known to violate his word, participate in unfair business practices,... he is the most immoral guy in power in a democratic country in tens of years
- because I think that he is fundamentally racist (which is crazy when you understand what America is) and profoundly disrespects woman in any capacity except that of sex toy
- because of his retard positions about global warming that goes against the good will of a large majority of Americans who understand the reality of the threat
- because I believe that he is a true danger to the stability of the world
- because I believe that positions of power should be occupied by people with a deep understanding of philosophy and the nature of the world, which goes far being "the art of the deal". The "art of the deal" probably accounts for less than 0.01% of what I expect a president of the US to know,
- because I believe that positions of power should be occupied by people who have solved reasonably well the basic psychologic issues most of us manage to deal with during our teenage years
- because the kind of lowest common denominator approach he is making so common lowers the level of civilization, not just in the US, but worldwide
- because there is a truth and his constant lying just sucks
- because he is a threat to democracy because he is demonstrating on a daily basis his non respect for the law and the constitution of the US. How do you expect kids to behave when the boss is a crook?
- and, above all, because I like a certain idea of America that rhymes with excellence and progress... and that he is just the opposite of that

If you think that foreigners shouldn't comment on Trump, then make sure that the US becomes a small country with no international influence. Trump may get you that though...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 08, 2019, 07:09:28 pm
- because I believe that positions of power should be occupied by people who have solved reasonably well the basic psychologic issues most of us manage to deal with during our teenage years

So, are we to infer from this that you think Trump might be exaggerating when he says he is a "stable genius" who exhibits "great and unmatched wisdom?"
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 08, 2019, 07:24:30 pm
So, are we to infer from this that you think Trump might be exaggerating when he says he is a "stable genius" who exhibits "great and unmatched wisdom?"

He is indeed unmatched, but the "stable genius" should be modified to "unstable genie out of the bottle".
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 08, 2019, 07:50:29 pm
So, are we to infer from this that you think Trump might be exaggerating when he says he is a "stable genius" who exhibits "great and unmatched wisdom?"

Somewhat.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 08:29:43 pm
Another attempt to turn him into a victim while he is the perpetrator.

Do I hate Trump? No.
Do I dislike him? Yes.

Why so?
- because I think that he is taking the world in the wrong direction in terms of philosophy. Although I believe that state should really promote equality of opportunities for all and help those in the need, I am also a firm believer in the power of free enterprise and open trade - be it under the control of the state to avoid the market becoming unbalanced if some entities become too powerful, be it biased towards sustainability. And Trump has been the worst offender against free trade for tens of years. Way worse than what you keep calling "socialist European countries"
- because I believe that debt is the worse kind of dependance, and his tax policy - focusing on reducing tax for the richest - is create debt, and the Reagan years have demonstrated clearly that this doesn't result in a more dynamic economy, it only result in the super rich getting hyper rich
- because, although I believe that private life should stay private, I believe that leaders should fare reasonably well in terms of moral authority, and Trump has been known to violate his word, participate in unfair business practices,... he is the most immoral guy in power in a democratic country in tens of years
- because I think that he is fundamentally racist (which is crazy when you understand what America is) and profoundly disrespects woman in any capacity except that of sex toy
- because of his retard positions about global warming that goes against the good will of a large majority of Americans who understand the reality of the threat
- because I believe that he is a true danger to the stability of the world
- because I believe that positions of power should be occupied by people with a deep understanding of philosophy and the nature of the world, which goes far being "the art of the deal". The "art of the deal" probably accounts for less than 0.01% of what I expect a president of the US to know,
- because I believe that positions of power should be occupied by people who have solved reasonably well the basic psychologic issues most of us manage to deal with during our teenage years
- because the kind of lowest common denominator approach he is making so common lowers the level of civilization, not just in the US, but worldwide
- because there is a truth and his constant lying just sucks
- because he is a threat to democracy because he is demonstrating on a daily basis his non respect for the law and the constitution of the US. How do you expect kids to behave when the boss is a crook?
- and, above all, because I like a certain idea of America that rhymes with excellence and progress... and that he is just the opposite of that

If you think that foreigners shouldn't comment on Trump, then make sure that the US becomes a small country with no international influence. Trump may get you that though...

Cheers,
Bernard
I appreciate you taking the time to tell us what you think.  But often what you see is only in the eye of the beholder as others see other things, often very differently. 


Sure he curses and played around in private life.  A lot of men do especially those with influence and money.  Many presidents have been adulterers in the White House. However, there's not a hint of that with Trump.  He seems to be a very stable, influential, and a good family man.  His children seem that way as well.  He's not a racist and he only seems prejudicial to those that are not loyal to him or betray him.  People who call him anti-Semitic are acting bizarre. His daughter is a converted Jew and his son-in-law is an Orthodox Jew.    He neither drinks, drugs, or smokes and never has. 


Yes, he's tough in business and I had personal experience with him in business and have seen that.  I wouldn't do business with him because he squeezes a lot.  Most NYC real estate developers are exactly like him.  Nothing unusual.  But, we need tough presidents.  Being feckless does not serve the country well as some of our former presidents have acted.  You as a foreigner may not like it because your country may wind up on the short end of the stick.  But, it helps my country.  That's what we need in a president.  He's keeping us out of war and trying to move America from playing policeman to the world.  Many Americans agree with that philosophy.  You're just going to have to defend yourself more and not depend on Americae largesse and military protection the way you use too.  That means you have to spend more of your own money for defence.  We're tapped out over here. 


He uses presidential power and the perks of the oval office like most presidents have.  That doesn;t make it undemocratic or unconstitutional.  Like every president, he's checked by Congress and the courts.  I'm not aware of any court decision he didn't obey.  The idea that he should follow a "philosophy of the world", whatever that means, seems like pie-in-the-sky.  His job is to protect America and keep its greatness and wealth going, just what an American president is suppose to do.   He works for us, not you.  He's not a philosopher not do I want one in the oval office.  I would think your leaders try to do the same for your country and I respect them for it as well. 


His tariffs are a response to tariffs from your side.  If you want to increase trade and stop any harmful effect from tariffs, you should eliminate your own.  They were there before ours and higher than ours.  You live in a glass house.  Don;t throw stones.  Tariffs on China are deserved as well as they have huge tariffs on us as well as their stealing our intellectual property, and yours, may I add. If Trump is successful with his tariffs, your country and the whole world stand to gain when China stops their corrupt trade practices.  We're fighting a economic war with them to have them stop.  That's hurting us more than you.   Be patient and support  us.   You'll gain if we win.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 08, 2019, 09:31:03 pm
Fantasyland.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 10:18:06 pm
The liberal press really doesn;t want Biden as president.  They prefer someone more radical and left like Warren.  So they won't protect him like they did Obama.  The more Democrats go after Trump regarding the Biden-Ukraine issue, the worse it will be for Biden. Not Trump.  Pure irony.  Frankly, Biden's toast.
Biden drops to second after Warren.
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/8/20905274/elizabeth-warren-frontrunner-democratic-nomination-2020
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 08, 2019, 10:49:48 pm
Biden drops to second after Warren.
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/8/20905274/elizabeth-warren-frontrunner-democratic-nomination-2020

That’s because Biden keeps saying stupid stuff, making errors and basically looking like he can’t handle the job.   Some people (Democrats apparently) care about that kind of thing, oddly enough.  Can you really imagine a Biden / Trump debate?  It would be utterly incoherent.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 11:17:35 pm
That’s because Biden keeps saying stupid stuff, making errors and basically looking like he can’t handle the job.   Some people (Democrats apparently) care about that kind of thing, oddly enough.  Can you really imagine a Biden / Trump debate?  It would be utterly incoherent.
Don't you think Ukraine has something to do with it too?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 11:37:29 pm
"In the White House's letter to congressional Democrats, President Donald Trump's lawyers say the President and his administration won't cooperate in an ongoing impeachment inquiry, arguing the proceedings amount to an illegitimate effort to overturn the 2016 election results."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/wh-letter-to-pelosi/index.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 09, 2019, 01:15:00 am
Another attempt to turn him into a victim while he is the perpetrator.

Do I hate Trump? No.
Do I dislike him? Yes.

Why so?
- because I think that he is taking the world in the wrong direction in terms of philosophy. Although I believe that state should really promote equality of opportunities for all and help those in the need, I am also a firm believer in the power of free enterprise and open trade - be it under the control of the state to avoid the market becoming unbalanced if some entities become too powerful, be it biased towards sustainability. And Trump has been the worst offender against free trade for tens of years. Way worse than what you keep calling "socialist European countries"
- because I believe that debt is the worse kind of dependance, and his tax policy - focusing on reducing tax for the richest - is create debt, and the Reagan years have demonstrated clearly that this doesn't result in a more dynamic economy, it only result in the super rich getting hyper rich
- because, although I believe that private life should stay private, I believe that leaders should fare reasonably well in terms of moral authority, and Trump has been known to violate his word, participate in unfair business practices,... he is the most immoral guy in power in a democratic country in tens of years
- because I think that he is fundamentally racist (which is crazy when you understand what America is) and profoundly disrespects woman in any capacity except that of sex toy
- because of his retard positions about global warming that goes against the good will of a large majority of Americans who understand the reality of the threat
- because I believe that he is a true danger to the stability of the world
- because I believe that positions of power should be occupied by people with a deep understanding of philosophy and the nature of the world, which goes far being "the art of the deal". The "art of the deal" probably accounts for less than 0.01% of what I expect a president of the US to know,
- because I believe that positions of power should be occupied by people who have solved reasonably well the basic psychologic issues most of us manage to deal with during our teenage years
- because the kind of lowest common denominator approach he is making so common lowers the level of civilization, not just in the US, but worldwide
- because there is a truth and his constant lying just sucks
- because he is a threat to democracy because he is demonstrating on a daily basis his non respect for the law and the constitution of the US. How do you expect kids to behave when the boss is a crook?
- and, above all, because I like a certain idea of America that rhymes with excellence and progress... and that he is just the opposite of that

If you think that foreigners shouldn't comment on Trump, then make sure that the US becomes a small country with no international influence. Trump may get you that though...

Cheers,
Bernard

Yes, but apart from that he's a great guy :-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on October 09, 2019, 03:06:03 am
Obviously it would, since it would suggest that being (say) a Pakistani is somehow a negative characteristic. Likewise if I called someone a Jew, regardless of their race.

Interesting introduction, which confirms a previously-held suspicion.

Perhaps it was someone else who wrote:
Rod Liddle, a political commentator in the UK, generally spells with word with multiple "a"s, aptly mimicking the usual pronunciation of those who resort to it.

Oh, I read all sorts of things, from the Spectator each week to the Guardian each morning. I find not isolating myself in the bubble of those who agree with me is a Good Thing; it's what makes me the broadly-informed, well-rounded individual that I am. It doesn't mean I "follow" anyone, whether left- or right-wing (and Liddle was a member of your much-loved Labour party until he left because of its antisemitism).

Jeremy

(edited to make quotations clear)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 09, 2019, 03:38:53 am
Interesting introduction, which confirms a previously-held suspicion.

Perhaps it was someone else who wrote:
Rod Liddle, a political commentator in the UK, generally spells with word with multiple "a"s, aptly mimicking the usual pronunciation of those who resort to it.


Oh, I read all sorts of things, from the Spectator each week to the Guardian each morning. I find not isolating myself in the bubble of those who agree with me is a Good Thing; it's what makes me the broadly-informed, well-rounded individual that I am. It doesn't mean I "follow" anyone, whether left- or right-wing (and Liddle was a member of your much-loved Labour party until he left because of its antisemitism).

Jeremy

Where shall we begin - with your famous mind-reading skills, or your comical presumption to tell me something I don't know about Rod Liddle (hint: I was at school with Rod Liddle) ?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 09, 2019, 07:53:34 am
Yes, but apart from that he's a great guy :-)

You can find good in just about anybody. Some people are making it real hard to find those bits though.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 09, 2019, 10:33:47 am
Biden drops to second after Warren.
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/8/20905274/elizabeth-warren-frontrunner-democratic-nomination-2020

I feel like the real fantasy land is that Warren can actually win in a general election. 

She just released a statement vowing $1T for areas hit by industrial pollution.  I mean whats another trillion, right?, after $93T for the Green New Deal, $30T for Medicare-For-All, $6T to $14T for slavery and Native American repatriations, another $1.25T for wipe out college debt and give free college to anyone who wants to go (and to think my college debt is almost completely paid off; will I be able to get cold hard cash instead  ???). 

What have I missed? 

Universal Child Care for one, but I cant seem to find the overall cost for that program. 

But who knows, maybe she wont be on the ticket.  She just got caught in two new lies.  Apparently she voluntarily left her job when she was a teacher, which is well documented and she admitted to in interviews from 10 years ago, instead of the current claim that she was fired because she was pregnant.  Also, her mother's temperament about her going to college was not as bad as she made out, albeit this revelation is due to her highly inconsistent accounts from today and in previous decades. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 09, 2019, 10:37:27 am
I feel like the real fantasy land is that Warren can actually win in a general election. 

She just released a statement vowing $1T for areas hit by industrial pollution.  I mean whats another trillion, right?, after $93T for the Green New Deal, $30T for Medicare-For-All, $6T to $14T for slavery and Native American repatriations, another $1.25T for wipe out college debt and give free college to anyone who wants to go (and to think my college debt is almost completely paid off; will I be able to get cold hard cash instead  ???). 

What have I missed?
Debt financed trillion dollar tax cut for the rich by the Republicans?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 09, 2019, 10:41:42 am
I feel like the real fantasy land is that Warren can actually win in a general election. 

She just released a statement vowing $1T for areas hit by industrial pollution.  I mean whats another trillion, right?, after $93T for the Green New Deal, $30T for Medicare-For-All, $6T to $14T for slavery and Native American repatriations, another $1.25T for wipe out college debt and give free college to anyone who wants to go (and to think my college debt is almost completely paid off; will I be able to get cold hard cash instead  ???). 

What have I missed? 

Universal Child Care for one, but I cant seem to find the overall cost for that program.

It's cute how people are suddenly concerned with unreasonable spending again now that it's time to potentially elect a Democrat.  Oddly enough, I heard a lot of these concerns in 2008-2016 too.   Since then it's been relatively quiet.  Quite odd, isn't it? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 09, 2019, 10:44:29 am
Debt financed trillion dollar tax cut for the rich by the Republicans?

I am by no means rich, and I got a nice tax cut from that plan.  Getting a 20% discount on our taxable income certainly brought us down a tax bracket and saved a few thousand.  Also, lets not forget that Trump wanted to increase taxes on those earning their sole income from investments and hedge funds, which I agree with, but the Republicans refused to pass it.  I was quite disappointed with this, but I put the disappointment where it makes sense, with the congress not the executive. 

Last, Warren's plan would sky rocket the debt a lot faster then Trump's. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 09, 2019, 10:53:27 am
It's cute how people are suddenly concerned with unreasonable spending again now that it's time to potentially elect a Democrat.  Oddly enough, I heard a lot of these concerns in 2008-2016 too.   Since then it's been relatively quiet.  Quite odd, isn't it?

I do agree with this; I find it unsettling that the Republican spend money just like the Dems do, albeit in different areas. 

But lets look at this with some perspective.  The Republicans love spending money on defense and if you look at all four military sectors plus outside spending, this is about $7T over tens years, which is the time period of the above figures. 

Warrens total so far is $135T over ten years, in additional spending, or about 19 times higher.  If you took out the Green New Deal, her proposal would still cost 6 times more then what the Republicans like to spend on defense. 

Any way you look at it, her proposals would require an obscene amount of capital. 

Right now the race is between Trump and some fantasy Dem that the general electorate has no concept of since no candidate has yet emerged as the clear front runner.  So all of the current polling rest on this fantasy candidate running against Trump.  At some point in time though, a clear front runner will emerge and the reality of who is running will hit the general electorate.  If that candidate is Warren, when that reality hits, all of these extremely expensive policy proposals will be front and center in people's minds.  I just cant see it being a winning message.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 09, 2019, 01:09:17 pm
I am by no means rich, and I got a nice tax cut from that plan.  Getting a 20% discount on our taxable income certainly brought us down a tax bracket and saved a few thousand.
I am glad you got something out of it. Kind of like a credit card cash advance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-time-history-us-billionaires-paid-lower-tax-rate-than-working-class-last-year/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 09, 2019, 01:38:03 pm
I am glad you got something out of it. Kind of like a credit card cash advance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-time-history-us-billionaires-paid-lower-tax-rate-than-working-class-last-year/

Thank you for addressing my first point while completely ignoring my point that I was for increasing taxes on hedge funds, as was the president, but congress had a different idea.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 09, 2019, 02:00:58 pm
Debt financed trillion dollar tax cut for the rich by the Republicans?
Tax cuts are not expenditures.  Most liberals don;t understand that the government does not own or earn the tax money they collect.   The money never belonged to them.  So tax cuts are just leaving more money earned with those who earned the money in the first place.    Tax cut dollars belong to the taxpayer to begin with.

That's different than expenditures which is money spent from the earnings of the taxpayer.   So when Warren or others call for "free" this and "free" that, what they're really saying is we intend to have the government take more money that you earned and give it to others through income redistribution, the hallmark of Socialism, Communism and Marxism.   The program and cost for them that she intends to carry out would make the Russian Revolution look like nickel and dime stuff.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 09, 2019, 02:16:26 pm
It's cute how people are suddenly concerned with unreasonable spending again now that it's time to potentially elect a Democrat.  Oddly enough, I heard a lot of these concerns in 2008-2016 too.   Since then it's been relatively quiet.  Quite odd, isn't it? 
Both Republicans and Democrats have been buying the vote from the public by giving away more things than we can afford. So we have trillion dollar deficits and $22 trillion in debt.  We borrow from the Chinese and print up the rest. Of course, the blame ultimately lies with us because we refuse to give up any "free" stuff.  Of course, the huge new freebies the Democrat candidates for presidency plan to implement would make a Marxist blush. The amounts could fill the Pacific Ocean's  Mariana Trench.  So sure.  It's being discussed and should be.  Frankly, people should also ask why Trump is adding on so much debt.  He's not much better.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 09, 2019, 03:06:31 pm
Tax cuts are not expenditures.  Most liberals don;t understand that the government does not own or earn the tax money they collect.   The money never belonged to them.  So tax cuts are just leaving more money earned with those who earned the money in the first place.    Tax cut dollars belong to the taxpayer to begin with.

That's different than expenditures which is money spent from the earnings of the taxpayer.   So when Warren or others call for "free" this and "free" that, what they're really saying is we intend to have the government take more money that you earned and give it to others through income redistribution, the hallmark of Socialism, Communism and Marxism.   The program and cost for them that she intends to carry out would make the Russian Revolution look like nickel and dime stuff.

More third-rate ideological tripe. Taxes are how we pay for the common expenditures that we incur. There's nothing philosophical about it. You live in a society, you have joint responsibilities, you pay for them, that's all she wrote. All discussions about whether taxes are right or wrong are utter b*llshit. The real conversation is in deciding what you want to pay for collectively. Once you know that, you divvy up the costs. And anyway, when you pay taxes the money doesn't disappear into a black hole.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 09, 2019, 03:13:26 pm
I feel like the real fantasy land is that Warren can actually win in a general election. 

She just released a statement vowing $1T for areas hit by industrial pollution.  I mean whats another trillion, right?, after $93T for the Green New Deal, $30T for Medicare-For-All, $6T to $14T for slavery and Native American repatriations, another $1.25T for wipe out college debt and give free college to anyone who wants to go (and to think my college debt is almost completely paid off; will I be able to get cold hard cash instead  ??? ). 

What have I missed? 

Universal Child Care for one, but I cant seem to find the overall cost for that program. 

But who knows, maybe she wont be on the ticket.  She just got caught in two new lies.  Apparently she voluntarily left her job when she was a teacher, which is well documented and she admitted to in interviews from 10 years ago, instead of the current claim that she was fired because she was pregnant. Also, her mother's temperament about her going to college was not as bad as she made out, albeit this revelation is due to her highly inconsistent accounts from today and in previous decades. 


Of course, she's being protected by the liberal anti-Trump press, all the major media.  They're ignoring that part of the story for the most part amplifying how she got "fired" for being pregnant which is her lying again and the press swearing to it and playing up thi untruth for her benefit.  Here's her original statement she said years ago about the issue.   Nothing about getting fired.  She lied just as she lied about her Indian heritage. 


"[M]y first year post-graduation I worked in a public school system with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I didn't have the education courses, so I was on an "emergency certificate," it was called. I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, "I don't think this is going to work out for me." I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, "What am I going to do?""[/font][/size]
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/liberal-media-ignore-elizabeth-warrens-lie-about-pregnancy-related-firing (https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/liberal-media-ignore-elizabeth-warrens-lie-about-pregnancy-related-firing)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 09, 2019, 03:16:57 pm
Where's Hillary when we need her?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 09, 2019, 03:24:40 pm
More third-rate ideological tripe. Taxes are how we pay for the common expenditures that we incur. There's nothing philosophical about it. You live in a society, you have joint responsibilities, you pay for them, that's all she wrote. All discussions about whether taxes are right or wrong are utter b*llshit. The real conversation is in deciding what you want to pay for collectively. Once you know that, you divvy up the costs. And anyway, when you pay taxes the money doesn't disappear into a black hole.

I was making the point that tax cuts are not expenditures as the poster had implied.  He was wrong. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 09, 2019, 03:27:44 pm
I was making the point that tax cuts are not expenditures as the poster had implied.  He was wrong.

I didn't say tax cuts were expenditures. I said they were debt financed, meaning the government is borrowing money to make the tax cuts possible. Otherwise, Congress would have had to cut expenditures an equivalent amount, and Congress certainly isn't interested in that. I hope that you, like Joe, were the beneficiary of the tax cuts. Most Americans got little or nothing from them.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 09, 2019, 04:06:49 pm
I didn't say taxes were expenditures. I said they were debt financed, meaning we are borrowing the money to make the tax cuts possible. Otherwise, we would have had to cut expenditures an equivalent amount, and Congress certainly isn't interested in that.
Lower taxes are not debt financed.  Expenditures are debt financed.  We are borrowing to make the expenditures possible. Of course, if tax collection is less than spending, we have to borrow or print.  But it's spending that decides how much taxes you need.  The government pays interest on the deficit and debt, money spent.  Not on the tax money not collected.  Unless we get spending under control, we're in trouble.  There's not enough tax money available that won't hurt the economy with the programs the Democrats are proposing.  The Republicans are better, but not by much.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 09, 2019, 04:18:25 pm
Lower taxes are not debt financed.  Expenditures are debt financed.  We are borrowing to make the expenditures possible. Of course, if tax collection is less than spending, we have to borrow or print.  But it's spending that decides how much taxes you need.  The government pays interest on the deficit and debt, money spent.  Not on the tax money not collected.  Unless we get spending under control, we're in trouble.  There's not enough tax money available that won't hurt the economy with the programs the Democrats are proposing.  The Republicans are better, but not by much.
Expenditures are not debt financed. The difference between taxes collected and expenditures made are debt financed. When expenditures stay the same or are increased, lower taxes mean increased debt. It is a direct correlation. Tax collections are replaced by debt. The more taxes are cut, the more debt increases. Such deficit financing gave us two quarters of modest economic growth. Economists have referred to it as a "sugar high". Hardly worth the price of increasing the debt.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 09, 2019, 04:28:09 pm
Expenditures are not debt financed. The difference between taxes collected and expenditures made are debt financed. When expenditures stay the same or are increased, lower taxes mean increased debt. It is a direct correlation. Such deficit financing gave us two quarters of modest economic growth. Economists have referred to it as a "sugar high". Hardly worth the price of increasing the debt.

Yes, expenditures beyond tax collection is debt financed.  I said that: "Of course, if tax collection is less than spending, we have to borrow or print."  But it's expenditures that drive taxes and debt.  I agree with you that it's a sugar high.  It's like getting a new credit card.  It feels great until the end of the month when you get the statement.  :o


Deficit financing gets you growth.  But it's phoney.  Then when you start to pay it back, it hurts the economy.  The interest payment alone kill the budget.  It's just kicking the can down the road.  It's the same as credit card debt.  Pay now or pay later. It costs more later. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 09, 2019, 05:55:17 pm
Anyone interested in a factual analysis about the impact of the rate/distribution of taxes as a function of revenue on the economy and unbalanced accumulation of wealth should read Thomas Pickety.

Hint, he is a strong inspiration for Warren and Sanders.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 09, 2019, 06:19:12 pm
Anyone interested in a factual analysis about the impact of the rate/distribution of taxes as a function of revenue on the economy and unbalanced accumulation of wealth should read Thomas Pickety.

Hint, he is a strong inspiration for Warren and Sanders.

Cheers,
Bernard

I never heard of Piketty until now.  So I read up on him.  Piketty, born in France,  is a leftist who believes in the global redistribution of wealth to eliminate income inequality.  I'm not shocked if Sanders and Warren are inspired by him.  While he points out income inequality, he doesn;t seem to get to why it is bad.  In America, regardless of the difference, the poor have never been so rich.  So if the system is helping people out of poverty, at least in America (much of his research is in France), he doesn;t explain why income distribution is not good as it is. 


Of course, the socialists and Marxists are excited by his desire to have the government grab people's money and spread it around.  Also, his parents were Trotskyists but supposedly gave that up before he was borne.  I'm suspicious considering his philosophy.  He also says he was turned off to Socialism when he visited the Soviet Union and favors capitalism.  Again I'm suspicious.  If Sanders thinks highly of him, I suspect he's like him too.  If it quacks like a duck, walk like a duck, ...well you know the rest. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: degrub on October 09, 2019, 07:40:49 pm
Tax cuts are not expenditures.  Most liberals don;t understand that the government does not own or earn the tax money they collect.   The money never belonged to them.  So tax cuts are just leaving more money earned with those who earned the money in the first place.    Tax cut dollars belong to the taxpayer to begin with.

Yeah, that’s fine. But when you have to finance that cut by borrowing......
Good old supply side economics. Not.
Only thing that has done is increase the debt for the grandkids....
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 09, 2019, 07:46:23 pm
Anyone interested in a factual analysis about the impact of the rate/distribution of taxes as a function of revenue on the economy and unbalanced accumulation of wealth should read Thomas Pickety.

Hint, he is a strong inspiration for Warren and Sanders.

Cheers,
Bernard

It's been pointed out by more then just a hand full that Pinkety cherry picked his evidence for his theories. 

On top of that, those whom always rail against income inequality tend to never remove the outliners in the data (those at the very very top who make up .01% but significantly skew the means) and do not give age the proper weight when looking at income distributions.

For example, the differences in income between the average American and the average Hispanic American is pretty substantial, but the average age of Hispanic Americans is significantly lower, which plays a large role but is hugely ignored by progressives.  There are other aspects as well that greatly effect income inequality that are largely ignored. 

Not to mention, those whom follow his theories tend to support that life is a zero sum gain, meaning that wealth is limited and in order for one person to become wealthy, he/she must take wealth from someone else.  There is no evidence of this, and there is plenty of evidence that wealth is created (out of nothing sometimes), leading to near limitless amount of potential. 

Now this is not to say that excessive income inequality is a good thing; it certainly will cause extreme instability but I do not think we are there yet.  This over emphasis by Millennials and Gen Zs on income inequality is very likely due to the excessive college debt they hold that was brought onto them by the false premise that in order to be successful one needed to go to college.  This in course increased college admissions (demand) faster then supply could increase and, combined with easy to get loans, increased the prices significantly, increasing debt.  Last, and unfortunately, there is only a finite percentage of jobs in the real world that require college degrees, leaving many with jobs that pay too little to pay off the debt and whom have no real skills to work in areas that pay well but require different skill sets then what one would learn in a traditional college. 

Those in the trades are actually doing well, but the stigma of being a tradesman is still prevalent and many trades people are looked down upon by college educated individuals, which I find rather disheartening. 

(If you ever do any work in construction, you will find out that the building science that goes into construction is far more complicated that what it is given credit for.  I recently had a fairly in depth conversation with a client about insulating baring masonry walls and how you need to adjust methods after taking into account masonry materials and zone location.) 

But anyway, getting back to the whole income inequality issue, maybe we are approaching the edge of the cliff.  I was listening to Chris Hedges today talk about the USA in the age of Trump.  Now he is a progressive liberal whom (I think) leans more socialist then capitalist and is an obvious Trump hater, so I will certainly not agree with everything he says.  But he did make a good point that the Democrats, influenced most recently by the Clintons, abandoned the working class, and this lack of support for the working class is what is causing such a huge upheaval in the country.  I tend to agree with this.  Even Jordan Peterson, whom I am more in line with, agrees that excessive income inequality will cause eventual economic failure. 

Hedges also is of the theory that the next bubble to burst will be the college debt crisis, and solutions will be limited since we already used every (progressive) solution in our arsenal in the last recession.  I cant argue against either of these; when/if that bubble bursts, it appears like we will be giving the right wing austerity a try and get to actually test it out. 

My solutions will, it seems, be very different then yours though, at any stretch. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 09, 2019, 09:00:47 pm
...
For example, the differences in income between the average American and the average Hispanic American is pretty substantial, but the average age of Hispanic Americans is significantly lower, which plays a large role but is hugely ignored by progressives.  There are other aspects as well that greatly effect income inequality that are largely ignored. 

Not to mention, those whom follow his theories tend to support that life is a zero sum gain, meaning that wealth is limited and in order for one person to become wealthy, he/she must take wealth from someone else.  There is no evidence of this, and there is plenty of evidence that wealth is created (out of nothing sometimes), leading to near limitless amount of potential. 

Now this is not to say that excessive income inequality is a good thing; it certainly will cause extreme instability but I do not think we are there yet...

WE're not a banana republic where 5% of the population is rich and the other 95% is poor.  We have a huge middle class where people do pretty well.  Even poorer people aren't poor by poor standards in other parts of the world.  I also agree with you that it isn't a zero sum game.A rising tide does lift all boats.  The "poor" are doing much better with more employment and more pay while there are very rich people at the same time.  They're not in opposition.  Rather if the rich are doing well, so is the rest of the country.  The country is stable today. 

I'd rather not call it income inequality in any case.  Wealth inequality fits better.  Most rich money comes from investments that create jobs and provide wealth for many people.  Sure, Elon Musk is a billionaire.  But look at all the jobs he created with his entrepreneurial enterprise.  And he's helping the climate.  :)  There are thousands of his people employed making good money.  My wife and I visited Thomas Edison house and plant in West Orange, New Jersey last weekend and two weeks ago.  This guy worked 20 hours a day.  He never slept; always working on his inventions and business .  He was a millionaire at a very young age,  Meanwhile he employed 10,000 people.  Who would deny his wealth?  Certainly his employees wouldn't. 

This whole inequality argument is a spiritual malady.  It goes to the heart of the commandment that requires us not to covet our neighbor's property because that leads to theft, another thing we're suppose to avoid.  Of course, the government is used to do the redistribution for us.  But all this eats at the heart of a society and leads to conflicts among its citizens, each side claiming the high ground demanding more for its side.  And it's all not necessary since it isn't a zero sum game.  The better people do, the better there's more to go around.  At least in America.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 09, 2019, 11:23:57 pm
It's been pointed out by more then just a hand full that Pinkety cherry picked his evidence for his theories. 

On top of that, those whom always rail against income inequality tend to never remove the outliners in the data (those at the very very top who make up .01% but significantly skew the means) and do not give age the proper weight when looking at income distributions.

For example, the differences in income between the average American and the average Hispanic American is pretty substantial, but the average age of Hispanic Americans is significantly lower, which plays a large role but is hugely ignored by progressives.  There are other aspects as well that greatly effect income inequality that are largely ignored. 

Not to mention, those whom follow his theories tend to support that life is a zero sum gain, meaning that wealth is limited and in order for one person to become wealthy, he/she must take wealth from someone else.  There is no evidence of this, and there is plenty of evidence that wealth is created (out of nothing sometimes), leading to near limitless amount of potential. 

Now this is not to say that excessive income inequality is a good thing; it certainly will cause extreme instability but I do not think we are there yet.  This over emphasis by Millennials and Gen Zs on income inequality is very likely due to the excessive college debt they hold that was brought onto them by the false premise that in order to be successful one needed to go to college.  This in course increased college admissions (demand) faster then supply could increase and, combined with easy to get loans, increased the prices significantly, increasing debt.  Last, and unfortunately, there is only a finite percentage of jobs in the real world that require college degrees, leaving many with jobs that pay too little to pay off the debt and whom have no real skills to work in areas that pay well but require different skill sets then what one would learn in a traditional college. 

Those in the trades are actually doing well, but the stigma of being a tradesman is still prevalent and many trades people are looked down upon by college educated individuals, which I find rather disheartening. 

(If you ever do any work in construction, you will find out that the building science that goes into construction is far more complicated that what it is given credit for.  I recently had a fairly in depth conversation with a client about insulating baring masonry walls and how you need to adjust methods after taking into account masonry materials and zone location.) 

But anyway, getting back to the whole income inequality issue, maybe we are approaching the edge of the cliff.  I was listening to Chris Hedges today talk about the USA in the age of Trump.  Now he is a progressive liberal whom (I think) leans more socialist then capitalist and is an obvious Trump hater, so I will certainly not agree with everything he says.  But he did make a good point that the Democrats, influenced most recently by the Clintons, abandoned the working class, and this lack of support for the working class is what is causing such a huge upheaval in the country.  I tend to agree with this.  Even Jordan Peterson, whom I am more in line with, agrees that excessive income inequality will cause eventual economic failure. 

Hedges also is of the theory that the next bubble to burst will be the college debt crisis, and solutions will be limited since we already used every (progressive) solution in our arsenal in the last recession.  I cant argue against either of these; when/if that bubble bursts, it appears like we will be giving the right wing austerity a try and get to actually test it out. 

My solutions will, it seems, be very different then yours though, at any stretch.

His new book solves many of the shortcomings of the previous one.

Inequality of income and, more than that, of family capital through inheritance is obviously a major obstacle against equality of chances in a fair society.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 09, 2019, 11:42:57 pm
His new book solves many of the shortcomings of the previous one.

Inequality of income and, more than that, of family capital through inheritance is obviously a major obstacle against equality of chances in a fair society.

Cheers,
Bernard

Most of the major entrepreneurial businesses including Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft,and so many others happened in America mostly started by normal people who were not rich.  Jeff Bezos who started Amazon and is now the richest man in the world, had very humble beginnings.  His parents divorced when he was four and he worked for McDonalds hamburger store as a short-order cook.   These businesses  didn't happen in Europe which because of it's socialist and other practices regular people can;t do these things.  Your so-called equality of income doesn;t seem to help you too much there. 

I think I'll wait for his third book.  His second is just more of the same nonsense.  Unfortunately, we have Sanders and Warren getting inspiration from him.  Good grief.
(http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0235.gif) (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/[url=http://www.mysmiley.net)](http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0235.gif) (http://www.mysmiley.net)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 10, 2019, 12:47:08 am
Most of the major entrepreneurial businesses including Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft,and so many others happened in America mostly started by normal people who were not rich.  Jeff Bezos who started Amazon and is now the richest man in the world, had very humble beginnings.  His parents divorced when he was four and he worked for McDonalds hamburger store as a short-order cook.   These businesses  didn't happen in Europe which because of it's socialist and other practices regular people can;t do these things.  Your so-called equality of income doesn;t seem to help you too much there. 

It is still much easier to start a company in USA than in most European countries (correspondingly, not only to start them but also to dissolve them). The red tape and accounting hurdles are much worse in Europe than in USA or Canada. Although, now there are several small software or photography companies based in various European countries with excellent and innovative products.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 10, 2019, 05:31:30 am
It is still much easier to start a company in USA than in most European countries (correspondingly, not only to start them but also to dissolve them). The red tape and accounting hurdles are much worse in Europe than in USA or Canada. Although, now there are several small software or photography companies based in various European countries with excellent and innovative products.

Sorry, guys, that's not a good thing, neither is it quite accurate.

I started my thing in Scotland with only six hundred quid.

Red tape? Back in '66 there existed a concept known as purchase tax. In order to get an exemption certificate, which permitted the purchase of such things as film without high levels of tax, you were interviewed and depending on the result of that chat, allowed or denied such a certificate. One of the questions I was asked was how much film was I going to be using in the coming year. How the hell did I know? I didn't even know if I could stay afloat for more than six months! I told them the truth, that I didn't know. I guess they thought poor schmuck, he'll be on the dole in a few weeks, let him have his permit. That said, they did make regular checks to the studio where I had to account for every single roll of film that I bought from the wholesalers, and where it was used. After a couple of years the visits stopped.

That was not really unnecessary red tape: that was to make sure I was not using a business as a cover for buying film tax-free at wholesale and selling it off in a little black market venture without paying the tax that should have been applied.

It was easy because I was only doing photography. And that was a mistake, in my opinion. I don't think anyone should be allowed to start a business without having first to prove their competence in the field in which they intend to operate. Only photography; but what about the wedding, memories of which you could ruin forever with dud snaps? No amount of business insurance brings that couple that day back one more time.

I would go so far as to suggest that this:

"It is still much easier to start a company in USA than in most European countries (correspondingly, not only to start them but also to dissolve them)."

is actually a very bad thing for everyone other than the shark.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 10, 2019, 05:57:37 am
Most of the major entrepreneurial businesses including Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft,and so many others happened in America mostly started by normal people who were not rich.  Jeff Bezos who started Amazon and is now the richest man in the world, had very humble beginnings.  His parents divorced when he was four and he worked for McDonalds hamburger store as a short-order cook.   These businesses  didn't happen in Europe which because of it's socialist and other practices regular people can;t do these things.  Your so-called equality of income doesn;t seem to help you too much there. 

Yes, indeed. I agree that Europe needs to lower the barriers to entrepreneurship... but this is a totally different topic.

Pickety has never said that it's impossible to be successful without rich parent. He is saying that it is so much tougher that most people not only don't manage to be successful, they don't manage to live a decent life.

I would personally not be deterred the least bit in my entrepreneurship if I were told that my assets can't go above 30 million US$.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 10, 2019, 06:02:46 am
Rob, I don't know about UK, but based on my own experience, the cost and procedures to start a company (solo proprietorship or corporation) were much lower and easier in Canada than in Netherlands, Germany, Czech Republic and Slovakia. OTOH, I was told that starting and operating a business in Poland is much easier than in the surrounding states.

In Canada, it's relatively easy to start a business. You need to apply for a business number (in person or by mail), open a bank account, and print business cards. To dissolve it, you close the bank account and submit the outstanding tax return(s). The cost to register a basic unincorporated company is under $100, and a corporation can be formed for $500-$1000.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 10, 2019, 07:27:52 am
His new book solves many of the shortcomings of the previous one.

Inequality of income and, more than that, of family capital through inheritance is obviously a major obstacle against equality of chances in a fair society.

Cheers,
Bernard

Ever hear the phrase, "Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations?”

Fact is most wealthy people are wealthy of their own creation, and most inherited wealth is squandered by those who inherited it.  Additionally, since wealth is created, not stolen, I see very little reason why inheritance is an obstacle against equality of opportunity.  It isn't! 

What's an obsticle?  Setting up a system where the only way to advance in society is when you suck up to the ruling elite, like every other system besides capitalism.  This study has actually be done, and they found the closer a system is to capitialism, the easier it is for the average person to advance.  The closer it is to a socialist system (or feudal system) the more likely the only way to advance was through cronyism.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 10, 2019, 07:36:26 am
But anyway, getting back to impeaching Trump and the whole Ukraine thing, it just seems that Joe Biden cant get a break here. 

Here is a recent NY Times article, "What Hunter Biden Did Was Legal — And That’s the Problem." (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/opinion/what-hunter-biden-did-was-legal-and-thats-the-problem.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 10, 2019, 07:46:13 am
So Trump's moves to deregulate and lower business taxes and those of wealthy people,  helps American business and its economy  and makes America more competitive in the world.  It's entrepreneurial system it's second to none.   Sanders and Warren would destroy it as would Picketty.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 10, 2019, 07:48:21 am
USA!!! USA!!!!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 10, 2019, 07:53:37 am
So Trump's moves to deregulate and lower business taxes and those of wealthy people,  helps American business and its economy  and makes America more competitive in the world.  It's entrepreneurial system it's second to none.   Sanders and Warren would destroy it as would Picketty.

I don't think anybody could inflict as much damage as Trump - to USA and worldwide.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 10, 2019, 08:07:10 am
But anyway, getting back to impeaching Trump and the whole Ukraine thing, it just seems that Joe Biden cant get a break here. 

Here is a recent NY Times article, "What Hunter Biden Did Was Legal — And That’s the Problem." (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/opinion/what-hunter-biden-did-was-legal-and-thats-the-problem.html)
The Times wants Warren as president not Biden.  He's toast.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 10, 2019, 08:41:58 am
So Trump's moves to deregulate and lower business taxes and those of wealthy people,  helps American business and its economy  and makes America more competitive in the world.  It's entrepreneurial system it's second to none.   Sanders and Warren would destroy it as would Picketty.

Are you seriously suggesting that American enterprise has been held back in the last 20-30 years? What planet do you wake up on every day?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 10, 2019, 08:58:34 am
Are you seriously suggesting that American enterprise has been held back in the last 20-30 years? What planet do you wake up on every day?

A world where Bill Gates had no help from his parents, I suppose. I wonder what colour the sky is ?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 10, 2019, 09:50:19 am
Are you seriously suggesting that American enterprise has been held back in the last 20-30 years? What planet do you wake up on every day?
Yes.  America was held back. There was less investment in America by Americans as well as foreigners due to our high corporate income tax.  It was higher the most other countries in the world.  Since Trump changed tax legislation with Congress, corporate taxes are now lower and there's more investment in America business.
https://taxfoundation.org/lower-us-corporate-income-tax-rate-competitive/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 10, 2019, 09:55:41 am
A world where Bill Gates had no help from his parents, I suppose. I wonder what colour the sky is ?
Well, many kids unfortunately don't have parents to rear them or even know who their father is.  Maybe we should take everyone's parents away to even it up.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 10, 2019, 10:12:16 am
A world where Bill Gates had no help from his parents, I suppose. I wonder what colour the sky is ?

For every Bill Gates, there is one Steve Jobs.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 10, 2019, 10:28:17 am
The two goons Rudy Guiliani was working with on the Ukraine deal were arrested at Dulles airport today trying to flee the country. They are being indicted for making illegal campaign contributions to Trump and to an unnamed Congressman for the purpose of facilitating the removal of then US Ambassador to Ukraine Yovanovitch. She will be testifying before the House Intelligence Committee tomorrow unless the State Department orders her not to testify as they did with EU Ambassador Sondlund on Monday.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/giulianis-ukraine-henchmen-lev-parnas-and-igor-fruman-arrested-on-campaign-finance-charge
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 10, 2019, 11:04:08 am
For every Bill Gates, there is one Steve Jobs.
Bill Gates did have well-to-do parents.  But a lot of people do and don't become captains of industry.  Look at Paris Hilton. :)

Gates was also a genius getting a 1590 out of 1600 on the SAT's.  I guess the 10 missing points were do to a hanging chad. :)  But he worked his butt off.  I don;t know Jobs background.  But being a Lebanese did not hold him back in America.  America welcomes all comers who want to do well.  South African born American Elon Musk of Tesla fame is certainly welcome here.  He too had a rough childhood and made well coming through Canada as well.   Larry Page and Sergey Brin (originally from Russia) of Google fame had supportive parents but not rich.  I think being rich is overplayed.  Having a supportive family is better and much more important.  You also have to have the personality to be in your own business.  As mentioned earlier by Joe, children of rich people often just spend all the money and have little interest in their family's business.  In the end, all money eventually has to be spent into the economy which benefits everyone including the poor as they now have jobs.  You can't eat currency.  It's only of value to you when you spend it.  That provides jobs for others and taxes to the government.  They also give a lot to charity opening up hospital wings etc.  Look what Bill Gates is doing with his wealth.  They can't take it with them. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 10, 2019, 11:15:24 am
For an alternative to the cheerleading, this is a start:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/12/phone-state-private-sector-products-investment-innovation

https://hbr.org/2013/03/taxpayers-helped-apple-but-app
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 10, 2019, 11:33:43 am
For an alternative to the cheerleading, this is a start:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/12/phone-state-private-sector-products-investment-innovation

https://hbr.org/2013/03/taxpayers-helped-apple-but-app
What're the articles about and what's your point?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 10, 2019, 11:36:40 am
What're the articles about and what's your point?

For a man who became an expert on the work of Thomas Piketty overnight I don't think a couple of magazine articles will tax you greatly?  But, in short, they are about the contribution of government money (you know - taxes) to entrepreneurs.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 10, 2019, 12:00:24 pm
For a man who became an expert on the work of Thomas Piketty overnight I don't think a couple of magazine articles will tax you greatly?  But, in short, they are about the contribution of government money (you know - taxes) to entrepreneurs.
I did read it.  But didn;t want to comment because I didn't know what point you were trying to make.  Also, the rules here are you're suppose give a summary when you post a link to an article.  It's also a courtesy to other forum members because people don't always have time to read everything that's linked here.  Also, it would be helpful to let us know why you think the article is important to read so we may object or support your point. 

Yes, a lot of government money is used for research and development of products because government buys a lot of stuff.  What's your point?   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 10, 2019, 12:08:21 pm
Meanwhile, back to the original topic, this from Fox News:

Just over half of voters want President Trump impeached and removed from office, according to a Fox News Poll released Wednesday.

A new high of 51 percent wants Trump impeached and removed from office, another 4 percent want him impeached but not removed, and 40 percent oppose impeachment altogether. In July, 42 percent favored impeachment and removal, while 5 percent said impeach but don’t remove him, and 45 percent opposed impeachment.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-record-support-for-trump-impeachment
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on October 10, 2019, 12:32:55 pm
USA!!! USA!!!!

Jeremy, I have told you before. If you can't contribute something useful, don't contribute anything at all.

For an alternative to the cheerleading, this is a start:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/12/phone-state-private-sector-products-investment-innovation
https://hbr.org/2013/03/taxpayers-helped-apple-but-app

And I also made it plain quite a while ago that if you post external links, you must indicate why you are posting them and what of interest or relevance lies at the other end.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 10, 2019, 01:59:43 pm
I did read it.  But didn;t want to comment because I didn't know what point you were trying to make.
If you read the the articles, the point he was trying to make is obvious.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 10, 2019, 03:46:44 pm
If you read the the articles, the point he was trying to make is obvious.
I don't agree with his point.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 11, 2019, 08:55:45 am
Rob, I don't know about UK, but based on my own experience, the cost and procedures to start a company (solo proprietorship or corporation) were much lower and easier in Canada than in Netherlands, Germany, Czech Republic and Slovakia. OTOH, I was told that starting and operating a business in Poland is much easier than in the surrounding states.

In Canada, it's relatively easy to start a business. You need to apply for a business number (in person or by mail), open a bank account, and print business cards. To dissolve it, you close the bank account and submit the outstanding tax return(s). The cost to register a basic unincorporated company is under $100, and a corporation can be formed for $500-$1000.
I'm staying out of the political discussions but I'll just add my experience.  When I retired from my day job in pharma, I set up a consulting practice.  You can get a business ID from IRS for free and I only had to file papers with the State of Maryland for my Limited Liability Corporation (LLC).  IIRC that cost $200 or so.  I had to file a yearly corporate tax statement with the State that outlined equipment and supply purchases and depreciation and disposal of equipment.  that took all of ten minutes to do.  I did not have to file separate tax returns for the LLC, it all went into the personal tax filing for both the US and Maryland.  Everything was pretty easy and expenses on a yearly basis, minimal.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 11, 2019, 09:05:20 am
I don't agree with his point.  :)

That doesn't work - I'm surprised(*) Jeremy hasn't pulled you up for contributing nothing useful :-) 

But really - it's not enough to say "I don't agree" without presenting some counter argument. Likewise it's not enough to say you don't agree with Piketty or Marx or whoever on the basis of your one-inch thoughts not coinciding with a precis of their work that you read on a cereal box somewhere.

(*) Not really
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 11, 2019, 09:12:48 am
I don't agree with his point.  :)
I do not know how you can disagree with his point when you said you did not know what his point was.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 11, 2019, 09:36:28 am
I'm staying out of the political discussions but I'll just add my experience.  When I retired from my day job in pharma, I set up a consulting practice.  You can get a business ID from IRS for free and I only had to file papers with the State of Maryland for my Limited Liability Corporation (LLC).  IIRC that cost $200 or so.  I had to file a yearly corporate tax statement with the State that outlined equipment and supply purchases and depreciation and disposal of equipment.  that took all of ten minutes to do.  I did not have to file separate tax returns for the LLC, it all went into the personal tax filing for both the US and Maryland.  Everything was pretty easy and expenses on a yearly basis, minimal.

It should be pointed out that although the LLC status is a federal status, it is up to the states on how one can and how it will cost to register as one.  In PA, like in Maryland, it is very easy.  I think I paid a one time $125 filing fee.  Also, since I run my LLC like a sole proprietor, it is operated like a pass through business with no need for payroll (for myself) or the need to pay corporate taxes. 

Other states make it harder and more expensive. 

Last, unless you are operating your LLC like a corporation and/or maintain separate bank accounts where you only us the business bank account, and any credit cards, for business purchases only, your business's separation from your person would be easy to argue against in court of you were sued.   So, if you opened an LLC to keep your business assets separate from your personal assets, for liability reasons, make sure you do not use your business account to cover personal expenses. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 11, 2019, 02:38:38 pm

Last, unless you are operating your LLC like a corporation and/or maintain separate bank accounts where you only us the business bank account, and any credit cards, for business purchases only, your business's separation from your person would be easy to argue against in court of you were sued.   So, if you opened an LLC to keep your business assets separate from your personal assets, for liability reasons, make sure you do not use your business account to cover personal expenses.
quite right.  That's exactly what I did and it worked fine for about five years when most of my clients went their own way.  At that point, I was happy to just go into retirement and let the LLC fade into obscurity.  I still get occasional press calls because of the pharma experience but that doesn't pay very much!!! ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 11, 2019, 03:35:30 pm
For a man who became an expert on the work of Thomas Piketty overnight I don't think a couple of magazine articles will tax you greatly?  But, in short, they are about the contribution of government money (you know - taxes) to entrepreneurs.
Well, I wouldn't want the administrator to make you or me sit in the corner for not making a point. We might actually have to sit together and discuss things in a friendly way. :) 

So my point is that these articles are just more excuses why we should redistribute wealth.  After all, the writers say, if government made these companies, then their wealth belongs to the people who funded the government.  Just more Marxist and Socialist nonsense.  Regardless of what the government did or didn't do, it's private investment capital that's taking the risk.  The investors using their personal savings are the ones who stand to lose if the company doesn't work out.  Remember, there are competitors that they have to go against as well. There are no guarantees they're going to make money.   Why would I invest in a new company if the government is just going to take it's profits?  It's bad enough they hit me with capital gains taxes.  But these writers really want to take it all. Also, it's not like a company has a blank slate.  Look at the companies that went bust after Obama gave $800 million to them.  By the way, it was Obama who made the point that it was the government that made companies and rich people.  Of course, he's a Marxist so would say something like that.  Even companies like Lockheed who make probably all their money from government being in the defense industry are taking risks.  Many defense companies have gone out of business and the investors were hurt.  The capital gains taxes (around 15% now) that the government takes is more than enough "compensation" for any assistance that someone thinks the government gave them.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 11, 2019, 04:00:18 pm
  Regardless of what the government did or didn't do, it's private investment capital that's taking the risk. 

You can't have been reading properly - it was the governmnet that took the risk in funding the startups' technology.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 11, 2019, 05:51:43 pm
quite right.  That's exactly what I did and it worked fine for about five years when most of my clients went their own way.  At that point, I was happy to just go into retirement and let the LLC fade into obscurity.  I still get occasional press calls because of the pharma experience but that doesn't pay very much!!! ;D

I am sure you knew that, but thought it would be good to point it out for others. 

And it is, somewhat, reassuring to know press rates suck in other lines of work beside just photography. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 11, 2019, 05:57:25 pm
Ah, yes, the granola thread.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 11, 2019, 06:12:42 pm
You can't have been reading properly - it was the governmnet that took the risk in funding the startups' technology.
I don't know anything about startups. No one ever helped me when I started my business.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 12, 2019, 09:10:12 am
I don't know anything about startups. No one ever helped me when I started my business.
I think Jeremy was speaking about all the government funded research (DARPA, National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Heath, Department of Agriculture) that many tech startups took advantage of.  Certainly in my area of expertise, key discoveries by federally funded university researchers led to the creation of the biotechnology industry and the development of a lot of novel pharmaceuticals.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 13, 2019, 11:35:55 am
I think Jeremy was speaking about all the government funded research (DARPA, National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Heath, Department of Agriculture) that many tech startups took advantage of.  Certainly in my area of expertise, key discoveries by federally funded university researchers led to the creation of the biotechnology industry and the development of a lot of novel pharmaceuticals.

From the first paragraph of the HBR article I linked to:

"Many of the revolutionary technologies that make the iPhone and other products and services “smart” were funded by the U.S. government. Take, for instance, the Internet, GPS, touchscreen display, as well as the latest voice-activated personal assistant, Siri. And Apple did not just benefit from government-funded research activities. It also received its early stage finance from the U.S. government’s Small Business Investment Company program. Venture capitalists entered only after government funding had gotten the company to the critical proof of concept."

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 13, 2019, 12:42:29 pm
"I'm from the government and we're here to help"  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 13, 2019, 01:27:51 pm
That's what also Trump said:

Quote
“I want to add that I’m here to help you folks do well, and you’re doing well right now,” he said to a room that included Apple CEO Tim Cook, Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos and Alphabet CEO Larry Page.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdrange/2016/12/14/donald-trump-to-techs-leaders-im-on-your-side/#57877aec591f
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 13, 2019, 07:40:18 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwP76fNWYAAYW45.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 13, 2019, 07:46:04 pm
Latest from Willie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssVO5qnyQss
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 13, 2019, 10:34:35 pm
From the first paragraph of the HBR article I linked to:

"Many of the revolutionary technologies that make the iPhone and other products and services “smart” were funded by the U.S. government. Take, for instance, the Internet, GPS, touchscreen display, as well as the latest voice-activated personal assistant, Siri. And Apple did not just benefit from government-funded research activities. It also received its early stage finance from the U.S. government’s Small Business Investment Company program. Venture capitalists entered only after government funding had gotten the company to the critical proof of concept."


It's true that the government also buys things from companies.  So you could argue that a highway contractor who got a job from the Feds to re-pave US Route 66 and got his business started that way was government funded.  But what really happened is the company was privately funded and got work from the government.  The investors were still taking a risk with their investments.  There's no guarantee that the company would survive in a competitive business world.   

But I don't know what you're suggesting in any case. Should government seize the company after it becomes successful?  The thing to remember is that when the company starts making profits, they'll be taxed by the government so it will get some of its success in the end.  So will the public because they will use those government taxes for public use.  Employees of those companies also pay taxes to the Feds as do the stockholders with dividends and when they sell their stock pay capital gains tax.  If the Feds were to seize the companie for itself, you wind up like Cuba or the USSR. 

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 14, 2019, 01:29:29 am
But I don't know what you're suggesting in any case.

That Apple et al should pay their taxes.

Quote
If the Feds were to seize the companie for itself, you wind up like Cuba or the USSR.

Unlikely. You haven't got the music.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 14, 2019, 01:40:57 am
That Apple et al should pay their taxes.

Unlikely. You haven't got the music.
We got jazz, swing, country and rock n roll. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 17, 2019, 03:51:38 pm
Senate leader Republican Mitch McConnell calls House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bluff about impeachment and Pelosi blinks.
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/17/20919037/nancy-pelosi-mitch-mcconnell-impeachment-timeline-donald-trump
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 17, 2019, 04:27:13 pm
Senate leader Republican Mitch McConnell calls House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bluff about impeachment and Pelosi blinks.
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/17/20919037/nancy-pelosi-mitch-mcconnell-impeachment-timeline-donald-trump
How did McConnell call Pelosi’s bluff and how did she blink?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 17, 2019, 07:47:41 pm
Oh look.  Corruption (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-has-awarded-next-years-g-7-summit-of-world-leaders-to-his-miami-area-resort-the-white-house-said/2019/10/17/221b32d6-ef52-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html).  But hey, look over there.  Hunter Biden. HUNTER BIDEN!

 ::). This alone is impeachable. And illegal.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 17, 2019, 08:06:30 pm
Oh look.  Corruption (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-has-awarded-next-years-g-7-summit-of-world-leaders-to-his-miami-area-resort-the-white-house-said/2019/10/17/221b32d6-ef52-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html).  But hey, look over there.  Hunter Biden. HUNTER BIDEN!

 ::). This alone is impeachable. And illegal.

Good luck with this one; I guess sometimes you just need to see what sticks. 

Personally I dont see how this rises to the level of gifts, especially if Trump is sponsoring the summit and not making any money.  (I have no idea if this is the case; I could only read the headline and not the full article.)  And if the property did take in revenue for this event, it would be money paid for services provided, which is not exactly a gift.  He would need to make a profit beyond what is normal. 

Anyway, personally you may be able to get him on the Emoluments Clause with the democrats.  Putting Warren on the ticket would be the best gift of his career. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 17, 2019, 09:02:17 pm
Good luck with this one; I guess sometimes you just need to see what sticks. 

Personally I dont see how this rises to the level of gifts, especially if Trump is sponsoring the summit and not making any money.  (I have no idea if this is the case; I could only read the headline and not the full article.)  And if the property did take in revenue for this event, it would be money paid for services provided, which is not exactly a gift.  He would need to make a profit beyond what is normal. 


Really?  You don't see the complete and total self-dealing and conflict of interest here?   Listen.  If we come back and find that Donald Trump, in his generosity and magnanimity donated the rooms, the space, and the catering then that's great.  I find that... doubtful.

Then there's the issue of a complete and utter lack of self-awareness this shows, but that's par for the course for a man who wants to build government policy around investigating a rival's son, but happily steers business to one of his own kids directly using the office, and places his other kids in positions where they're so conflicted that a blind man could see it.   

If you're ok with that, I don't know what to tell you.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 17, 2019, 09:18:07 pm
Really?  You don't see the complete and total self-dealing and conflict of interest here?   Listen.  If we come back and find that Donald Trump, in his generosity and magnanimity donated the rooms, the space, and the catering then that's great.  I find that... doubtful.

Then there's the issue of a complete and utter lack of self-awareness this shows, but that's par for the course for a man who wants to build government policy around investigating a rival's son, but happily steers business to one of his own kids directly using the office, and places his other kids in positions where they're so conflicted that a blind man could see it.   

If you're ok with that, I don't know what to tell you.

I'll give you that.  It is a head scratcher that he decided to do this considering all of the other things going on.  Seems he likes to invite criticism. 

But anyway, getting back to the point.  The Republicans in the Senate will never convict Trump, unless something more damning comes out, and it is looking more and more that the Dems in the house don't even have the numbers to actually pass a formal vote.  They tried three times before and failed to pass it, so I doubt a fourth time will be the charm. 

So, the whole premise of this impeachment thingie is tainting Trump for the election, which would certainly work if the Democratic candidates were not crazy.  But they have totally gone off the cliff, tripping over each other to prove how woke they are, and it appears the craziest one of them all will be on the ticket.  Not to mention Warren is a known lier and has been caught this week three times. 

Last, the economy is doing great.  Just read that in the last two years average middle class household income increased by $5000.  In the 8 years under Obama, it only increased $1000. 

So, unless the economy tanks by next November, or one of the moderate Dems gets the ticket, Trump will easily win re-election, especially if Warren is on the ticket. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 17, 2019, 09:58:37 pm
I'll give you that.  It is a head scratcher that he decided to do this considering all of the other things going on.  Seems he likes to invite criticism. 

But anyway, getting back to the point.  The Republicans in the Senate will never convict Trump, unless something more damning comes out, and it is looking more and more that the Dems in the house don't even have the numbers to actually pass a formal vote.  They tried three times before and failed to pass it, so I doubt a fourth time will be the charm. 

So, the whole premise of this impeachment thingie is tainting Trump for the election, which would certainly work if the Democratic candidates were not crazy.  But they have totally gone off the cliff, tripping over each other to prove how woke they are, and it appears the craziest one of them all will be on the ticket.  Not to mention Warren is a known lier and has been caught this week three times. 

Last, the economy is doing great.  Just read that in the last two years average middle class household income increased by $5000.  In the 8 years under Obama, it only increased $1000. 

So, unless the economy tanks by next November, or one of the moderate Dems gets the ticket, Trump will easily win re-election, especially if Warren is on the ticket.

Yeah - I hear you.  We're having two different discussions in a sense.  On one hand, there's the philosophical argument about whether Donald Trump is fit for the presidency.  I believe that the available evidence, ranging from the constant questionable decisions, to the self-dealing, to the nepotism, to the unwillingness to properly learn about things that impact every American's (and to be honest, much of the rest of the world's) life, to the abuse of power and seeming inability to actually run the government correctly, (and the various criminal/civil violations contained in these actions) make him unfit.  It's my belief that he should be impeached and removed on that basis - it's our duty to do so.  It's NOT about policy disagreements - that, as they say, are what elections are for.  Its about incompetence.  High crimes and misdemeanors in the parlance of the founders, or wanton breach of fiduciary duty in the language of today.

After that, who knows.  You may be (in fact I think you probably are) correct about the results of a Warren nomination, though I'm not at all convinced that her ideas are any wackier than some of the stuff I hear from the right.  There will be the sexists that won't vote for her because she's "shrill" and the know-nothings who won't vote for her because she's not "someone I can have a beer with" and total fools who won't vote for her because she's a "liar" even though every third word out of Trump's mouth is a lie, and so on and so on.

I'm not sure anymore, however, that the two things are relevant to one another.  For a long time I was on the side of impeachment being a bad political move for Democrats with an eye toward 2020.  But the more we find out, the more I'm convinced that a Republican administration with some sort of competence and compassion (even if I disagree with their philosophies) is a fair trade to make so long as the incompetent in office now is removed.   (And that's a nasty position to have to take, considering Mike Pence is pretty much a horror show himself.)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 17, 2019, 10:43:12 pm
Both the Post and the Times are reporting the G7 contract will be worth millions to Doral County Club -- the G7 attracts thousands of people, who will not all stay at Doral, but many of whom will use Doral services. It's absolutely unbelievable. Another question that occurs to me is whether, in the end, Trump can issue a formal pardon of himself for any crimes committed as President, because I think this may be an actual indictable crime, even if he can't be indicted until after he leaves office.

A more pressing question for the G7 people will be whether they're able to hear anything at the conference, since Doral is more or less at the end of the runways of Miami International Airport. 8-)

 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: texshooter on October 18, 2019, 01:41:44 am

Politics is the new religion.

(https://faceswaponline.com/wp-content/uploads/JesusTrump-4ca0e9f8e03afb119f024eec2aaba1d2.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 18, 2019, 07:35:16 am
Yeah - I hear you.  We're having two different discussions in a sense.  On one hand, there's the philosophical argument about whether Donald Trump is fit for the presidency.  I believe that the available evidence, ranging from the constant questionable decisions, to the self-dealing, to the nepotism, to the unwillingness to properly learn about things that impact every American's (and to be honest, much of the rest of the world's) life, to the abuse of power and seeming inability to actually run the government correctly, (and the various criminal/civil violations contained in these actions) make him unfit.  It's my belief that he should be impeached and removed on that basis - it's our duty to do so.  It's NOT about policy disagreements - that, as they say, are what elections are for.  Its about incompetence.  High crimes and misdemeanors in the parlance of the founders, or wanton breach of fiduciary duty in the language of today.

After that, who knows.  You may be (in fact I think you probably are) correct about the results of a Warren nomination, though I'm not at all convinced that her ideas are any wackier than some of the stuff I hear from the right.  There will be the sexists that won't vote for her because she's "shrill" and the know-nothings who won't vote for her because she's not "someone I can have a beer with" and total fools who won't vote for her because she's a "liar" even though every third word out of Trump's mouth is a lie, and so on and so on.

I'm not sure anymore, however, that the two things are relevant to one another.  For a long time I was on the side of impeachment being a bad political move for Democrats with an eye toward 2020.  But the more we find out, the more I'm convinced that a Republican administration with some sort of competence and compassion (even if I disagree with their philosophies) is a fair trade to make so long as the incompetent in office now is removed.   (And that's a nasty position to have to take, considering Mike Pence is pretty much a horror show himself.)

I wont disagree with you there, both far left and far right ideas are typically not very sound.  But Trump is pretty much a centrist and Warren is super far left.  It will be an easy choice for most of the country. 

Just saw another interesting poll, all demographics for pretty much every grouping (race, sex, religion, political affiliation), with the exception of progressives, at least 2/3s thinks the economy is doing very well.  So Warrens continued attack on the economy is a disconnect with typical Americans, and not only that, she is asking people to chance their new found economic success by adopting many extreme socialist policies. 

Even with a downturn, I still cant see the average American getting behind these policies. 

If she gets the ticket, start thinking about 2024, because it will be an easy win for Trump. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 18, 2019, 03:47:38 pm
Both the Post and the Times are reporting the G7 contract will be worth millions to Doral County Club -- the G7 attracts thousands of people, who will not all stay at Doral, but many of whom will use Doral services. It's absolutely unbelievable. Another question that occurs to me is whether, in the end, Trump can issue a formal pardon of himself for any crimes committed as President, because I think this may be an actual indictable crime, even if he can't be indicted until after he leaves office.

A more pressing question for the G7 people will be whether they're able to hear anything at the conference, since Doral is more or less at the end of the runways of Miami International Airport. 8-)

 
They can use my house. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 18, 2019, 03:55:19 pm
They can use my house.

It's really disturbing that a segment of Americans - you among them - thinks this kind of thing is a joke.  It tells me that you don't care if the president breaks laws and has no ethics as long as you get the result you desire, and that's screwed up.  And actually, even that's not quite right, because getting rid of the human garbage pile sitting in the Oval Office would still get conservatives Pence - a better conservative anyway.  So it's not even your principles - it's *Trump* that people support, and that says a lot about them - nothing good, I might add.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 18, 2019, 04:09:08 pm
I was in the group that thought Impeachment was a bad idea and should not happen as the election in 2020 is drawing close.  What has been uncovered in the past two weeks has changed my mind as it also has Speaker Pelosi who gave the go ahead for the inquiry.  That the President has been using 'his' lawyer, Mr. Guiliani, to be the point on all of the Ukraine stuff is quite disturbing and several witnesses have already identified this.  The Pentagon is now offering witnesses up which cannot be good for the President.  If the President is so innocent, why are they taking such pains to prevent anyone from testifying??

The President is also under investigation on a number of fronts for possible financial fraud related to various Trump businesses prior to his taking office.  He has filed statements to banks that do not reconcile with property tax assessments and a host of other stuff that is now being untangled. 

Former Senator Jeff Flake said that there would likely be 20 Republican votes in the Senate for Impeachment if there was a secret ballot.  I suspect that's just the baseline number.  One needs only look at the polling of some of the Republican Senators who are up for reelection next year, including McConnell.  They are all quickly tanking.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 18, 2019, 04:11:58 pm
Former Senator Jeff Flake said that there would likely be 20 Republican votes in the Senate for Impeachment if there was a secret ballot.
Actually, he said 35.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: texshooter on October 18, 2019, 05:29:27 pm


Did Trump ask a foreign power to help his re-election campaign?

Or,

Did Trump ask a foreign power to look into potential corruption. 

One of these two motives is a matter of record. But the other will need a mind reader to prove.

(https://kingdomecon.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/carnac.jpg?w=567&h=346)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 18, 2019, 08:08:04 pm
It's really disturbing that a segment of Americans - you among them - thinks this kind of thing is a joke.  It tells me that you don't care if the president breaks laws and has no ethics as long as you get the result you desire, and that's screwed up.  And actually, even that's not quite right, because getting rid of the human garbage pile sitting in the Oval Office would still get conservatives Pence - a better conservative anyway.  So it's not even your principles - it's *Trump* that people support, and that says a lot about them - nothing good, I might add.
Puleese.  Trump was a billionaire made before he got into politics.  This nickel and dime accusation is just silly.  Why don't you accuse Joe Biden who used his position as Vice President to get his son a $600,000 job with a Ukrainian corporation and thousands more with a $1.5 billion China corporation, with products he has never done business with.  How about Hillary CLinton who used her position as Secretary of State and got foreign countries to "donate" $100's of millions to her and  the former President and her husband Bill Clinton's foundation whee they skimmed off the top and are now worth $100 million personally.  How about the half million speaking engagements they made paid by foreign corporations and countries to gain political access.  Meanwhile TRump's $400,000 salary as president he donates to charity.  And any profit from Doral will likewise be donated to charity or paid to the IRS.   Calling the president of the US a "human garbage pile"  says more about you than Trump. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 18, 2019, 10:08:45 pm
Hillary Clinton goes off the rails calling fellow Democrat and presidential candidate Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard a "stooge" of the Russians.  Gabbard responds calling Hillary "...the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long..."

Thanks you Tulsi for reminding us why we voted for Trump. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-hillary-clinton-russia.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 19, 2019, 11:23:38 am
A sad summary of just the past week in Trumpland https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/19/trump-white-house-staff-051393 (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/19/trump-white-house-staff-051393).

As others have said the constant attention is a pain to put up with, but, geez, how do you not pay attention to this runaway train.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 12:18:29 pm
A sad summary of just the past week in Trumpland https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/19/trump-white-house-staff-051393 (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/19/trump-white-house-staff-051393).

As others have said the constant attention is a pain to put up with, but, geez, how do you not pay attention to this runaway train.
The democrats don;t seem to be doing much better.  Hillary is calling fellow democrats Russian stooges.  And the three leaders of the presidential nomination hit parade seem to be having identify problems of their own.  Biden seems to have sold his VP office for monetary gain for his family, Warren changed her race to gain career advancing benefits, and Bernie is a card-carrying, anti-Capitalist Bolshevik.  The Three Amigos.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 19, 2019, 01:11:42 pm
The democrats don;t seem to be doing much better.  Hillary is calling fellow democrats Russian stooges.  And the three leaders of the presidential nomination hit parade seem to be having identify problems of their own.  Biden seems to have sold his VP office for monetary gain for his family, Warren changed her race to gain career advancing benefits, and Bernie is a card-carrying, anti-Capitalist Bolshevik.  The Three Amigos.  :)

The Democrats are not in power, how could they be doing better?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 01:14:09 pm
Puleese, he's been a fraud all his life. How one cannot see through that facade, boggles the mind.

More proof keeps surfacing, which also explains why he doesn't reveal his Tax returns:
Fraud Of Donald Trump's Self-Made Persona Exposed In Father's Financials
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM9f2YAKIJg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM9f2YAKIJg)

But this won't distract from the topic at hand, the impeachment inquiry.
Bart, Forbes estimated his wealth at $3.5 billion before he became president.  I just checked and see Forbes new estimate is $3.1 billion.   Wikipedia says Forbes said $6.1 and Bloomberg $5.8 billion.  But what's a billion here or  there?    He's not a poor man in any case.  Does he hype his worth,  Of course.  Does he hype everything else.  Well, of course.  He's a salesman if you haven't noticed.  That's his business to sell the Trump name.  That';s how he makes a lot of his money.  Most of  the buildings that bear his name are not owned by him.  They are owned by others who have paid Trump a fee to use his name.  So the more the Trump name is in the press, the more valuable it becomes. 

Also, you want to have it both ways.  On the one hand you say he's using the presidency to unfairly get people to stay at his hotels in Washington or at his Doral Golf CLub in FLorida or in Scotland and make money off his presidency.  Then you claim his worth is a farce.   How many The van der Wolf Hotel's are in Washington or anywhere else for that matter?  You can't claim he's rich and poor at the same time. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_of_Donald_Trump#targetText=In%202016%2C%20Forbes%20estimated%20Trump's,billion%2C%20and%20Bloomberg%20%243%20billion. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_of_Donald_Trump#targetText=In%202016%2C%20Forbes%20estimated%20Trump's,billion%2C%20and%20Bloomberg%20%243%20billion.)
https://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/?list=billionaires#292ecae447bd (https://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/?list=billionaires#292ecae447bd)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 01:18:48 pm
The Democrats are not in power, how could they be doing better?
All four are power players in American politics.   Hillary owned the Democrats recently.  She still has enormous power when and if she gives her support to one candidate or another.  Biden was VP under Obama and the other two, Sanders and Warren are two of only 100 current US Senators.  That's power!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 19, 2019, 01:21:32 pm
Also, you want to have it both ways.  On the one hand you say he's using the presidency to unfairly get people to stay at his hotels in Washington or at his Doral Golf CLub in FLorida or in Scotland and make money off his presidency.  Then you claim his worth is a farce.   How many The van der Wolf Hotel's are in Washington or anywhere else for that matter?  You can't claim he's rich and poor at the same time.
Another red herring. No one has said he is poor, just not a rich as he says he is. You call him a salesman; I call him a liar. And there is nothing inconsistent in saying that he is not as rich as he says he is and also saying that he is steering business his way in an unethical manner, whether or not you think his activities are in violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 19, 2019, 01:28:34 pm
All four are power players in American politics.   Hillary owned the Democrats recently.  She still has enormous power when and if she gives her support to one candidate or another.
I don't think anyone listens to what Hilary Clinton has to say. She's a has been.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 01:33:03 pm
Another red herring. No one has said he is poor, just not a rich as he says he is. And there is nothing inconsistent in saying that and also saying that he is steering business his way in an unethical manner, whether or not you think his activities are in violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.
Americans don't care whether he's worth $1 billion or 3 billion.  The democrats have spent three years trying to find something to impeach Trump and complaining about things of Trump that the American people, except Trump hating Democrats, don;t care about.  If travelers want to stay in one of his nice hotels like you or I might, then God bless them.  Who cares?  People are more concerned about their health, taxes, and wars in the Middle East.  And Democrats aren't paying attention other than to look for faults in Trump who everyone including Trump supporters agree has loads of them.  He's like a bull in a China shop.  And the three leading Democrat nomination contenders for president meanwhile have enough of their own faults to talk about.    Meanwhile, democrats and Congress in general are not doing their jobs.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 01:36:05 pm
I don't think anyone listens to what Hilary Clinton has to say. She's a has been.
You're very mistaken.  If Warren wins the nomination, she's going to need both the Clintons for support to get the Black vote. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 19, 2019, 01:37:03 pm
You're very mistaken.  If Warren wins the nomination, she's going to need both the Clintons for support to get the Black vote.
You don't strike me as an expert on the black vote. Blacks are going to overwhelmingly vote for the Democrat candidate regardless of who it is. The only question is how many turn out. I don't think the Clintons endorsing the Democratic candidate, which they surely will, will make the slightest difference in that regard.  The election will be close enough that it will turn on how many idiots vote for the third party candidates instead of the Democrat, just as in 2016. The second choice of the people that voted for Jill Stein was not Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 02:33:43 pm
You don't strike me as an expert on the black vote. Blacks are going to overwhelmingly vote for the Democrat candidate regardless of who it is. The only question is how many turn out. I don't think the Clintons endorsing the Democratic candidate, which they surely will, will make the slightest difference in that regard.  The election will be close enough that it will turn on how many idiots vote for the third party candidates instead of the Democrat, just as in 2016. The second choice of the people that voted for Jill Stein was not Trump.
So if the Clintons campaign hard and get more Blacks to turn out for the Democrat, all the third party candidate votes won't matter.  I wouldn't apply for a campaign advisor job if I were you. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 19, 2019, 02:40:34 pm
So if the Clintons campaign hard and get more Blacks to turn out for the Democrat, all the third party candidate votes won't matter.  I wouldn't apply for a campaign advisor job if I were you.
If, If, If. I don't think the Clintons will campaign hard for the Democratic candidate. Endorse - yes; campaign hard - no. They have lost all currency.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 03:05:09 pm
The more Democrat impeachment Congressmen investigate Trump and Ukraine, the more they hurt their own candidate Joe Biden.   So now,  a career State Dept official tells Congress he warned the Obama Administration that Biden's dealing with Ukraine while his son gets a job there seems like a conflict of interest.  Biden's advisors ignored the advice.  Warren must be rolling on the floor laughing. Meanwhile, it makes Trump look like he was doing his job asking Ukraine to start the investigation again and at the same time getting rid of Biden as his main adversary for 2020, a double win.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/us/politics/hunter-biden-ukraine.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/us/politics/hunter-biden-ukraine.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 19, 2019, 03:20:26 pm
The more Democrat impeachment Congressmen investigate Trump and Ukraine, the more they hurt their own candidate Joe Biden.   So now,  a career State Dept official tells Congress he warned the Obama Administration that Biden's dealing with Ukraine while his son gets a job there seems like a conflict of interest.  Biden's advisors ignored the advice.  Warren must be rolling on the floor laughing. Meanwhile, it makes Trump look like he was doing his job asking Ukraine to start the investigation again and at the same time getting rid of Biden as his main adversary for 2020, a double win.
Can you describe this conflict of interest? Factually, Hunter Biden sat on the Board of Directors of a Ukrainian company while his father was Vice President. Do you have something more than that? Or just Giuliani's conspiracy theories? Meanwhile, Trump has chosen his own Doral Golf Course and Resort as the site of the next G7 summit.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 19, 2019, 03:25:58 pm
Hillary Clinton goes off the rails calling fellow Democrat and presidential candidate Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard a "stooge" of the Russians.

Actually, it is quite plausible that Russian intelligence operatives would be using the social media resources they control to whip up populast support for Congresswoman Gabbard—or any other would-be candidate, Republican or Democrat, with isolationist views.  Vladimir Putin is an equal-opportunity disrupter.  "Stooge" sounds like overreach, however; it implies Gabbard is knowingly exploiting whatever Russian support she may be receiving.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 19, 2019, 03:43:28 pm
Can you describe this conflict of interest? Factually, Hunter Biden sat on the Board of Directors of a Ukrainian compan while his father was Vice President. Do you have something more than that?

Technically, for there to have been a conflict of interest, it would have been necessary for Biden-père to have had a personal financial stake in the income that Biden-fils was receiving in Ukraine.  What the State Department officer reportedly argued was that Hunter Biden’s position "could look like a conflict of interest," and that it would complicate U.S. government efforts to encourage the Ukrainian government to deal with corruption.  There was clearly no crime and perhaps no violation of federal ethics rules, but he certainly was justified in raising the issue.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 04:08:27 pm
Can you describe this conflict of interest? Factually, Hunter Biden sat on the Board of Directors of a Ukrainian company while his father was Vice President. Do you have something more than that? Or just Giuliani's conspiracy theories? Meanwhile, Trump has chosen his own Doral Golf Course and Resort as the site of the next G7 summit.
I didn't call it a conflict of interest.  It was the linked article where a chief Department of State official in the Obama administration called it that.  The official warned the administration and Biden officials of the problem.  They chose to do nothing about it.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 04:12:39 pm
Technically, for there to have been a conflict of interest, it would have been necessary for Biden-père to have had a personal financial stake in the income that Biden-fils was receiving in Ukraine.  What the State Department officer reportedly argued was that Hunter Biden’s position "could look like a conflict of interest," and that it would complicate U.S. government efforts to encourage the Ukrainian government to deal with corruption.  There was clearly no crime and perhaps no violation of federal ethics rules, but he certainly was justified in raising the issue.
But Biden can't complain about Trump's kids conflicts either.  So suddenly, Trump and Biden look the same.  The appearance is what counts in both cases.  So it weakens Democrat's position in the upcoming election that Trump is corrupt when Biden did the same thing as VP.  Of course, Biden is now toast.  And the Democrats are burying him deeper every time they raise an impeachment claim regarding Ukraine.  It's poetic justice.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 19, 2019, 04:21:13 pm
But Biden can't complain about Trump's kids conflicts either.

I didn't know he was.

Quote
So suddenly, Trump and Biden look the same.

No they don't.

Quote
The appearance is what counts in both cases.  So it weakens Democrat's position in the upcoming election that Trump is corrupt when Biden did the same thing as VP.

How is Biden corrupt? What is it that Biden did that was the same as Trump?

Quote
Of course, Biden is now toast.  And the Democrats are burying him deeper every time they raise an impeachment claim regarding Ukraine.

Not really.

Quote
It's poetic justice.  :)

Only in la-la land. The primary concerns about Biden are his age and mental fitness, and perhaps he is not progressive enough. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 19, 2019, 04:37:51 pm
The appearance is what counts in both cases.  So it weakens Democrat's position in the upcoming election that Trump is corrupt

Trump never divested himself from his business interests by placing them in a blind trust, and some of them (for example, the hotel in the Old Post Office Building in Washington and several of the resort properties) clearly are profiting from his being in public office.  That is an actual conflict of interest, not the appearance of a conflict.

I actually see some logic in Trump's decision not to divest.  Given the sprawling nature of his family business and the fact that it involves the ownership or brand-management of many real estate properties, placing all the assets under the control of independent trustees would have been complicated and, unless the trustees sold off the real estate, an ineffective way to insulate him from continuing to personally profit from the patronage of the properties by individuals or groups seeking favorable treatment from his Administration.  But that in no way alters the reality that he has a conflict of interest.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 19, 2019, 07:27:18 pm
Taking the MAGA slogan one step further, Dr. Caroline Trapp, DNP, ANP-BC, CDE, FAANP, DipACLM, the director of diabetes education & care at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine advocates fiber rich diet and says:
Let's Make America Go Again
at the end of this video
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/highlights-from-the-2020-dietary-guidelines-hearing/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 08:43:55 pm
I didn't know he was.

No they don't.

How is Biden corrupt? What is it that Biden did that was the same as Trump?

Not really.

Only in la-la land. The primary concerns about Biden are his age and mental fitness, and perhaps he is not progressive enough. 



He's smart enough to get his kid a good job.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 08:55:38 pm
Trump never divested himself from his business interests by placing them in a blind trust, and some of them (for example, the hotel in the Old Post Office Building in Washington and several of the resort properties) clearly are profiting from his being in public office.  That is an actual conflict of interest, not the appearance of a conflict.

I actually see some logic in Trump's decision not to divest.  Given the sprawling nature of his family business and the fact that it involves the ownership or brand-management of many real estate properties, placing all the assets under the control of independent trustees would have been complicated and, unless the trustees sold off the real estate, an ineffective way to insulate him from continuing to personally profit from the patronage of the properties by individuals or groups seeking favorable treatment from his Administration.  But that in no way alters the reality that he has a conflict of interest.

You're right there is an appearance of conflict of interest.  But what should the country do with rich people who own properties and biusinesses around the world who want to be president?  Should they be forced to sell everything they own? It would be a fire sale and they'd never be able to do it without going bankrupt.  No president is asked to give up his livelihood.  It would be unfair to do that to any American.  Even if you force him to sell if he becomes president, he will be accused of selling things for higher then they're worth as people pay more looking for favors from him.  So there are really no simple answers. 

Also, if harsh rules were placed on presidents, they would eliminate very smart and capable businessmen who could be fine presidents.  Experienced people who know how to manage and get things done, a valuable asset in a president.  We would eliminate some of the best people for the job.  We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot.

Now Trump has done some insulation.  He's not handling day-to-day operations.  That's what billionaire Mayor Bloomberg did in NYC when he was mayor.  It's not a perfect arrangement.  But it's legal for the president and mayor.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 09:15:11 pm
Taking the MAGA slogan one step further, Dr. Caroline Trapp, DNP, ANP-BC, CDE, FAANP, DipACLM, the director of diabetes education & care at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine advocates fiber rich diet and says:
Let's Make America Go Again
at the end of this video
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/highlights-from-the-2020-dietary-guidelines-hearing/
Funny, I just read you post and saw the video after getting back from eating a delicious New York Strip in a restaurant out by the Jersey Shore.  Delish!.  They screwed it up at first by plopping down a wad of cheese butter that I had to immediately sweep off.  The problem with the video and the meeting is that you can see why the general public is so mixed up and confused about what to eat.  Even the experts argue and make their claims of what's good and what's bad.  How does the average guy separate the wheat from the chaff, no pun intended? :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 09:36:23 pm
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (AOC) endorsement of Sanders signals the death knell for him.  Her  support will be the evil eye to end his candidacy quicker than another heart attack.  Warren can;t believe her good fortune this week what with Biden having to swear he never talks with his son, at least not during a 12 hour flight to China,  and still isn't sure where the Ukraine is anyway, if only someone would just point it out to him on a map.  Now, Warren ends the week with AOC supporting Sanders.  No one's been so lucky since The Lone Ranger met Tonto. 
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/19/771596733/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-says-bernie-sanders-heart-attack-was-a-gut-check-moment
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 20, 2019, 12:04:26 am
Funny, I just read you post and saw the video after getting back from eating a delicious New York Strip in a restaurant out by the Jersey Shore.  Delish!.  They screwed it up at first by plopping down a wad of cheese butter that I had to immediately sweep off.  The problem with the video and the meeting is that you can see why the general public is so mixed up and confused about what to eat.  Even the experts argue and make their claims of what's good and what's bad.  How does the average guy separate the wheat from the chaff, no pun intended? :)

In my view, that video presented enough evidence about the evils of meat and dairy, but I agree that the information floating around the meat and plant-based food is pretty confusing. And most doctors and nutritionists who should help the consumers, are from the old school and don't have a clue about the findings of new health studies. To answer your question how to separate the wheat from the chaff, one has to be interested in finding the facts, read a lot and be skeptical of "experts" who are financed by the meat and dairy industries.  BTW, the probability of getting Alzheimer is substantially greater for meat eaters than for vegans. Same for quite a few other diseases.

Good source of health information is at https://nutritionfacts.org
Click on Video Library, and then on All videos
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 12:24:33 am
In my view, that video presented enough evidence about the evils of meat and dairy, but I agree that the information floating around the meat and plant-based food is pretty confusing. And most doctors and nutritionists who should help the consumers, are from the old school and don't have a clue about the findings of new health studies. To answer your question how to separate the wheat from the chaff, one has to be interested in finding the facts, read a lot and be skeptical of "experts" who are financed by the meat and dairy industries.  BTW, the probability of getting Alzheimer is substantially greater for meat eaters than for vegans. Same for quite a few other diseases.

Good source of health information is at https://nutritionfacts.org
Click on Video Library, and then on All videos


You know, as I get older, I'm finding there are benefits to forgetfulness.  You don't remember why you were angry so you don't hold onto resentments.  That might even help you live longer, although you might not remember what you did during all that extra time.  Tradeoffs.  Tradeoffs.

All kidding aside, I'm a meat eater.  I won;t stop completely as long as I;m still eating with my mouth.  But I try to limit the amount and fat content.  NY Strip and Sirloin are the lowest, so it's good that I like them the most.  Oh.  I did have my greens with my steak tonight although I added French fries a worse no-no per my doctors and nutritionists. The carbs are the worse.  Especially when they're fried.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 20, 2019, 12:38:07 am
All kidding aside, I'm a meat eater.  I won;t stop completely as long as I;m still eating with my mouth.  But I try to limit the amount and fat content.  NY Strip and Sirloin are the lowest, so it's good that I like them the most.  Oh.  I did have my greens with my steak tonight although I added French fries a worse no-no per my doctors and nutritionists. The carbs are the worse.  Especially when they're fried.

There can be more than 50 shades of food, some with more meat than others. I applaud you on reducing your meat intake. And your doctor is right about the danger of French fries. Better to switch to boiled potatoes or even to sweet potatoes.

But back to Trump. He has not ruined just the situation in Middle East, but also the health of the entire football team by ordering 300 hamburgers, pizzas, and french fries for them.

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump-mcdonalds-fast-food-white-house-clemson-tigers-156653
 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 01:08:06 am
There can be more than 50 shades of food, some with more meat than others. I applaud you on reducing your meat intake. And your doctor is right about the danger of French fries. Better to switch to boiled potatoes or even to sweet potatoes.

But back to Trump. He has not ruined just the situation in Middle East, but also the health of the entire football team by ordering 300 hamburgers, pizzas, and french fries for them.

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump-mcdonalds-fast-food-white-house-clemson-tigers-156653 (https://inews.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump-mcdonalds-fast-food-white-house-clemson-tigers-156653)
 
You see, he isn't all bad.  :)  And the players must have loved him for it.  Notice the big guy in the second picture.  He has the happy smirk on his face and not one, but two hamburgers on his plate.  And if you haven't noticed in the first picture, Trump even bought load a salad dishes on the big tray on the right.  It looks like no one took any though.  Well, maybe the managers are on a diet.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 01:09:22 am
Wait, there are two big trays of salads.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 20, 2019, 01:35:31 am

He's smart enough to get his kid a good job.  :)

That doesn't require smart - even Trump has done it!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 07:15:12 am
That doesn't require smart - even Trump has done it!
Trump's kids work for the Trump Organization, a private firm, long before Donald got into politics.  They've been learning the trade being tutored by their father since they were children. That's a lot different than a politician like VP Biden using his office to pressure foreign countries to arrange high paying job for his kid in a field they know nothing about.  Maybe he can get me a job in the oil industry too.  After all, I know how to pump gas.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 20, 2019, 08:04:27 am
. A
Trump's kids work for the Trump Organization, a private firm, long before Donald got into politics.  They've been learning the trade being tutored by their father since they were children. That's a lot different than a politician like VP Biden using his office to pressure foreign countries to arrange high paying job for his kid in a field they know nothing about.  Maybe he can get me a job in the oil industry too.  After all, I know how to pump gas.  :)

You're totally delusional. Since daddy became President Trump's family have made millions off the back of his position. A readable account is found here: https://www.gq.com/story/trump-kids-profit-presidency (I know you won't read it, but newbies may stumble onto this thread and not understand that the house rules are that you make up stuff to defend the Orange One at any cost).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 08:32:25 am
You're totally delusional. Since daddy became President Trump's family have made millions off the back of his position. A readable account is found here: https://www.gq.com/story/trump-kids-profit-presidency (I know you won't read it, but newbies may stumble onto this thread and not understand that the house rules are that you make up stuff to defend the Orange One at any cost).
I read it.  So you also approve of Hunter Biden getting a job off the back of his father, Vice President Biden?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 10:17:28 am
Trump not having G7 at his Doral Florida Golf Resort.  It would be in June, 2020, too close to the election and not look good. One less thing to be impeach about. 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-g7/trump-abandons-plan-to-host-2020-g7-meeting-at-his-florida-golf-resort-idUSKBN1WZ01E
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 20, 2019, 12:00:44 pm
Trump not having G7 at his Doral Florida Golf Resort.  It would be in June, 2020, too close to the election and not look good. One less thing to be impeach about. 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-g7/trump-abandons-plan-to-host-2020-g7-meeting-at-his-florida-golf-resort-idUSKBN1WZ01E

You spelled “indict” wrong.  The fact that’s he proposed it is just another reason to kick his butt out.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 20, 2019, 12:18:43 pm
You spelled “indict” wrong.  The fact that’s he proposed it is just another reason to kick his butt out.

I'm waiting for the headline, "Trump Burps in Oval Office, Dems Insists It's Reason for Impeachment." 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 20, 2019, 01:49:39 pm
Puleese.  Trump was a billionaire made before he got into politics. 
Trump's business practices have been well documented and he has used the tax and LLC laws to protect him in multiple bankruptcies.  He also got a nice loan from his father to help after one of the casinos went bust.  Lots of stuff is continuing to emerge and ProPublica, one of the best set of investigative journalists around, is on the case.  Their latest report shows some significant discrepancies in tax filings which may put him at risk of financial fraud.  https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies  Before you get your dander up and calling them a tool of the left, ProPublica is independently funded and cooperate with numerous news organizations.  In this current example, the hard numbers cannot be easily argued away.  either he misreported on his property tax or he lied to the lender in the loan documents.  For someone who maintains a legion of attorneys and accountants, this should not happen.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 20, 2019, 02:38:41 pm
Trump not having G7 at his Doral Florida Golf Resort.  It would be in June, 2020, too close to the election and not look good.
Mulvaney reported that the clueless Trump was surprised by the pushback. Not sure why he was surprised. Everyone has been saying it was a terrible idea from the time he first floated it, which was months ago. I am surprised he backed off rather than doubled down. Very uncharacteristic of him. I doubt it had anything to do with a moral compass.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 03:09:33 pm
I'm waiting for the headline, "Trump Burps in Oval Office, Dems Insists It's Reason for Impeachment." 
F*L*A*S*H - "Trump Impeached for Bad Breath.  Wife Leaves Him  and Checks Into DC Hotel." 

"No president of mine can smell like that," complained Melania Trump on the way out of the White House.  "I warned him to stop eating those cheap hamburgers."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 03:30:44 pm
Trump's business practices have been well documented and he has used the tax and LLC laws to protect him in multiple bankruptcies.  He also got a nice loan from his father to help after one of the casinos went bust.  Lots of stuff is continuing to emerge and ProPublica, one of the best set of investigative journalists around, is on the case.  Their latest report shows some significant discrepancies in tax filings which may put him at risk of financial fraud.  https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies (https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies)  Before you get your dander up and calling them a tool of the left, ProPublica is independently funded and cooperate with numerous news organizations.  In this current example, the hard numbers cannot be easily argued away.  either he misreported on his property tax or he lied to the lender in the loan documents.  For someone who maintains a legion of attorneys and accountants, this should not happen.
Trump's worth $3.5 billion give or take.  What are you worth?  To argue that he used the tax laws to help him financially is just silly.  Do you write off your mortgage interest payments?  Or do you pay taxes that would have been legally deferred?  Who would hire an accountant who would tell them to pay taxes they don't have to pay?  There are no such accountants.  They'd be unemployed standing on a food line hoping to get something to eat.  Give me a break. 


Trump's been writing off his real estate property for years.    The IRS looks at things like that to see if they're reasonable valuations.  If he commited fraud they would have indicted him a long time ago. The IRS is always auditing him, not like me and you. Charging him with fraud based on rumor and politics is like you charging him with colluding with the Russians.  You guys don't give up. 


Of course, all these charges are made with the intent of going into the election hoping the public sees Trump as a crook.  After all the Democrats have nothing else to run on.  It might work.  On the other hand, the public might think, "You know, these charges have been all a lot of bunk.  It's all political nonsense.  The democrats haven't done a damn thing in 4 years to help this country and have spent all that time trying to bring down the President.  Let's put Trump in there for another 4 years.  It looks like he needs more time to clean up the swamp. "
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 20, 2019, 03:32:57 pm
Let's put Trump in there for another 4 years.  It looks like he needs more time to clean up the swamp. " [/i]
Could you expand on just how he has been draining the swamp?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 20, 2019, 04:59:29 pm
Trump's worth $3.5 billion give or take.  What are you worth?  To argue that he used the tax laws to help him financially is just silly.  Do you write off your mortgage interest payments?  Or do you pay taxes that would have been legally deferred?  Who would hire an accountant who would tell them to pay taxes they don't have to pay?  There are no such accountants.  They'd be unemployed standing on a food line hoping to get something to eat.  Give me a break. 
I'm worth enough to not have to go to work as a greeter at a big box store.  I have been a co-owner of an apartment building in California and am familiar with real estate depreciation and taxation.  I have taken advantage of all the deductions made available to me. 


Quote
Trump's been writing off his real estate property for years.    The IRS looks at things like that to see if they're reasonable valuations.  If he commited fraud they would have indicted him a long time ago. The IRS is always auditing him, not like me and you. Charging him with fraud based on rumor and politics is like you charging him with colluding with the Russians.  You guys don't give up. 
IRS audits do not cover financial fraud that is the topic of the story I linked to.  had you read the article you would have seen copies of two financial documents that are publicly available that contradict each other and 'may' cause him some problems.  I'm not charging him with fraud, I only said that these are problematic.  I would not be surprised if there are more in this category.  there have been condo developments where the Trump kids said were already sold out and that was totally wrong; in one case less than 1/4 of the units were sold despite what Ivanka said. 

Show me one quote of mine where I accused the President of colluding with the Russians (don't waste your time trying to find one as I've never said this).

Quote
Of course, all these charges are made with the intent of going into the election hoping the public sees Trump as a crook.  After all the Democrats have nothing else to run on.  It might work.  On the other hand, the public might think, "You know, these charges have been all a lot of bunk.  It's all political nonsense.  The democrats haven't done a damn thing in 4 years to help this country and have spent all that time trying to bring down the President. 
The Republicans were in power for the first two years of President Trump's term so it is not fair to say that the Democrats have not done anything.  Since the beginning of this year the Democrats have had control over the House and have passed numerous pieces of legislation which are lying dormant in the Senate as Majority Leader McConnell refuses to bring them up for a vote.  The fault here is not with the Democrats who would like to do some infrastructure and health care legislation only to see things evaporate into the Senate ether. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 07:11:14 pm
I'm worth enough to not have to go to work as a greeter at a big box store.  I have been a co-owner of an apartment building in California and am familiar with real estate depreciation and taxation.  I have taken advantage of all the deductions made available to me. 

IRS audits do not cover financial fraud that is the topic of the story I linked to.  had you read the article you would have seen copies of two financial documents that are publicly available that contradict each other and 'may' cause him some problems.  I'm not charging him with fraud, I only said that these are problematic.  I would not be surprised if there are more in this category.  there have been condo developments where the Trump kids said were already sold out and that was totally wrong; in one case less than 1/4 of the units were sold despite what Ivanka said. 

Show me one quote of mine where I accused the President of colluding with the Russians (don't waste your time trying to find one as I've never said this).
The Republicans were in power for the first two years of President Trump's term so it is not fair to say that the Democrats have not done anything.  Since the beginning of this year the Democrats have had control over the House and have passed numerous pieces of legislation which are lying dormant in the Senate as Majority Leader McConnell refuses to bring them up for a vote.  The fault here is not with the Democrats who would like to do some infrastructure and health care legislation only to see things evaporate into the Senate ether. 
Your post confirmed my point.  Democrats have spent three years and counting looking under every stone to see if they can find some dirt.  Collusion with the Russians, Obstruction, paying off hookers and girlfriends.  And now you say that although you're "not accusing him of fraud", you think there are some "problematic" documents that "may" be a smoking gun to IRS fraud.  Meanwhile the IRS has never charged him with fraud even though he's audited all the time for 40-50 years he's been in the real estate and other businesses.  But somehow, this time, you know you got the goods.  And then you tell me that Democrats would spend their time doing the people's business but it's the Republicans that are stopping them.  Give me a break. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 07:18:00 pm
Could you expand on just how he has been draining the swamp?
If he wasn't defending himself all the time against phony impeachment charges, he would have had more time to "shoot" swamp rats.  That's why he's earned another 4 years.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 20, 2019, 07:22:39 pm
If he wasn't defending himself all the time against phony impeachment charges, he would have had more time to "shoot" swamp rats.  That's why he's earned another 4 years.  :)
So he hasn't done anything to drain the swamp, but it is someone else's fault.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 07:47:20 pm
So he hasn't done anything to drain the swamp, but it is someone else's fault.
I think he's given up on getting rid of them.  So he just bypasses them and makes his own decisions.  If he listened to all the neocon yakkers and warmongering generals, they'd have us in a war with Turkey, Russia and Syria. But that's for the other thread.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 21, 2019, 03:35:05 am
If he wasn't defending himself all the time against phony impeachment charges, he would have had more time to "shoot" swamp rats.  That's why he's earned another 4 years.  :)

Alan - in the interests of saving time, could you please just provide a list of those ways (if any) in which you consider Trump to be less than completely perfect?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 06:50:17 am
Alan - in the interests of saving time, could you please just provide a list of those ways (if any) in which you consider Trump to be less than completely perfect?

Thanks.
He should learn to keep his big mouth shut.  Hmmm. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on October 21, 2019, 06:56:08 am
From day one this president talked lies.
He could not even be honest about the amount of people that came to his inauguration:

"Before Spicer’s briefing room tirade on Saturday, Trump had told an audience at CIA headquarters that he had given his inauguration address to a “massive field of people … packed”, he estimated, with between 1 million and 1.5 million people.
To his eye, Trump said, the crowd stretched “the 20-block area, all the way back to the Washington Monument” – but a television network he didn’t name had broadcast a shot of “an empty field” and put the crowd at 250,000.

His spokesman Spicer even stated: “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration – period.”

There was enough evidence to prove that wrong, but that was all fakenews...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/22/trump-inauguration-crowd-sean-spicers-claims-versus-the-evidence
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/06/donald-trump-inauguration-crowd-size-photos-edited



Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 07:31:38 am
From day one this president talked lies.
He could not even be honest about the amount of people that came to his inauguration:

"Before Spicer’s briefing room tirade on Saturday, Trump had told an audience at CIA headquarters that he had given his inauguration address to a “massive field of people … packed”, he estimated, with between 1 million and 1.5 million people.
To his eye, Trump said, the crowd stretched “the 20-block area, all the way back to the Washington Monument” – but a television network he didn’t name had broadcast a shot of “an empty field” and put the crowd at 250,000.

His spokesman Spicer even stated: “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration – period.”

There was enough evidence to prove that wrong, but that was all fakenews...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/22/trump-inauguration-crowd-sean-spicers-claims-versus-the-evidence (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/22/trump-inauguration-crowd-sean-spicers-claims-versus-the-evidence)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/06/donald-trump-inauguration-crowd-size-photos-edited (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/06/donald-trump-inauguration-crowd-size-photos-edited)





"When you move into a Trump property, you're in the finest residence in the world.  Everything is the platinum class, impeccable.  The highest quality materials and world-class workmanship defines every corner of your residence.  Nothing is left without the most consideration of any designer in the world. Our interior decorators are the best, bar none. There's no other property that excels like a Trump property."

He's always been a salesman.  He's been selling his name for 40 years in case you missed it.  The question is does he keep his word regarding his campaign promises?  I think he has, a least for the most part. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 21, 2019, 07:50:46 am
He's always been a salesman liar. 

FTFY
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 08:00:53 am
FTFY
Do you know when a politician is lying?  Their lips are moving.

So you believe Biden that he knew nothing about his son's dealings with the Ukrainian and Chinese corporations?  So you believe Warren when she says she never intended to use her claim of being an American Indian to advance her career? So you believe Hillary Clinton when she she says she had no ulterior motives for having a private server and secret emails nor did she ever use her office as Secretary of State to gain financially?  So you believe Obama that he never authorized the IRS to be tough on his political opponents taxes or that he knew nothing about the investigation his FBI was doing of the Trump campaign? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on October 21, 2019, 08:12:21 am
Do you know when a politician is lying?  Their lips are moving.

So you believe Biden that he knew nothing about his son's dealings with the Ukrainian and Chinese corporations?  So you believe Warren when she says she never intended to use her claim of being an American Indian to advance her career? So you believe Hillary Clinton when she she says she had no ulterior motives for having a private server and secret emails nor did she ever use her office as Secretary of State to gain financially?  So you believe Obama that he never authorized the IRS to be tough on his political opponents taxes or that he knew nothing about the investigation his FBI was doing of the Trump campaign?
If Biden or Hillary states 1+ 1 = 3    They get the same bad reaction from the outside world as if trump would say it.
Trump however, will be the only one to stick to it and call 1+1 =2   'fake news'.
He would even add it was a brilliant idea.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 12:06:00 pm
If Biden or Hillary states 1+ 1 = 3    They get the same bad reaction from the outside world as if trump would say it.
Trump however, will be the only one to stick to it and call 1+1 =2   'fake news'.
He would even add it was a brillant idea.

Biden and Hillary called accusations against her as false.  Biden said he flew 12 hours with his son to China and never discussed business with him once.  Hillary said her illegal servers made her more efficient as Secretary of State and they were never used for classified information.  Nor she said did she use them to communicate private business discussing with foreign leaders and other people looking to contributing millions to her Clinton Initiative foundation to buy influence with the American government.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 12:07:06 pm
It is true though that they never said that 1 + 1 =2 "fake news".
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 21, 2019, 01:22:37 pm
So Trump has reversed course again and has now decided to keep some troops in Syria to protect the oil fields, which of course begs the question for whom and from whom. I don't think the US imports any oil from Syria. So much for bringing the boys home and letting the ME fight it out among themselves. Mendacity.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 21, 2019, 01:55:31 pm
Your post confirmed my point.  Democrats have spent three years and counting looking under every stone to see if they can find some dirt.  Collusion with the Russians, Obstruction, paying off hookers and girlfriends.  And now you say that although you're "not accusing him of fraud", you think there are some "problematic" documents that "may" be a smoking gun to IRS fraud.  Meanwhile the IRS has never charged him with fraud even though he's audited all the time for 40-50 years he's been in the real estate and other businesses.  But somehow, this time, you know you got the goods.  And then you tell me that Democrats would spend their time doing the people's business but it's the Republicans that are stopping them.  Give me a break.
The IRS budget has been cut way back over the past eight years.  We have only President Trump's word that his taxes are under audit; the IRS never discloses whose tax returns are under audit.  Given the President's lack of veracity, there is no guarantee that he is telling the truth.  He made an empty promise about releasing his tax returns because he didn't believe he would win the nomination much less the presidency.  Once he accomplished both wins, that promise of transparency disappeared.  Do you deny that this took place?  Also, you have no idea how often he was audited and by which tax authorities and neither do I.

IRS fraud is not what either I or the ProPublica piece was talking about.  It was property tax declarations and loan applications.  These are public documents and there is a clear discrepancy. 

Anyone can be investigated for malfeasance and this happens all the time.  Look at how much investigation was done about President Clinton and his wife during his administration.  Do you think those investigations (along with the countless investigations of Secretary of State Clinton) were not warranted.  You cannot have it both ways.  Either everyone is fair game or nobody is.

Your final comment is just silly.  The House has done a lot of legislative work that is just sitting on Senator McConnell's desk.  He is not even making an attempt to have the Senate pass something and see if there is some common ground.  The Senate could easily not vote to finalize something if a compromise could not be reached.  I think President Trump has held a couple of 'infrastructure weeks' and nothing has happened.  I don't know what your roads and bridges are like in NJ, but ours down here need a lot of work.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 02:32:35 pm
So Trump has reversed course again and has now decided to keep some troops in Syria to protect the oil fields, which of course begs the question for whom and from whom. I don't think the US imports any oil from Syria. So much for bringing the boys home and letting the ME fight it out among themselves. Mendacity.
I agree, Frank.  First thing I thought.  Why are we there protecting oil?  Whose oil is it anyway?  I think some of the oil is in Iraq.  But who cares?  Let the Iraqi army protect it. If it's on Syrian lands, maybe it belongs to the Syrians in the first place and the Kurds are stealing it.  So we're complicit in their theft.   In any case, we're supposed to be policeman protecting oil?  It's nuts!  Frankly, it's just an excuse to keep troops there; an attempt to cool off the criticism of Trump because he pulled out.

Frankly, I smell "mission creep" like what happened in Vietnam.  It started there under President Kennedy with just having a few military advisors to help the South Vietnamese army ward off the Communist North.  Then with President Johnson, the Gulf of Tonkin, a phony conflict, and next thing we had 500,000 troops there, with 58,000 dead.  Just on our side.  If the Turks and Kurds go at it after the 5 day "pause", we could get drawn in.  People will say to Trump - you have to help.  Then we'll be sucked into another war, that Trump is trying to avoid.  He should have stuck to his guns and stayed out.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 02:48:20 pm
The IRS budget has been cut way back over the past eight years.  We have only President Trump's word that his taxes are under audit; the IRS never discloses whose tax returns are under audit.  Given the President's lack of veracity, there is no guarantee that he is telling the truth.  He made an empty promise about releasing his tax returns because he didn't believe he would win the nomination much less the presidency.  Once he accomplished both wins, that promise of transparency disappeared.  Do you deny that this took place?  Also, you have no idea how often he was audited and by which tax authorities and neither do I.

IRS fraud is not what either I or the ProPublica piece was talking about.  It was property tax declarations and loan applications.  These are public documents and there is a clear discrepancy. 

Anyone can be investigated for malfeasance and this happens all the time.  Look at how much investigation was done about President Clinton and his wife during his administration.  Do you think those investigations (along with the countless investigations of Secretary of State Clinton) were not warranted.  You cannot have it both ways.  Either everyone is fair game or nobody is.

Your final comment is just silly.  The House has done a lot of legislative work that is just sitting on Senator McConnell's desk.  He is not even making an attempt to have the Senate pass something and see if there is some common ground.  The Senate could easily not vote to finalize something if a compromise could not be reached.  I think President Trump has held a couple of 'infrastructure weeks' and nothing has happened.  I don't know what your roads and bridges are like in NJ, but ours down here need a lot of work.
So because the IRS budget has been cut, we are to assume that Trump has commited tax fraud.  Never mind that only effect the non-rich because the IRS mainly goes after rich people and companies.  They still audit the Trumps because they have so much money.  But meanwhile, there has not been one charge of tax fraud or insurance fraud for over-valuations of real estate in his entire life from the IRS. Remember that banks and insurance companies are the ones that eventually have to deal with any bankruptcies.  So if TRump did something illegal, they'd be pissed. They'd be holding the bag as the property value would not cover the their payments to creditors.

The problem is the democrats have been looking for something, anything, to impeach.  It's a wild goose chase.  They  look under every rock and cranny until they hope they can find something to use against him even if there really isn't anything there, like the Russian collusion charge.  That's not how we operate in America.  We don;t do this to presidents or anyone else.  But of course we realize it's all politics.  Clinton got somewhat the same treatment.  But that was wrong too.  And I said it was wrong then.  Hiding marital infidelity, even lying about it under oath(added), is not treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. Vote him out of office. That's way proper way to do it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 21, 2019, 03:17:48 pm
Interesting piece from a forthcoming book, about Trump's first Pentagon briefing, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/21/inside-trumps-first-pentagon-briefing-229865 (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/21/inside-trumps-first-pentagon-briefing-229865).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 03:38:49 pm
Interesting piece from a forthcoming book, about Trump's first Pentagon briefing, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/21/inside-trumps-first-pentagon-briefing-229865 (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/21/inside-trumps-first-pentagon-briefing-229865).
The read shows the president as his own man with a plan.  He became president wanting to stop foreign wars and get our allies to pay more for their defense and to straighten out trade imbalances caused by unfair trade practices.  Mattis was still in the Neocon camp where America would remain as the guarantor of international peace using our muscle to get our way.  Mattis is stuck in the past.  Americans elected the president not Mattis.  It was Trump's policy promises that got him elected.  Americans had enough of old ways of doing things; Mattis's ways of doing things.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 21, 2019, 03:42:38 pm
I agree, Frank.  First thing I thought.  Why are we there protecting oil?  Whose oil is it anyway?  I think some of the oil is in Iraq.  But who cares?  Let the Iraqi army protect it. If it's on Syrian lands, maybe it belongs to the Syrians in the first place and the Kurds are stealing it.  So we're complicit in their theft.   In any case, we're supposed to be policeman protecting oil?  It's nuts!  Frankly, it's just an excuse to keep troops there; an attempt to cool off the criticism of Trump because he pulled out.
The point is Trump can't make up his mind. The mission changes from day to day. So yesterday he was bringing the boys home as a rationale for letting Turkey invade Syria. What's the rationale today?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 21, 2019, 03:48:41 pm
The read shows the president as his own man with a plan.  He became president wanting to stop foreign wars and get our allies to pay more for their defense and to straighten out trade imbalances caused by unfair trade practices.  Mattis was still in the Neocon camp where America would remain as the guarantor of international peace using our muscle to get our way.  Mattis is stuck in the past.  Americans elected the president not Mattis.  It was Trump's policy promises that got him elected.  Americans had enough of old ways of doing things; Mattis's ways of doing things.   

I can't remember, did Trump ever get his military parade?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 21, 2019, 04:06:34 pm
The read shows the president as his own man with a plan. 

Poor planner, I'd say.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 21, 2019, 04:08:11 pm
I can't remember, did Trump ever get his military parade?
I think he had two "Sherman" tanks on the National Mall on the Fourth of July.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 04:28:56 pm
The point is Trump can't make up his mind. The mission changes from day to day. So yesterday he was bringing the boys home as a rationale for letting Turkey invade Syria. What's the rationale today?
He wants to get re-elected and protect himself from impeachment.  So he's going along with Republican complaints about his original decision.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 21, 2019, 09:26:58 pm
"Robert Shiller: Recession likely years away due to bullish Trump effect"

Quote
Nobel-prize winning economist Robert Shiller believes a recession may be years away due to a bullish Trump effect in the market.

https://www-cnbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/10/20/shiller-recession-likely-years-away-due-to-bullish-trump-effect.html

Impeach that! ;)

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 11:33:17 pm
Trump calls Hillary Clinton, "Sick."  Just think, we could have Hillary to kick around for 4 years. 

President Donald Trump on Monday defended Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard against Hillary Clinton’s accusation that the Democratic congresswoman’s presidential campaign is being bolstered by the Russian government.

“She’s accusing everyone of being a Russian agent,” Trump told reporters of his 2016 general election opponent.

“These people are sick. There’s something wrong with them,” he said.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/21/trump-gabbard-clinton-russian-agent-053294 (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/21/trump-gabbard-clinton-russian-agent-053294)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 11:39:11 pm
"Robert Shiller: Recession likely years away due to bullish Trump effect"

https://www-cnbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/10/20/shiller-recession-likely-years-away-due-to-bullish-trump-effect.html

Impeach that! ;)


I hope you're right.  But I don;t know.  What if he loses in 2020?  Also, the Fed is pumping fake money into the economy again to keep it afloat.  I'm afraid it's going to end badly.  If a socialist wins, the printing presses will be run on overtime. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 22, 2019, 03:38:02 am
So Trump has reversed course again and has now decided to keep some troops in Syria to protect the oil fields, which of course begs the question for whom and from whom. I don't think the US imports any oil from Syria. So much for bringing the boys home and letting the ME fight it out among themselves. Mendacity.

It's to protect them from ISIS - you know, the guys he destroyed a while ago.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 22, 2019, 08:57:17 am
"Robert Shiller: Recession likely years away due to bullish Trump effect"

https://www-cnbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/10/20/shiller-recession-likely-years-away-due-to-bullish-trump-effect.html

Impeach that! ;)
Well, just one year ago the same oracle you site said that stocks were in for a tough time:  https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/nobel-prize-winner-shiller-sees-bad-times-in-the-stock-market-ahead.html

Flip a coin to see which is correct.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 22, 2019, 09:23:25 am
Actually, the same expert predicted just this summer bad times for stocks. Listen to Cramer!
https://www.investopedia.com/news/stock-market-about-turn-ugly-investors-shiller/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 22, 2019, 09:27:33 am
The problem is the democrats have been looking for something, anything, to impeach. It's a wild goose chase.  They  look under every rock and cranny until they hope they can find something to use against him even if there really isn't anything there, like the Russian collusion charge. 

That's very true. You can't fire him because of incompetency, so they have to find other ways to get rid of him. Same as with Al Capone.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 11:47:41 am
That's very true. You can't fire him because of incompetency, so they have to find other ways to get rid of him. Same as with Al Capone.
Impeachment talk started  even before the inauguration.  They (Democrats and connected Republicans)  just couldn't accept that Hillary lost and this outsider won. Especially because everyone though Hillary was a shoe-in.  The analogy to Capone is a little unfair, don't you think? ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 22, 2019, 01:29:18 pm
The analogy to Capone is a little unfair, don't you think? ;)

Yes, I've no reason to believe that Capone was a racist.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 22, 2019, 02:44:45 pm
Impeachment talk started  even before the inauguration.  They (Democrats and connected Republicans)  just couldn't accept that Hillary lost and this outsider won. Especially because everyone though Hillary was a shoe-in.  The analogy to Capone is a little unfair, don't you think? ;)

You are absolutely right, Alan. Al Capone's mansion in Miami pales in comparison to Mar A Lago.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 03:07:23 pm
Yes, I've no reason to believe that Capone was a racist.
Well, Capone executed people who caused him trouble, something that Trump hasn't been accused of.  Yet.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 22, 2019, 03:09:41 pm
Well, Capone executed people who caused him trouble, something that Trump hasn't been accused of.  Yet.

I doubt he did it personally, so the comparison is still not looking good for Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 03:11:12 pm
You are absolutely right, Alan. Al Capone's mansion in Miami pales in comparison to Mar A Lago.
Well, Trump's taste is of a higher standard although I think his Trump's gold powered Tower residence is a little tacky for my taste. :)
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump%27s+gold+power+apartment&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS746US746&sxsrf=ACYBGNRIse2SYDiWP2VNvmVFGK_U41sAaQ:1571771370377&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=EQXfpXjfb9HYrM%253A%252CSYC2X2BE8Y5vFM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kSK2ufXFD3TYHTtA9j2iJYdSMGxTA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiB0cvRyLDlAhUqTd8KHelWCEQQ9QEwAnoECAkQDA#imgrc=-Fon_FYxZgDulM (https://www.google.com/search?q=trump%27s+gold+power+apartment&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS746US746&sxsrf=ACYBGNRIse2SYDiWP2VNvmVFGK_U41sAaQ:1571771370377&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=EQXfpXjfb9HYrM%253A%252CSYC2X2BE8Y5vFM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kSK2ufXFD3TYHTtA9j2iJYdSMGxTA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiB0cvRyLDlAhUqTd8KHelWCEQQ9QEwAnoECAkQDA#imgrc=-Fon_FYxZgDulM).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 22, 2019, 03:12:39 pm
"Robert Shiller: Recession likely years away due to bullish Trump effect"

https://www-cnbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/10/20/shiller-recession-likely-years-away-due-to-bullish-trump-effect.html

Impeach that! ;)

Is one economist enough for a consensus?  ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 22, 2019, 03:22:57 pm
Well, Trump's taste is of a higher standard although I think his Trump's gold powered Tower residence is a little tacky for my taste. :)
Everything associated with Trump is tacky.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 22, 2019, 03:27:27 pm
Everything associated with Trump is tacky.

Except Melania and Air Force One.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 22, 2019, 03:30:39 pm
Except Melania and Air Force One.
Having a trophy wife is tacky. Air Force One just looks dated.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 22, 2019, 03:36:39 pm
Having a trophy wife is tacky. Air Force One just looks dated.
Yeah, Air Force One looks older.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 03:54:58 pm
Yeah, Air Force One looks older.
Well, he can't keep Air Force One when he leaves office.  It won't fit in his cell.

Wait, did I say that?   Couldn;t resist. ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 22, 2019, 04:12:00 pm
Having a trophy wife is tacky...

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 22, 2019, 04:24:00 pm
Having a trophy wife is tacky. Air Force One just looks dated.

It all depends on who won the prize first: if it's you, then that ¡s perfectly okay. Problems arise when more names get engraved on the side.

Life is unfair.

AF1 is an insult to the ozone layer.

;-(
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 22, 2019, 05:10:52 pm
With Taylor's testimony today things are getting worse for the Prez.  I think it's looking more and more like a resignation before the end of the year; I don't think he wants to go through impeachment.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 05:19:24 pm
With Taylor's testimony today things are getting worse for the Prez.  I think it's looking more and more like a resignation before the end of the year; I don't think he wants to go through impeachment.
You've been claiming that for three years.  Are you sure this time?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 22, 2019, 05:39:02 pm
With Taylor's testimony today things are getting worse for the Prez.  I think it's looking more and more like a resignation before the end of the year; I don't think he wants to go through impeachment.

I don't think you've been paying attention. Nothing is too low for this guy. If he beat conviction by a single vote in the Senate, he'd claim complete vindication. And I'm not sure they can get enough Republicans to vote for conviction, though they might come close. The problem the Republicans face is that Pence, who'd be the presumptive nominee if he assumes the presidency later in this year or earlier in the next, has all the charisma of a barrel of hair. I think for Republicans, Trump would run stronger.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 06:48:08 pm
I don't think you've been paying attention. Nothing is too low for this guy. If he beat conviction by a single vote in the Senate, he'd claim complete vindication. And I'm not sure they can get enough Republicans to vote for conviction, though they might come close. The problem the Republicans face is that Pence, who'd be the presumptive nominee if he assumes the presidency later in this year or earlier in the next, has all the charisma of a barrel of hair. I think for Republicans, Trump would run stronger.

That's an interesting conversation.  Just how strong would Pence be in an election?  Pence seems like a squeaky clean kind of guy.  He looks like a president, speaks like a president, coherently and with authority.  He comes from middle America (Indiana) and would attract middle American votes from the swing states.  If the Democrat nominate is a left winger, he could attract a lot of votes in other states that might not vote for Trump.  Who knows how it would turn out?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 22, 2019, 07:16:27 pm
I doubt he did it personally, so the comparison is still not looking good for Trump.

Capone made his bones as a hit man for the mob in his younger days.  When he was a boss, yes, he did not do it personally, but before that, he had no qualms with executing someone. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 07:18:34 pm
Capone made his bones as a hit man for the mob in his younger days.  When he was a boss, yes, he did not do it personally, but before that, he had no qualms with executing someone. 
Fugetaboutit.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 22, 2019, 07:25:28 pm
That's an interesting conversation.  Just how strong would Pence be in an election?  Pence seems like a squeaky clean kind of guy.  He looks like a president, speaks like a president, coherently and with authority.  He comes from middle America (Indiana) and would attract middle American votes from the swing states.  If the Democrat nominate is a left winger, he could attract a lot of votes in other states that might not vote for Trump.  Who knows how it would turn out?

It is really a question of voter turnout with this election.  Fact is, although many may not like Trump, he draws a big crowd and large support from those that do support him.  Another fact is that many just don't like the current Dems.  Warren's policies and the recent CNN LGBT town hall turned off a lot of voters, more then those on the Left want to admit, that would be shoe ins for the Dems, so there is very low enthusiasm there. 

Last, and this something that I realized today, the WOKE and Trans movement is an ideological pure all or nothing crowd.  They refuse compromise, and any movement that does this is doomed for failure and will bring down all politicians that support it as well.  This is the main reason why prohibition failed; the teetotalers refused to compromise.  If they did, we would probably live in a country with only wine and light beer. 

In the past election, many were still too scarred to rail against the obvious parts of these movements that were flawed.  Now though, both comedians and female athletes (and their upset fathers and mothers watching them get trounced by biological boys) are starting to openly critique both movements.  6 to 9 months, the damn will break wide open, just in time for the election.  Given the recent mess created in CT, I would not be surprised if that state turns red. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 07:31:08 pm
It is really a question of voter turnout with this election.  Fact is, although many may not like Trump, he draws a big crowd and large support from those that do support him.  Another fact is that many just don't like the current Dems.  Warren's policies and the recent CNN LGBT town hall turned off a lot of voters, more then those on the Left want to admit, that would be shoe ins for the Dems, so there is very low enthusiasm there. 

Last, and this something that I realized today, the WOKE and Trans movement is an ideological pure all or nothing crowd.  They refuse compromise, and any movement that does this is doomed for failure and will bring down all politicians that support it as well.  This is the main reason why prohibition failed; the teetotalers refused to compromise.  If they did, we would probably live in a country with only wine and light beer. 

In the past election, many were still too scarred to rail against the obvious parts of these movements that were flawed.  Now though, both comedians and female athletes (and their upset fathers and mothers watching them loose to biological boys) are starting to openly critique both movements.  6 to 9 months, the damn will break wide open, just in time for the election.  Given the recent mess created in CT, I would not be surprised if that state turns red. 

A lot of the left wing stuff will disappear during the general election.  Right now, everyone is trying to win the nomination.  Whoever wins will shift back into the middle.  People have short memories.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 22, 2019, 07:35:18 pm
A lot of the left wing stuff will disappear during the general election.  Right now, everyone is trying to win the nomination.  Whoever wins will shift back into the middle.  People have short memories.

I don't know how Warren goes back to the middle.  She already ruined herself. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 08:09:15 pm
I don't know how Warren goes back to the middle.  She already ruined herself. 
She'll be protected by the media.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 22, 2019, 08:22:00 pm
She'll be protected by the media.

I think the media is falling apart right now though. 

I used to watch and read CNN all of the time, but just cant anymore.  My wife initially criticized me for getting my news elsewhere, but eventually she stop as well.  I think her newfound opinion on the CNN, which she held onto for a long time, just proves the point. 

I have been listening to a lot of podcast recently, and people are more and more getting their news from these sources.  On one such podcast, a credentialed journalist made the point that the mass media is realizing this and trying to correct for it by being over the top, which in turn makes it worse. 

I listened to a two hour interview with Peter Theil, a rather interesting person, and he made a similar point.  Essentially he said news for the longest time was a monopoly (I would argue an oligopoly), and that is the reason they were so successfully.  Monopolies are good so long as you dont become too fat and bureaucratic, becuase then a new technology and company can come and wipe you out.  This is essentially what happened to news.  They developed a false reality of why they were doing so well, blaming it on good reporting, when in fact it was because they were local monopolies.  Then the Internet came along and blew that to hell, and since they became lazy, were lost. 

Interesting enough, Theil made another interesting point on government organizations I tend to agree with.  He stated that all large organizations, no matter how well they work, will eventually become too bureaucratic to function.  In the private sector, the way this is fixed is by a better newer company coming along and putting the older one out of business.  In government though, there is no fix to the problem.  It just gets more and more inefficient and never gets replaced, and this is the problem with most government agencies today.  They worked well when they were created 60+ years ago, but have become ossified by bureaucracy and people just refuse to accept it.  They look at the past reality of these institutions instead realizing the current reality and allowing for the whole thing to be nixed and replaced with something else.  No politician wants to just fire everyone and start over, which is exactly what happens in the private sector. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 09:12:15 pm
Joe, Unfortunately, it's not just the main media but most of the cable media is biased left as well.   Most people just read headlines.  And a lot of the main stations, CBS, ABC, NBC, are democrat left.  So that's all they hear.  If Trump gets impeached and boring Pence becomes president, no one will watch the news at all.  They'll all lose half their customers, many will go broke, and they'll rue the day they got rid of him.  Bull-in-the-CHina-shop Trump suck all the oxygen out of the room.  Constantly.  Cable and people can;t get enough off it.  Look at our forums.  Page after page after page.  But actually, I think Pence will be good for the public who will appreciate some quiet, a pause.  There's too much commotion with Trump and people will like a break and see Pence as the guy to give it to them.  Steady, quiet, polite, thoughtful, mature, experienced.  No angst.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 09:13:46 pm
Totally opposite Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: degrub on October 22, 2019, 10:04:36 pm
Pence is so conservative, be careful what you wish for....
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 10:29:03 pm
Pence is so conservative, be careful what you wish for....
So why do they want to impeach Trump?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 11:56:43 pm
Congrats to my Canadian friends having re-elected Justin Trudeau.  Please, I no longer wish to hear how Trump only got 46% of the popular vote.  How do you run Canada when only 1/3 of the people voted for you?  33.1%! Also, no more complaints about the American electoral system.

"Not only was Trudeau's Liberal Party forced by voters to accept a demotion to a minority government -- grabbing just 157 of 338 seats in the House of Commons -- but about two-thirds of the country voted against him. His party's share of the popular vote clocked in at just 33.1 % -- less than the 34.4% earned by the rival the Conservative Party of Canada and its leader Andrew Scheer."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/opinions/canada-election-bociurkiw/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/opinions/canada-election-bociurkiw/index.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 23, 2019, 12:33:47 am
Congrats to my Canadian friends having re-elected Justin Trudeau.  Please, I no longer wish to hear how Trump only got 46% of the popular vote.  How do you run Canada when only 1/3 of the people voted for you? 33.1%! Also, no more complaints about the American electoral system.

"Not only was Trudeau's Liberal Party forced by voters to accept a demotion to a minority government -- grabbing just 157 of 338 seats in the House of Commons -- but about two-thirds of the country voted against him. His party's share of the popular vote clocked in at just 33.1 % -- less than the 34.4% earned by the rival the Conservative Party of Canada and its leader Andrew Scheer."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/opinions/canada-election-bociurkiw/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/opinions/canada-election-bociurkiw/index.html)

No problem. Canada just announced Cannabis 2.0, a legalization of cannabis derivatives, including cheery beverages, new types of cookies and all kinds of creams. Happy Years Ahead!   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 23, 2019, 01:15:46 am
Capone made his bones as a hit man for the mob in his younger days.  When he was a boss, yes, he did not do it personally, but before that, he had no qualms with executing someone.

Too bad he didn't have drones and an air force, eh?  Could have avoided getting his little hands dirty altogether.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 23, 2019, 08:26:51 am
I think the media is falling apart right now though. 

I used to watch and read CNN all of the time, but just cant anymore.  My wife initially criticized me for getting my news elsewhere, but eventually she stop as well.  I think her newfound opinion on the CNN, which she held onto for a long time, just proves the point. 

I have been listening to a lot of podcast recently, and people are more and more getting their news from these sources.  On one such podcast, a credentialed journalist made the point that the mass media is realizing this and trying to correct for it by being over the top, which in turn makes it worse. 
I don't watch a lot of TV news and when I do, I try to sample both FOX and MSNBC both of which are good for some laughs.  Since I walk an hour each morning, I listen to lots of podcasts, some of which are news related.  With the ubiquitous of the Internet, there are lots of alternative news outlets.  The Washington Post does a poor job of local news coverage these days but we have a very good local outlet Bethesda Beat that delivers a daily email with links to all current stories that are of interest to me.

ProPublica is home to the best investigative journalists outside the mainstream and they collaborate with a number of mainstream news organizations.  While they are doing a lot of work on Trump finances, they are also investigating state and local corruption in both Red and Blue areas.   As always, one has to recognize the bias of any news organization and sample a variety of sources.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 23, 2019, 08:43:26 am
Too bad he didn't have drones and an air force, eh?  Could have avoided getting his little hands dirty altogether.

 ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 23, 2019, 08:58:12 am
Don't know why you want to portrait yourself as unnecessarily more dim than you actually are...

Personal attack  >:(
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 23, 2019, 09:04:56 am
Damn, and this is in the NY Times! 

Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, ‘Is There Anybody Else?’ (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/politics/democratic-candidates-2020.html)

And it looks like Hillary may jump back in for a 2020 run.  It is mud slinging time.  Personally I think she is done.  Maybe before Farrow book came out, she had a chance.  However now that it is evident that Hillary also tried to squash the Weinstein story, I cant see her surviving the Me2 people. 

Personally, I would like to see Michael R. Bloomberg enter the race. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 23, 2019, 09:33:05 am
I'm not sure how the nomination process is done in the Democratic Party, but is it possible for an outsider to enter the group that is already running for the candidacy for a while? That would put those having had to already spend money at a disadvantage.

Personally, and from a distance, I'm not overly impressed by the line-up. It doesn't look like the best candidate to beat the probable Republican nominee is being selected.

Cheers,
Bart

There are deadlines on a state by state basis for putting in your application to get on the primary ballot.  We are about 3 months away from the deadline for CA and TX, so right now, anyone can still enter the race. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 23, 2019, 11:14:55 am
Damn, and this is in the NY Times! 

Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, ‘Is There Anybody Else?’ (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/politics/democratic-candidates-2020.html)

And it looks like Hillary may jump back in for a 2020 run.  It is mud slinging time.  Personally I think she is done.  Maybe before Farrow book came out, she had a chance.  However now that it is evident that Hillary also tried to squash the Weinstein story, I cant see her surviving the Me2 people. 

Personally, I would like to see Michael R. Bloomberg enter the race.
There is no surprise here!  Lots of us who are reliable Democratic voters are uncomfortable with the three front runners for various reasons.  I made my first contribution of the year to a Dem running and it was not anyone of those.  Former Senator and Secretary of State Clinton should just fade away like an old soldier.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 11:18:11 am
Don't know why you want to portrait yourself as unnecessarily more dim than you actually are, but let's explain.

In a multi-party election system, in the case of Canada 5 parties, there is a chance that a multi-party coalition government will have to be formed. These parties will not participate unless a fair share of their specific policies find their way to the day-to-day governing and future legislation. In this way, they can create a coalition government that represents more than 50% of the population, AKA democracy.
Your insult wasn;t required Bart.  You're better than that.

The point is non-Americans like yourself and others from Canada laugh at the America presidential electoral system.  How could Hillary who received 48% of the popular vote lose the election to Trump who received less votes at 46%.  That's not a democracy.  When we explain our electoral system, foreigners argue that it should be the popular vote that counts.  Well, there in Canada, Trudeau got 33.1% and his opponent got a higher popular vote at 34.1%.  But Trudeau's opponent doesn't become  the leader, just like Clinton.  There are other rules and processes that affect the selection.  Well, those aren't "democratic" either  at least not based on popular vote.  The parties have to work behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms to make special deals to select the PM.  Doesn;t sound democratic to me.  At least with our electors, almost all are required to follow what their state's popular vote was. 

Think about it.  69.1% of Canadians voted against Trudeau.  Only 54% of American voted against Trump.  Sounds like America is more "democratic" the Canada and other Parliamentary systems. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 11:23:31 am
There is no surprise here!  Lots of us who are reliable Democratic voters are uncomfortable with the three front runners for various reasons.  I made my first contribution of the year to a Dem running and it was not anyone of those.  Former Senator and Secretary of State Clinton should just fade away like an old soldier.
Why do you think she attacked Gabbard? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 23, 2019, 11:42:29 am
An observation, followed by an explanation, in case the observation is wrong..

Ok. Reported to the moderator.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 11:51:28 am
Ok. Reported to the moderator.
Slobodan, I appreciate your concern. Let me deal with Bart directly.  I'm not interested in raising the issue to the moderator.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 23, 2019, 11:54:06 am

The point is non-Americans like yourself and others from Canada laugh at the America presidential electoral system.  How could Hillary who received 48% of the popular vote lose the election to Trump who received less votes at 46%.  That's not a democracy.  When we explain our electoral system, foreigners argue that it should be the popular vote that counts.  Well, there in Canada, Trudeau got 33.1% and his opponent got a higher popular vote at 34.1%.  But Trudeau's opponent doesn't become  the leader, just like Clinton.  There are other rules and processes that affect the selection.  Well, those aren't "democratic" either  at least not based on popular vote.  The parties have to work behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms to make special deals to select the PM.  Doesn;t sound democratic to me.  At least with our electors, almost all are required to follow what their state's popular vote was. 

Think about it.  69.1% of Canadians voted against Trudeau.  Only 54% of American voted against Trump.  Sounds like America is more "democratic" the Canada and other Parliamentary systems.

No one laughed, they simply expressed reservations about the process. We're allowed to do that.

As to the outcomes in a multi-party system, that was explained above. Did you not read it? If you did, why repeat the same question. In any case, no one ever claimed that we non-Americans get it exactly correct either, so I don't understand the point of even bringing it up. It is not necessary to take everything personally.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 11:54:41 am
 Finally, a democrat giving the truth why so many people voted for Trump.

Gabbard, the democrat from Hawaii running for democratic nomination for president says:
'Hillary, your foreign policy was a disaster for our country and the world,' the 38-year-old military combat veteran who served in the Iraq War said.

'It’s resulted in the deaths and injuries of so many of my brothers and sisters in uniform. It’s devastated entire countries, millions of lives lost, refugee crises, our enemy al-Qaeda/ISIS strengthened,' she added.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7603427/Tulsi-Gabbard-continues-rip-Hillary-Clinton-saying-Step-throne.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7603427/Tulsi-Gabbard-continues-rip-Hillary-Clinton-saying-Step-throne.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 11:58:43 am
No one laughed, they simply expressed reservations about the process. We're allowed to do that.

As to the outcomes in a multi-party system, that was explained above. Did you not read it? If you did, why repeat the same question. In any case, no one ever claimed that we non-Americans get it exactly correct either, so I don't understand the point of even bringing it up. It is not necessary to take everything personally.
The Point is one shouldn't throw stones when you live in a glass house.  I want to remind people in countries with parliamentary systems that your processes aren't exactly "democratic" either.  The only reason we heard from them, is because they're upset that Hillary didn't win because of the electoral system.  It was about Hillary, and who won, not the system that concerned them.  The argument about popular vote was just a ploy.  Their systems may be more undemocratic than America's. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 23, 2019, 12:07:10 pm
The point is non-Americans like yourself and others from Canada laugh at the America presidential electoral system.  How could Hillary who received 48% of the popular vote lose the election to Trump who received less votes at 46%.  That's not a democracy.  When we explain our electoral system, foreigners argue that it should be the popular vote that counts.  Well, there in Canada, Trudeau got 33.1% and his opponent got a higher popular vote at 34.1%.  But Trudeau's opponent doesn't become  the leader, just like Clinton.  There are other rules and processes that affect the selection.  Well, those aren't "democratic" either  at least not based on popular vote.  The parties have to work behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms to make special deals to select the PM.  Doesn;t sound democratic to me.  At least with our electors, almost all are required to follow what their state's popular vote was. 

Clicked Send too soon, didn't complete my thought.

Another thing to keep in mind is that in a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is not a President and does not have the executive powers that the US President has. Besides that, we now have a minority government, that is, his party does not have a numerical majority in Parliament. This constrains what he can do, because he needs to pass legislation that meets with the approval of people not in his party. Many people believe, and I won't argue against it, that minority governments can produce good legislation because of that. Also, in a parliamentary system, if the governing party loses a vote of non-confidence, they can be thrown out and an election immediately called. So the day to day workings of the government is different than in  the US, and it's very difficult to make general comparisons of the type of "this one is more democratic than that one." 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 23, 2019, 12:12:40 pm
It should be noted that the US has independent candidates as well, not only in presidential, but also in congressional elections. It also has a multi-party system. It is just that the other parties can not get enough popular support at present. The most notable independent congressional member is Bernie Sanders.

"Since 1877, there have been 113 third-party U.S. Representatives"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 23, 2019, 12:17:04 pm
The Point is one shouldn't throw stones when you live in a glass house.  I want to remind people in countries with parliamentary systems that your processes aren't exactly "democratic" either.  The only reason we heard from them, is because they're upset that Hillary didn't win because of the electoral system.  It was about Hillary, and who won, not the system that concerned them.  The argument about popular vote was just a ploy.  Their systems may be more undemocratic than America's.

No one is throwing stones, stop making everything personal. And why are you still talking about Hilary? The election was 3 years ago, the discussion has moved on. Hilary and Obama are not in any elected office, they are history. That particular battle in the culture wars is over.

Inadequacies in systems are pointed out, that's what discussions are for.

In any case, I partly agree with you. I can understand not liking the Electoral College system, but fighting gerrymandering and voter suppression might be a better use of people's time, complaining about the Electoral College is probably not fruitful. It may be ok as part of a discussion of constitutional amendments maybe, but there are more immediate ways to insure fairer elections.

Not to mention election funding reform. Allowing unlimited funding is a threat to your republic, many people feel. Would your "founding fathers" have been ok with what you have now, do you think?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 23, 2019, 12:20:41 pm
It should be noted that the US has independent candidates as well, not only in presidential, but also in congressional elections. It also has a multi-party system. It is just that the other parties can not get enough popular support at present. The most notable independent congressional member is Bernie Sanders.

"Since 1877, there have been 113 third-party U.S. Representatives"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

Although third-parties are not ruled out, they exist mostly in theory, it seems to me. The two main parties have sown things up very well, haven't they. But I don't know enough about the history to know why that's happened, but lots of people around the world find it very odd.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 23, 2019, 12:24:37 pm
Although third-parties are not ruled out, they exist mostly in theory, it seems to me. The two main parties have sown things up very well, haven't they. But I don't know enough about the history to know why that's happened, but lots of people around the world find it very odd.

The electoral college, plain and simple.  Since it is a winner takes all in the state vote, third party candidates typically never stand a chance at even winning some electoral votes.  So from a party forming perspective, why bother trying to create a third parties if you know you will never have any national influence in the executive branch.  This is exactly why Bernie is running as a Dem, even though he is not really one. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 23, 2019, 12:42:24 pm
Political positions of Donald Trump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump

Not sure what this has anything to do with my explanation on our two party system. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 23, 2019, 01:04:15 pm
Was hoping to get an explanation. Could the frequent switching of sides have to do with influence on candidate selection...

It shall be noted that Trump had never been a candidate for anything political until 2016 elections. Thus his frequent switching has nothing to do with his own candidacy. He, and many others, switch party affiliation for a different reason - voting. Depending on state legislation, one may or may not vote in a party primary unless officially affiliated with the party. In some states you can, in others you can not. For instance, in Illinois, I was able to participate in a primary voting without declaring my affiliation. When I moved to Florida, however, if I want to vote in primaries, I would have to choose sides first. In presidential and congressional elections, however, that doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 01:45:04 pm
New York State, where Trump is a resident and votes,  requires registration to a particular party to vote in that party's nomination process. That probably accounts for his changes from time to time.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 23, 2019, 01:47:14 pm
It shall be noted that Trump had never been a candidate for anything political until 2016 elections. Thus his frequent switching has nothing to do with his own candidacy. He, and many others, switch party affiliation for a different reason - voting. Depending on state legislation, one may or may not vote in a party primary unless officially affiliated with the party. In some states you can, in others you can not. For instance, in Illinois, I was able to participate in a primary voting without declaring my affiliation. When I moved to Florida, however, if I want to vote in primaries, I would have to choose sides first. In presidential and congressional elections, however, that doesn't matter.

What is the reason for requiring affiliation in the places where it is required?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 23, 2019, 01:51:57 pm
What is the reason for requiring affiliation in the places where it is required?

There is a fear, which I think is unfounded, that voters of the opposite party will vote in your primary to ensure the most radical/worse candidate gets on the ticket.  This would certainly increase the chances of the other party winning.  However, I cant really see this being something that would actually happen. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 23, 2019, 01:54:23 pm
What is the reason for requiring affiliation in the places where it is required?

One possibility, I assume, is to prevent, say, a Democrat coming to a Republican primary and vote for a candidate they think they could beat easier in the general election. Just guessing.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 23, 2019, 02:02:24 pm
Slobodan is correct about people switching parties to vote in primaries. In an open primary, you may vote for whichever party candidate you wish (but you can only vote for one person.) In other words, you may vote in the Republican primary or the Democratic primary, but not both. In states with open primaries, occasionally you'll have campaign situations in which, say, the Democratic candidate has a lock on the election, but the Republican race is close, between a moderate and a very conservative candidate -- in which case, Democratic voters may be encouraged to vote in the Republican primary, in hopes of electing the more moderate candidate, so no matter what happens in the final election, the conservative will be shut out. In a closed primary, you have to register in advance, often well in advance, to vote in a primary. Some states don't have primaries. The Trump campaign is trying to eliminate primaries in states where he controls the local party, but might lose a primary. (e.g. Arizona.)

About our electoral college. It has its disadvantages -- a candidate can win without a plurality of the vote, as Trump did. In some cases, neither Presidential candidate wins a *majority* of the vote, because third parties do soak up a few percentage points. Gore would have won the election in 2000, rather than Bush, if a relatively strong third party candidate (Ralph Nader) hadn't soaked up quite a few normally Democratic votes in Florida. One reason to continue the electoral party is to assure that all of the US in covered by the candidates. There are vast swaths of America that would never see a candidate if not for the electoral college --- why campaign anywhere between the Mississippi and the coastal ranges when the distances are large and the population is sparse? Better to focus on the coasts, where your buck buys much more head count. But that interior area, when included in the electoral college, can move elections, as it did with Trump.

Parliamentary systems have some advantages over our executive system, but they may also develop really crippling disadvantages, as is evident in the current situation in Israel, where very minor parties can demand, and get, pay-offs to their small minority positions. In Israel, it's been basically the extremely conservative religious parties that have kept Netanyahu in power, even though a large majority of Israelis, including most of Netanyahu's larger-party allies, strongly disagree with the demands of the religious parties. But, if you want the power, you have to pay them off. That mostly happens in narrowly balanced parliaments -- as Britain is finding out now, trying to deal with Northern Ireland on the Brexit issue.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 02:03:58 pm
Why would you want to take a competitor's advice?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on October 23, 2019, 02:04:34 pm
Don't know why you want to portrait yourself as unnecessarily more dim than you actually are, but let's explain.

I have made it perfectly clear that gratuitous personal abuse will not be tolerated, Bart. That sentence is unacceptable, subsequent "explanation" or no. Don't do it again.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 23, 2019, 02:57:03 pm
I have made it perfectly clear that gratuitous personal abuse will not be tolerated, Bart. That sentence is unacceptable, subsequent "explanation" or no. Don't do it again.

Jeremy

That's fine Jeremy.

To avoid offending anyone, I've started removing my LuLa contributions. Let's see how that affects the signal to noise ratio.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 23, 2019, 03:13:01 pm
The electoral college, plain and simple.  Since it is a winner takes all in the state vote, third party candidates typically never stand a chance at even winning some electoral votes.  So from a party forming perspective, why bother trying to create a third parties if you know you will never have any national influence in the executive branch.  This is exactly why Bernie is running as a Dem, even though he is not really one.
Didn't Ralph Nader have a major impact on the executive branch in 2000?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: brandon on October 23, 2019, 03:37:27 pm
That's fine Jeremy.

To avoid offending anyone, I've started removing my LuLa contributions. Let's see how that affects the signal to noise ratio.

Cheers,
Bart

Please dont Bart! Yours are the main reason to visit the site!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 03:48:07 pm
Third party candidate Ross Perot helped Bill Clinton beat the first Bush president in 1992.  Third party candidates have often been spoilers but they've never won as far as I know.  The reason we don't have two main parties is because the electoral system requires a 50%+ majority of votes unlike a parliamentary system.  That encourages people to join up into single parties so you can amass enough votes to get your candidate over the 50% mark.  States follow the same rationale although they might split their electors. But only a couple of the 50 states do that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 23, 2019, 04:18:57 pm
How do you get on the electoral roll in the US? Is it possible to be eligible but then denied the vote because you haven't fulfilled some other obligation, e.g., sign up for something, register somewhere, etc.?  Does your presence on one electoral roll, say federal, mean that you are automatically enrolled for state elections, or municipal elections?

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 04:39:59 pm
How do you get on the electoral roll in the US? Is it possible to be eligible but then denied the vote because you haven't fulfilled some other obligation, e.g., sign up for something, register somewhere, etc.?  Does your presence on one electoral roll, say federal, mean that you are automatically enrolled for state elections, or municipal elections?


Every state has their own rules because each state is sovereign.  My wife an I just voted by mail for mayor, sheriff, school officials,  and other local officials who have their hand in the till.  :), a procedure allowed in the State of New Jersey.  Enrollment is by state, not Federally.  There are no federal enrollments. Since all federal officials except the President represent only the whole state in the case of senators or a particular election district in the states for Representative for Congress.  You can't vote for officials in other states.  You can only vote where you live and are registered to vote.  You can only register in one state at a time.  It;'s illegal to vote in two states.
Some small populated state have only one congressman.  But each State has two senators.  Also, a person votes for electors in their state who then place the vote for the president.  So you see, all the votes for federal officials come through the state.  There's no need for Federal enrollment. As far as I know, once you register to vote, you're covered for all elections, federal, state, and local
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 04:41:19 pm
Just to clarify, having your hand in the till is a procedure not allowed.  It's voting by mail that's allowed.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 23, 2019, 05:38:24 pm
Every state has their own rules because each state is sovereign.

One small but significant correction for those who may not be thoroughly familiar with the U.S. federal system.  The states are not sovereign (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereignty); they relinquished their sovereignty in 1788, when they ratified the constitution.  They retain "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, . . . or [reserved] to the people." (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment)

The states do have rather more autonomy than the states in most (maybe all) other federated countries, in part because the federal government was originally a creation of the states.  There is no tradition of top-down political authority in the United States: after the English colonies became independent of the Crown, they were effectively separate countries.  (That didn't last long.  Five years after declaring their independence, the states adopted a confederation plan that—in some respects, at least—might be analogized to the European Union.)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 05:49:15 pm
This may be picky and even tortured logic, Chris, and I understand your point.  But they're sovereign in all areas where they haven't relinquished their sovereignty in the enumerated powers given to the Federal government.  States rights is certainly a big issue.  It was the reason for the Civil War.  It's still a big issue as recently ruled by the SCOTUS when they refused to interfere in gerrymandering leaving each "sovereign" state to figure it out. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 23, 2019, 05:53:40 pm
But they're sovereign in all areas where they haven't relinquished their sovereignty in the enumerated powers given to the Federal government.

Nope.  Sovereignty is absolute.  If it isn't absolute, it isn't sovereignty.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 06:00:32 pm
Nope.  Sovereignty is absolute.  If it isn't absolute, it isn't sovereignty.
I submit to your definition.  :)  Just to clarify the original question though, within states' non-absolute authority, they each determine the rules for their state how their residents vote as long as their rules do not violate the Constitution of the United States.  I hope I got it right this time. :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 06:02:43 pm
Nope.  Sovereignty is absolute.  If it isn't absolute, it isn't sovereignty.
You know, that's what my wife keeps telling me.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 23, 2019, 06:38:56 pm
Just to clarify the original question though, within states' non-absolute authority, they each determine the rules for their state how their residents vote as long as their rules do not violate the Constitution of the United States.  I hope I got it right this time. :)

Afraid not: the states' voting regimes must also conform to the requirements of federal statutes—for example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (https://www.justice.gov/crt/history-federal-voting-rights-laws).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 23, 2019, 07:58:20 pm
How do you get on the electoral roll in the US? Is it possible to be eligible but then denied the vote because you haven't fulfilled some other obligation, e.g., sign up for something, register somewhere, etc.?  Does your presence on one electoral roll, say federal, mean that you are automatically enrolled for state elections, or municipal elections?

To answer the question, the lowest administrative voting level in the US is usually a city (town, township) or, occasionally, a county if there is no substantial city in that county. You would sign up to vote with your town or county. Usually (and in my experience, virtually always) when you sign up to vote at the lowest level, you're also signing up to vote at every level, up to and including federal elections. In the case of the fifty states, the states are the highest level of voting *bureaucracy.* The federal government makes some of the rules governing voting rights, but does not administer voting per se,* although the federal courts may get involved, and have gotten involved in the past, all the way to the Supreme Court, as in the Bush-Gore struggle in Florida in 2000.

In many places, however, you can register to vote even as late as election day. Registration deadlines are set by the state. In some places, there are onerous registration requirements designed to keep minorities off the voting rolls. Those rules are set by each state. The federal government bans discrimination by race, religion, etc., but some of the states, governed by bigots, have found myriad ways to get around the requirement. For example, a few states have had a rule that when you register, you must be checked for outstanding warrants -- and further, the registration deadline may be quite some time before the election. Minorities in those areas maybe be much poorer and less educated than the majority (and so have a higher percentage of such things as warrants for failure to provide child support.) They may be frightened by such requirements and shy away from registering, or, living in isolated rural areas, may not realize what the deadline for registration is.
.
There are some even lower levels of voting than a town or county, for example, special tax districts, school districts, etc. But to vote in those elections, you'd usually sign up at the town or county level. The precinct in which you vote would be included in that lower level special tax district or school district, and other people voting that same day, in other precincts outside that special tax district, would not see that special tax district or school board election on their ballot.

*Washington DC is not a state. The District of Columbia is a federal estate, administered by the federal government, through an elected city government. DC has neither federal Senators or Representatives, but residents can vote for President, and the district gets as many electoral college votes as the least populous US state. Puerto Ricans are American citizens, but cannot vote for President and have not senators or representatives.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 23, 2019, 09:20:11 pm
Thanks all.

What sounds the most odd to me (from Canada) is the concept of primaries and public voting in them, whether party affiliation is required or not. There is no equivalent to that here. Political parties decide internally who they choose to stand for office in each riding (district is the nearest equiv to you, I believe) with no input from the public. The selection of who stands for office has no connection with voter eligibility, either formal or informal.

Getting on the electoral roll here is a bureaucratic process, completely separate from politics, not unlike getting a driver's license or applying for old age pension, and is supervised by a federal government department set up for the purpose, called Elections Canada. I have never heard of a political party trying to interfere in its workings. If it ever happened, it would be a career-ending move by the politician who tried and put the party to which he/she belonged in deep sh*t. It may even be a criminal offence, but I don't really know about that. Maybe some other readers know more about that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 10:30:10 pm
Afraid not: the states' voting regimes must also conform to the requirements of federal statutes—for example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (https://www.justice.gov/crt/history-federal-voting-rights-laws).
Not trying to be picky.  But if Congress is passing laws, they're operating under the constitution.  So states are ultimately abiding by the constitution. 

Curious.  What powers granted in the constitution give Congress the right to legislate regulation of state election laws?  Especially in light of the recent decision that gerrymandering control is not part of the constitution to be regulated by the federal government.  Separately, if the constitution grants Congress the right to regulate voting rights, wouldn't they have the authority to ultimately regulate common voting procedures across the board for all 50 states?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 10:43:12 pm
Thanks all.

What sounds the most odd to me (from Canada) is the concept of primaries and public voting in them, whether party affiliation is required or not. There is no equivalent to that here. Political parties decide internally who they choose to stand for office in each riding (district is the nearest equiv to you, I believe) with no input from the public. The selection of who stands for office has no connection with voter eligibility, either formal or informal.

Getting on the electoral roll here is a bureaucratic process, completely separate from politics, not unlike getting a driver's license or applying for old age pension, and is supervised by a federal government department set up for the purpose, called Elections Canada. I have never heard of a political party trying to interfere in its workings. If it ever happened, it would be a career-ending move by the politician who tried and put the party to which he/she belonged in deep sh*t. It may even be a criminal offence, but I don't really know about that. Maybe some other readers know more about that.

America used to have that as well.  It was basically well-connected insiders in back rooms, dark and smoky, making insider deals with each other splitting up the spoils of political victory.  Very undemocratic.  It still goes on to a certain extent.  However, opening the windows to let in fresh air  made it more democratic.  One of the problems the Democratic party had in 2016 is superdelegates.  These are people who have clout like party insiders, high positioned elected Democrats like GOvernors and senators.  They had the ability to vote who they wanted to vote for.  They were not restricted by votes from the public.  They made up a large portion of the people who selected Hillary. The Clintons had "locked" up these votes prior to the start of the nomination process.  That's why Trump was calling the whole process as being corrupt.  Sanders was screwed from day one.  He was competing with one hand tied behind his back.  Poor guy never had a chance.  It would be impossible for him to overcome these "set aside" votes.  Afterwards, everyone lambasted the Democratic party as being Undemocratic.  The irony of it. The Republican party doesn;t have superdelegates as far as I'm aware.

Because of the complaints, the Democrat party changed their procedures.  I believe they still have superdelegates.  But they can't be used unless the first round of voting for the nominee does not get a majority.  Then they can go back to their shifty ways.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 24, 2019, 03:20:09 am
Please dont Bart! Yours are the main reason to visit the site!

Bart is far and away the most constructive and informative contributor to this (sub-)forum, and it's no wonder that he (very rarely) loses patience with those who are less honest. If he were to be driven away because he expresses that impatience in a straightforward way without flowery language or snide insinuation, that would be the forum's loss.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 24, 2019, 05:00:33 am
+1
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: rabanito on October 24, 2019, 05:24:54 am
+1
I couldn't care less about these discussions on that person Trump or whatever.
Letting it happen was the mistake of the moderator IMHO in the first place. A "whim".
But it is very bad again IMHO when a contributor that many of us appreciate thinks of moving
It's OUR loss..

I  agree with jeremyrh
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 24, 2019, 07:09:42 am
Bart is far and away the most constructive and informative contributor to this (sub-)forum, and it's no wonder that he (very rarely) loses patience with those who are less honest. If he were to be driven away because he expresses that impatience in a straightforward way without flowery language or snide insinuation, that would be the forum's loss.

I agree that it is a loss. The use of the word "dim" was problematic, but is no worse than other examples that were not commented or acted on. But forum moderation is not an exact science.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: stamper on October 24, 2019, 07:20:04 am
Quite a few members have " called" Alan out without being rebuked. Some of his comments are provocative therefore he has brought it upon himself? ::)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 07:22:20 am
Bart is far and away the most constructive and informative contributor to this (sub-)forum, and it's no wonder that he (very rarely) loses patience with those who are less honest. If he were to be driven away because he expresses that impatience in a straightforward way without flowery language or snide insinuation, that would be the forum's loss.
Jeremy,  Your nonchalance is not appreciated. Bart personally attacked me and deliberately called me stupid and was called out for it.    I have done the same myself a couple of times in the heat of battle and was called out for it as well. I took my medicine and tried to correct my ways and then moved on.   No one is forcing him out, certainly not me or the moderator. It's his call.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 07:31:57 am
Quite a few members have " called" Alan out without being rebuked. Some of his comments are provocative therefore he has brought it upon himself? ::)
If you can't read my posts because they're provocative, whatever that means,  and the only response you can come up with is to call me names,  you ought to stop reading my posts.   I wouldn't want to upset you and ruin your day.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 24, 2019, 08:19:38 am

Because of the complaints, the Democrat party changed their procedures.  I believe they still have superdelegates.  But they can't be used unless the first round of voting for the nominee does not get a majority.  Then they can go back to their shifty ways.  :)
Let's also not forget the current attempts by three states to eliminate Republican party primary voting even though there are three announced candidates running against President Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 24, 2019, 08:26:04 am
To answer the question, the lowest administrative voting level in the US is usually a city (town, township) or, occasionally, a county if there is no substantial city in that county. You would sign up to vote with your town or county. Usually (and in my experience, virtually always) when you sign up to vote at the lowest level, you're also signing up to vote at every level, up to and including federal elections.

Congress also passed a law making it easier to register to vote back in 1993 with the passage of the National Voter Registration Act.  this was done on the elections clause of the Constitution.

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators."

 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: stamper on October 24, 2019, 08:30:35 am
If you can't read my posts because they're provocative, whatever that means,  and the only response you can come up with is to call me names,  you ought to stop reading my posts.   I wouldn't want to upset you and ruin your day.

I haven't called you names. Re read my post. I said that some of your posts are provocative. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 08:42:23 am
Let's also not forget the current attempts by three states to eliminate Republican party primary voting even though there are three announced candidates running against President Trump.  Nor show if they learned their lesson.
That's also not right.   But let's face it,  the superdelegate situation with Hillary and Bernie was a major embarrassment to the Democrat party. Not sure if they learned their lesson.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 08:46:19 am
I haven't called you names. Re read my post. I said that some of your posts are provocative. 
I've said enough on this matter and have moved on.   If anything I've said may have offended you,  I apologize. Thank you.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 24, 2019, 09:07:17 am
Thank you to those who have expressed their appreciation for my contributions.

So far I've been busy removing about a hundred of my posts from this and a few other threads, which took some time. It would take much more time to delete the other, approx. 9000 contributions. I have not (yet) removed myself from LuLa, but I do have a growing reluctance to contribute to making some of the Lula forum threads more informative.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. I thought the thread was about Impeaching Donald Trump, but I'm probably wrong about that as well.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 24, 2019, 09:10:19 am
Thank you to those who have expressed their appreciation for my contributions.

So far I've been busy removing about a hundred of my posts from this and a few other threads, which took some time. It would take much more time to delete the other, approx. 9000 contributions. I have not (yet) removed myself from LuLa, but I do have a growing reluctance to contribute to making some of the Lula forum threads more informative.

Cheers,
Bart
To paraphrase the Washington Post's logo:  Democracy and truth die in darkness
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 24, 2019, 09:14:20 am
To paraphrase the Washington Post's logo:  Democracy and truth die in darkness

Glad you avoided the word "dim". ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 09:18:34 am
Where have I heard that word used before? 😀
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 24, 2019, 09:23:03 am
Glad you avoided the word "dim". ;)
I only use the word 'dim' as it applies to light bulbs.  this is why I have been installing LED bulbs and light strips.  They provide nice illumination though I'm not sure they are the best for viewing photographs.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 24, 2019, 11:09:48 am
Well it seems more and more the Dems have put themselves between a rock and hard place.  They can either vote to impeach or not, both of which are a loose loose. 

Lets take a look at voting for impeachment.  In the beginning of this, the main focus was on whether or not Trump withheld aid for investigations on Biden.  This would be especially bad if it were true, however, after the release of the transcript and the fact the Ukrainians were not aware of aid being withheld, this theory fell apart.  Now the goal posts have shift and Biden is not even being talked about, even though Pelosi promised this would be a very focused investigation, to whether or not the Trump administration engaged in any kind of quid pro quo at all.  First, countries do not work together out of the goodness of their hearts, but for some kind of benefit, or a quid pro quo, which is the point Mulvaney made, albeit in a clumsy fashion.  So in this case, Trump asked for the Ukrainians to continue investigating 2016 election interference, and Trump considered withholding the aid to try and get it done.  The problem here is two fold, first the Dems did the same thing to Ukraine in previous investigations.  They required Ukraine to work with them in investigating 2016 election interference at the expense of withholding aid.  Not only does this imply that the Dems feel investigating 2016 election interference is important, but that they are willing to use the same tactic that they are vilifying Trump for.  And second, since the Ukrainians were not aware of aid being withheld, this is still not a real quid pro quo. 

All things considered at this point, the case is very weak and would not pass if it made it to the Senate.  This would only help Trump. 

Second option is to not hold a vote and let the impeachment slowly fade away.  Although this "may" help those Dems in weak districts, this still hurts the Dems overall.  Not bringing a vote will certainly demoralize the progressive base and could effect voter turnout.  On top of that, this whole process will end being another Mueller Report bust, further eroding public confidence of the House.  This combined with lack of reasonable legislation getting passed will be a plus for the Republicans and Trump.  It may not be as much of a plus as an actual vote, but still a plus. 

Unless some bomb shell comes along that proves Trump engaged in a quid pro quo outside of the normal operations of diplomacy, such as only being concerned with Joe Biden, this whole thing will blow up in the Dems faces.  One analogy I read recently was comparing buying some aspirin from a local pharmacy vs. buying some heroin from a drug dealer.  Both are quid pro quos, but one is legal and the other is not.  For all intents and purposes, it seeming more and more Trump engaged in the former, but the Dems are desperately trying to make it look like the latter. 

As an aside, does anyone know if the new MacBooks have issues with the space bar?  I keep on accidentally typing double spaces, and it getting to be quite annoying. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on October 24, 2019, 11:19:08 am
So far I've been busy removing about a hundred of my posts from this and a few other threads, which took some time.

If I had considered any of those hundred posts to have been offensive, I'd have let you know; and no doubt if anyone else had so considered them, they would have let either you or me know. I didn't, and as far as I am aware, they haven't.

You may stay or leave, of course; but to depart after one reprimand would appear, to me at least, overly sensitive.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 24, 2019, 11:24:30 am
Besides that, we'll miss your charts if you go away, Bart. Stick around.  ;D ::)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 11:59:21 am
I only use the word 'dim' as it applies to light bulbs.  this is why I have been installing LED bulbs and light strips.  They provide nice illumination though I'm not sure they are the best for viewing photographs.
LED lights come in different Kelvins.  I use 2800 for normal home use as they have a warm rosy look.   5000 are a bright white like noontime sun and o.jare better for photos except they make everyone look like they need to go ro the beach and get a suntan.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 12:08:06 pm
It'll be dimmer around here. Plus who will I spar with?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 12:12:54 pm
Joe that's interesting.   I wasn't aware the Obama administration was doing the same thing as Trump was trying to do.   Using American aid to push them to investigate corruption in their country.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 24, 2019, 12:57:59 pm
Well it seems more and more the Dems have put themselves between a rock and hard place.  They can either vote to impeach or not, both of which are a loose loose. 
they can release all the transcripts and then vote to censure the President for specific reasons.  While falling short of an Impeachment vote, it does offer another avenue after the investigation is completed.

None of us know what has been happening behind closed doors and until we do it is difficult to make any prediction.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 24, 2019, 01:00:32 pm
they can release all the transcripts and then vote to censure the President for specific reasons.  While falling short of an Impeachment vote, it does offer another avenue after the investigation is completed.

None of us know what has been happening behind closed doors and until we do it is difficult to make any prediction.
True, and interesting point on the censuring of the President.  However, I am not sure if this would be politically viable since the Dems voted against censuring Schiff who did make stuff up during a congressional hearing and have repeatably lied. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 24, 2019, 01:03:47 pm
LED lights come in different Kelvins.  I use 2800 for normal home use as they have a warm rosy look.   5000 are a bright white like noontime sun and o.jare better for photos except they make everyone look like they need to go ro the beach and get a suntan.
I had to replace the fluorescent fixtures in the family room where my work station is located as they were old and the ballast on both sets needed replacing.  there were several different color temps offered and I bought the daylight version (6200 I think)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 24, 2019, 01:07:01 pm
I had to replace the fluorescent fixtures in the family room where my work station is located as they were old and the ballast on both sets needed replacing.  there were several different color temps offered and I bought the daylight version (6200 I think)

The real issue, regardless of color temp, is that all LEDs have a discontinuous light spectrum, just like all fluorescents.  Also, for most LEDs, they emit a lower amount of the spectrum then fluorescents.  This greatly effects color, especially in photography; LEDs are the bane of my work.  For viewing prints under, I dont know if it would matter as much. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 24, 2019, 01:10:05 pm
The real issue, regardless of color temp, is that all LEDs have a discontinuous light spectrum, just like all fluorescents.  Also, for most LEDs, they emit a lower amount of the spectrum then fluorescents.  This greatly effects color, especially in photography; LEDs are the bane of my work.  For viewing prints under, I dont know if it would matter as much.
When I'm doing critical photo editing, I turn off the lights so that my monitor is not affected.  I have a separate Spectraview calibration for the lower light level.  Lights are much brighter than the fluorescents they replaced which was jarring when they were first installed.  I'm used to them now. 8)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 01:37:46 pm
they can release all the transcripts and then vote to censure the President for specific reasons.  While falling short of an Impeachment vote, it does offer another avenue after the investigation is completed.

None of us know what has been happening behind closed doors and until we do it is difficult to make any prediction.
It's like those secret trials the Soviets used to do. Find the people guilty then let you know the evidence they found.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 24, 2019, 01:53:30 pm
It's like those secret trials the Soviets used to do. Find the people guilty then let you know the evidence they found.
I honestly don't know how you can say this.  What is happening right now is no different from the Benghazi investigation of Secretary Clinton.  Trey Gowdy argued that closed hearings were the best approach to getting reliable testimony.  He is a Republican and former prosecutor.  The Democrats have already said that this will move into a public venue with release of the transcripts.  Arguing over procedure or making over the top statements such as the above doesn't to the Republicans any good.  As with yesterday's intrusion of a secure hearing room, it makes them look petty and foolish.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 24, 2019, 02:17:13 pm
I honestly don't know how you can say this.  What is happening right now is no different from the Benghazi investigation of Secretary Clinton.  Trey Gowdy argued that closed hearings were the best approach to getting reliable testimony.  He is a Republican and former prosecutor.  The Democrats have already said that this will move into a public venue with release of the transcripts.  Arguing over procedure or making over the top statements such as the above doesn't to the Republicans any good.  As with yesterday's intrusion of a secure hearing room, it makes them look petty and foolish.

I don't think it makes all Republicans look petty and foolish, but those Tea Party guys are basically idiots and they do much damage to the Republican Party, which is a shame. We really do need a strong two party system, IMHO. I think Joe is way off base with his predictions of damage to the Democrats by the current investigation. Eventually, I think two things will damage Trump almost irrecoverably: the disaster in Syria and the extortion in the Ukraine. There was apparently nothing illegal about his decision in Syria, but the PR is so terrible that I think it turned lots of people against him, who might have otherwise stuck with him, even if holding their noses. Even the military is getting restive, as you see in comments from retired military people, including his former secretary of defense. The Ukraine deal was typical thuggish Trump strong-arming, and that could get him impeached. I still doubt that he'd be convicted in the Senate, no matter what he did.

One thing we don't know about is what's going to happen when the appeals court orders the IRS to give his eight years of tax returns to the Manhattan prosecutor. Manhattan, of course, leans Democratic (I joke) and Trump has a long and ugly history of cheating on his taxes. It's interesting that they asked for eight years of tax returns -- going back before he was President, and when he might not have been seriously thinking of running, and therefore might have felt freer to cheat. If he did that, I would expect state indictments about the most delicate time for Trump in the election process. Say, about next October, close enough to the election to to do serious damage, not far enough away for him to mount an effective defense.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 24, 2019, 02:28:04 pm
In a nutshell ...

U.S. diplomat testifies Trump tied Ukraine aid to politically motivated probes
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower/u-s-diplomat-testifies-trump-tied-ukraine-aid-to-politically-motivated-probes-idUSKBN1X10BC
Quote
The comments by William Taylor, a career diplomat and former Army officer who serves as the charge d’affaires in the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, were in a copy of his statement to lawmakers posted online by U.S. media.

Taylor’s statement to the three Democratic-led House of Representatives committees leading an impeachment inquiry against the Republican president marked a pivotal development in the political drama unfolding in Washington that threatens Trump’s presidency even as he pursues re-election.

It ran counter to Trump’s contention that there was no quid pro quo - a Latin phrase meaning a favor for a favor - related to the $391 million in security assistance approved by the U.S. Congress to help combat Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine that Trump had withheld.

“It was the most damning testimony,” Democratic Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz told Reuters.

In closed-door testimony, Taylor said he was told by Gordon Sondland, the U.S. envoy to the European Union, that Trump had linked release of the aid to public declarations by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that he would investigate Trump’s domestic political rival Joe Biden, and his son Hunter Biden, as well as a debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 election.

Zelenskiy agreed to the request. The aid was later released
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 02:35:38 pm
I honestly don't know how you can say this.  What is happening right now is no different from the Benghazi investigation of Secretary Clinton.  Trey Gowdy argued that closed hearings were the best approach to getting reliable testimony.  He is a Republican and former prosecutor.  The Democrats have already said that this will move into a public venue with release of the transcripts.  Arguing over procedure or making over the top statements such as the above doesn't to the Republicans any good.  As with yesterday's intrusion of a secure hearing room, it makes them look petty and foolish.
No one cares about Benghazi and certainly no one ever heard of Trey Gowdy. What people care about is that the president of the United States is being indicted in a secret Hearing in a soundproof room being run by Democrats where Republicans aren't allowed to defend him. Of course if you read CNN or MSNBC, everything seems like it's on the up-and-up. But Independents hopefully will look at how this is being done and draw their conclusions.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 24, 2019, 02:46:58 pm
Quote
In closed-door testimony, Taylor said he was told by...

So damning ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 02:47:45 pm
I don't think it makes all Republicans look petty and foolish, but those Tea Party guys are basically idiots and they do much damage to the Republican Party, which is a shame. We really do need a strong two party system, IMHO. I think Joe is way off base with his predictions of damage to the Democrats by the current investigation. Eventually, I think two things will damage Trump almost irrecoverably: the disaster in Syria and the extortion in the Ukraine. There was apparently nothing illegal about his decision in Syria, but the PR is so terrible that I think it turned lots of people against him, who might have otherwise stuck with him, even if holding their noses. Even the military is getting restive, as you see in comments from retired military people, including his former secretary of defense. The Ukraine deal was typical thuggish Trump strong-arming, and that could get him impeached. I still doubt that he'd be convicted in the Senate, no matter what he did.

One thing we don't know about is what's going to happen when the appeals court orders the IRS to give his eight years of tax returns to the Manhattan prosecutor. Manhattan, of course, leans Democratic (I joke) and Trump has a long and ugly history of cheating on his taxes. It's interesting that they asked for eight years of tax returns -- going back before he was President, and when he might not have been seriously thinking of running, and therefore might have felt freer to cheat. If he did that, I would expect state indictments about the most delicate time for Trump in the election process. Say, about next October, close enough to the election to to do serious damage, not far enough away for him to mount an effective defense.
Who you been listening to? MSNBC and CNN? Trump has never been charged with tax fraud. That's a very severe charge that isn't true. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 24, 2019, 02:59:41 pm
No one cares about Benghazi and certainly no one ever heard of Trey Gowdy. What people care about is that the president of the United States is being indicted in a secret Hearing in a soundproof room being run by Democrats where Republicans aren't allowed to defend him. Of course if you read CNN or MSNBC, everything seems like it's on the up-and-up. But Independents hopefully will look at how this is being done and draw their conclusions.
As with a couple of other posters here, you are going to soon enter my 'no-read' zone.  Your statement about Congressman Gowdy is just silly given his prominence in past inquiries.  Gowdy led the House appointed committee that investigated Secretary Clinton and was also seriously considered as a lawyer to help President Trump negotiate the current impeachment difficulties.  If you so desire you can read more about Gowdy and how the President's crew botched the attempt to hire him:  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/us/politics/trey-gowdy-trump-impeachment.html  The President is not being indicted in a secret hearing in a soundproof room.  The three Congressional Committees are collecting evidence the same way a Grand Jury does.  Indictment only takes place with an impeachment vote and the trial is the conducted with the Senate sitting as the jury.  this is all pretty much Civics 101. 

Your statement about independents is important and Nate Silver's poll aggregation shows public opinion for impeachment climbing by 14 points over the past month getting close to the 50% point:  https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/  Of course you are free to disbelieve data as you see fit.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 24, 2019, 05:21:01 pm
As with a couple of other posters here, you are going to soon enter my 'no-read' zone.  Your statement about Congressman Gowdy is just silly given his prominence in past inquiries.  Gowdy led the House appointed committee that investigated Secretary Clinton and was also seriously considered as a lawyer to help President Trump negotiate the current impeachment difficulties.  If you so desire you can read more about Gowdy and how the President's crew botched the attempt to hire him:  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/us/politics/trey-gowdy-trump-impeachment.html  The President is not being indicted in a secret hearing in a soundproof room.  The three Congressional Committees are collecting evidence the same way a Grand Jury does.  Indictment only takes place with an impeachment vote and the trial is the conducted with the Senate sitting as the jury.  this is all pretty much Civics 101. 

Your statement about independents is important and Nate Silver's poll aggregation shows public opinion for impeachment climbing by 14 points over the past month getting close to the 50% point:  https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/  Of course you are free to disbelieve data as you see fit.

Yes, but if you look at party break down, the numbers show that overall it is Dems wanting impeachment.  Very very few republicans do and less then half of independents.  On top of that, the NYT polled swing states and those numbers don't look good for impeachment there, and it is the in swing states where you win. 

"When you strike the king, you better kill him."  If the Dems can't get a conviction at this point, they are in serious trouble, especially considering the current Democratic field. 

Like I said before, unless clear evidence comes out, the Dems best course of action is to drop this impeachment inquiry and get actual bills passed so the vulnerable Dems have something to run on.  Maybe, if they do this, they will actually retain the house. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 24, 2019, 05:24:33 pm
Like I said before, unless clear evidence comes out, the Dems best course of action is to drop this impeachment inquiry and get actual bills passed so the vulnerable Dems have something to run on.  Maybe, if they do this, they will actually retain the house.
How can House Democrats get bills passed if McConnell won't bring them to the Senate floor?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 24, 2019, 06:15:37 pm
How can House Democrats get bills passed if McConnell won't bring them to the Senate floor?

This crazy idea called bi-partisanship. 

Maybe the moderate Dems ignore the progressives and work with the moderate Republicans to create bills the Senate would actually consider. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 24, 2019, 06:33:22 pm
This crazy idea called bi-partisanship. 

Maybe the moderate Dems ignore the progressives and work with the moderate Republicans to create bills the Senate would actually consider.

You don't understand how it works, Joe. Mitch McConnell alone decides which bills get voted on. Not the Republican moderates.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 24, 2019, 06:38:29 pm
You don't understand how it works, Joe. Mitch McConnell alone decides which bills get voted on. Not the Republican moderates.

Oh, I know. 

But think about it, a bi-partisanship bill with string support on both sides coming out of the house, McConnell would be forced to bring it to the floor. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 24, 2019, 06:45:03 pm
But think about it, a bi-partisanship bill with string support on both sides coming out of the house, McConnell would be forced to bring it to the floor.
Oh, the hypothetical bill that appeals to both moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans, assuming there actually are any.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 24, 2019, 06:58:11 pm
Oh, the hypothetical bill that appeals to both moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans, assuming there actually are any.

LOL, there are a lot of Dems in Trump districts. 

By the way, why did Prohibition fail?  No compromises.  You want anything to last, compromise is the name of the game, albeit I'll admit many is both parties have forgotten this. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 10:25:06 pm
You don't understand how it works, Joe. Mitch McConnell alone decides which bills get voted on. Not the Republican moderates.
Democrat Speaker Pelosi is holding up bills in the House that the Democrats control.  Congressional gridlock.  Just what the people are complaining about.  The Dems would rather discuss impeachment and spend all their time on that while the people's business gets ignored.  Impeachment talk has been going on since around June of 2015, 7 months before Trump was even sworn into office.  The only piece of important legislation that got passed was the Republican tax cut and jobs bill.  And that required the House to be Republican before its switched hands to the Dems in 2018 because every Democrat voted against it in both the Senate and the House. 

...doing the People's business.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 10:36:43 pm
As with a couple of other posters here, you are going to soon enter my 'no-read' zone.  Your statement about Congressman Gowdy is just silly given his prominence in past inquiries.  Gowdy led the House appointed committee that investigated Secretary Clinton and was also seriously considered as a lawyer to help President Trump negotiate the current impeachment difficulties.  If you so desire you can read more about Gowdy and how the President's crew botched the attempt to hire him:  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/us/politics/trey-gowdy-trump-impeachment.html  The President is not being indicted in a secret hearing in a soundproof room.  The three Congressional Committees are collecting evidence the same way a Grand Jury does.  Indictment only takes place with an impeachment vote and the trial is the conducted with the Senate sitting as the jury.  this is all pretty much Civics 101. 

Your statement about independents is important and Nate Silver's poll aggregation shows public opinion for impeachment climbing by 14 points over the past month getting close to the 50% point:  https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/  Of course you are free to disbelieve data as you see fit.
Oh please.  The only people who heard of Trey Gowdy, a Republican ex-congressman from some state in the US, not sure which,  are me, you, his wife and mother.   Maybe 1 person in a thousand could pick him out of a police lineup.  He would be better off robbing banks.  He'd never get caught.  No one would remember his face.   In any case, impeaching the president is not like indicting a bank robber in a Grand Jury.  We're talking about the president of the US.  The process should be open so people don't feel it's all a political witch hunt, a star chamber.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/820/star-chamber
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 10:47:08 pm
The screw turns.  What goes around comes around.

U.S. Justice Dept. review of origins of Russia probe now a criminal investigation
Barr appointed Connecticut State Attorney John Durham to lead the review of whether U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies acted properly when they examined possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, which ultimately led to the Mueller investigation.
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=post2;board=33 (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=post2;board=33)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 25, 2019, 02:47:38 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACJFDczhGfk&t=203s

This is getting even more hilarious everyday... 12 of the republicans who protested against the Congress secrets hearing's lack of transparency... were part of the 47 Republicans attending the hearing!!! :)

And the rules they are calling unconstitutional were proposed by a Republican senator 3 years ago...

Really good stuff!


Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 07:43:54 am
Democrat Speaker Pelosi is holding up bills in the House that the Democrats control.  Congressional gridlock.  Just what the people are complaining about.  The Dems would rather discuss impeachment and spend all their time on that while the people's business gets ignored.  Impeachment talk has been going on since around June of 2015, 7 months before Trump was even sworn into office.  The only piece of important legislation that got passed was the Republican tax cut and jobs bill.  And that required the House to be Republican before its switched hands to the Dems in 2018 because every Democrat voted against it in both the Senate and the House. 

...doing the People's business.
What legislation is Speaker Pelosi holding up?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 08:44:40 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACJFDczhGfk&t=203s

This is getting even more hilarious everyday... 12 of the republicans who protested against the Congress secrets hearing's lack of transparency... were part of the 47 Republicans attending the hearing!!! :)

And the rules they are calling unconstitutional were proposed by a Republican senator 3 years ago...

Really good stuff!


Cheers,
Bernard

The Late Show Comedy with Stephen Colbert is your source of news?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 08:47:58 am
What legislation is Speaker Pelosi holding up?
For one, the new North American Trade Deal with Canada and Mexico.  She'll never agree to have it signed off before the election as it may make Trump look good.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on October 25, 2019, 09:02:40 am
The Late Show Comedy with Stephen Colbert is your source of news?
We have a problem of reliable sources of news that everybody ( Left +right) acknowledges.
let try this source...  is this a source of news everybody can live with as being most probably true?

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/trumps-error-filled-cabinet-meeting/




Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on October 25, 2019, 09:32:14 am
The Late Show Comedy with Stephen Colbert is your source of news?

Why not? It's more accurate than Fox.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 10:00:03 am
Why not? It's more accurate than Fox.
I never found Colbert funny.  He should change his profession and get a job with CNN or MSNBC.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 10:19:39 am
We have a problem of reliable sources of news that everybody ( Left +right) acknowledges.
let try this source...  is this a source of news everybody can live with as being most probably true?

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/trumps-error-filled-cabinet-meeting/





No.  I just checked their main page and 7 or 8 of 9 reviews picked out negative things about Trump.  That alone tells me they're biased.    They couldn't find anything the Democrats are saying that are false?  How about Pelosi or Schiff who never lived a day when they didn't lie. 
https://www.factcheck.org/the-factcheck-wire/

In any case, you have to look at multiple sources to weed out the truth.  And often you still can't.  If you're not in America, you probably will get 100% of news that's anti-Trump because the outlets that provide that news and bylines like the NY TImes and the Washington Post both hate Trump.  I found Reuters more balanced.  They were suggested to me by Bart, and he was right on the one, mainly.  :)    So all the news you read is biased against Trump and all have a strong liberal, left wing slant.  Period. You really don;t know what's going on in America.  Most Americans don't either because most people here too read or see only biased news.  A free press is suppose to serve the people, not the leaders.  Unfortunately, media has decided to take sides politically.  That's not exactly new.  But it's gotten really bad and the public really doesn;t know what going on.  So read everything with a grain of salt and be smarter than everyone else. Be critical.  Don;t just believe because some source, regardless of supposed credentials, tells you they know the "truth".  They have biases too.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on October 25, 2019, 10:36:46 am
No.  I just checked their main page and 7 or 8 of 9 reviews picked out negative things about Trump.  That alone tells me they're biased.    They couldn't find anything the Democrats are saying that are false?  How about Pelosi or Schiff who never lived a day when they didn't lie. 
https://www.factcheck.org/the-factcheck-wire/

In any case, you have to look at multiple sources to weed out the truth.  And often you still can't.  If you're not in America, you probably will get 100% of news that's anti-Trump because the outlets that provide that news and bylines like the NY TImes and the Washington Post both hate Trump.  I found Reuters more balanced.  They were suggested to me by Bart, and he was right on the one, mainly.  :)    So all the news you read is biased against Trump and all have a strong liberal, left wing slant.  Period. You really don;t know what's going on in America.  Most Americans don't either because most people here too read or see only biased news.  A free press is suppose to serve the people, not the leaders.  Unfortunately, media has decided to take sides politically.  That's not exactly new.  But it's gotten really bad and the public really doesn;t know what going on.  So read everything with a grain of salt and be smarter than everyone else. Be critical.  Don;t just believe because some source, regardless of supposed credentials, tells you they know the "truth".  They have biases too.

You seem to forget that mr Trump is the president of the US.
Of course is everything what he says of such importance that it is checked.
Problem is, that a lot of his statements are simply not true; hence the attention. It is not anti Trump. He gets the attention he askes for as being President and producing false statements...all the time.
Anyway- if you don't like the reality just hide you head in the sand; you are the perfect Trump supporter, Alan, whatever he does, so be it.
There are some good thing to tell about Trump the way i see it: He did not start any foolish war yet; as did Bush JR. He started a discussion about the role of China in the world.
(this is my personal view and no fact...)
...



Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 25, 2019, 11:01:11 am
The Late Show Comedy with Stephen Colbert is your source of news?

It reliably makes me laugh.  And nowadays, that's a good thing.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 25, 2019, 11:14:48 am
The Late Show Comedy with Stephen Colbert is your source of news?

It used to be a comedy show. It has turned more into a reality news show. Reality has become surreal.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 11:28:35 am
For one, the new North American Trade Deal with Canada and Mexico.  She'll never agree to have it signed off before the election as it may make Trump look good.
That must be the FOX news meme.  Negotiations are nearing conclusion to stop the outsourcing of US jobs that took place under the old NAFTA and of course this is one of President Trump's major goals as well.  he campaigned on this quite vociferously.  There is also a major give away to my former industry that needs to be dealt with.  Congress serves to advise and consent on treaties.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 11:31:51 am
The Late Show Comedy with Stephen Colbert is your source of news?
No, I get my news from John Oliver's 'Last Week Tonight' show.  It's highly reliable and without it I would not understand the conspiracy surrounding Jeffery Epstein's strange 'suicide.'
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 11:55:34 am
You seem to forget that mr Trump is the president of the US.
Of course is everything what he says of such importance that it is checked.
Problem is, that a lot of his statements are simply not true; hence the attention. It is not anti Trump. He gets the attention he askes for as being President and producing false statements...all the time.
Anyway- if you don't like the reality just hide you head in the sand; you are the perfect Trump supporter, Alan, whatever he does, so be it.
There are some good thing to tell about Trump the way i see it: He did not start any foolish war yet; as did Bush JR. He started a discussion about the role of China in the world.
(this is my personal view and no fact...)
...




But news is biased if it's only checked on one side even assuming the checker is truthfully reporting the truth.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 11:58:47 am
That must be the FOX news meme.  Negotiations are nearing conclusion to stop the outsourcing of US jobs that took place under the old NAFTA and of course this is one of President Trump's major goals as well.  he campaigned on this quite vociferously.  There is also a major give away to my former industry that needs to be dealt with.  Congress serves to advise and consent on treaties.
You asked what they haven't done.  Well, they're sitting on it and wont do anything.  YOu don;t really think that Democrat Speaker Pelosi is going to approve a Trump trade deal before the election, do you.   How long has it been since Trump approved the new trade pact?  What are the Dems waiting for?  Hell will freeze over first. Les and the rest of Canada want to know!! :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 12:04:26 pm
PS  When are you guys going to stop assuming I base everything I say on what Fox says?  Do you think I spend all my time watching that stuff.  Actually I watch CNN and MSNBC more to find out what the "enemy" thinks. :) Do I accuse you of saying everything from what you heard from CNN or MSNBC?  It's just a typical left way of trying to make people look stupid and uniformed.  You should know me by now that I'm far from stupid or uninformed and don;t need Fox to to learn things and draw my own conclusions about things. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 25, 2019, 12:05:43 pm
You really don;t know what's going on in America.  Most Americans don't either because most people here too read or see only biased news.  A free press is suppose to serve the people, not the leaders.  Unfortunately, media has decided to take sides politically.  That's not exactly new.  But it's gotten really bad and the public really doesn;t know what going on.  So read everything with a grain of salt and be smarter than everyone else. Be critical.  Don;t just believe because some source, regardless of supposed credentials, tells you they know the "truth".  They have biases too.
You act as if Fox News doesn't exist. They are constantly tooting Trump's horn.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 01:36:54 pm
One thing I really don't get is why all those who have been asked to testify either in writing or by subpoena are refusing to do so.  If President Trump is innocent, wouldn't he welcome these folks going on the record.  I just see that two more subpoenas were issued for OMB personnel.  It would also be interesting to hear from the President's lawyer, Rudy Guiliani.  I think when the House moves to the public part of the inquiry all of this is going to reflect very poorly on the President.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 25, 2019, 01:39:44 pm
PS  When are you guys going to stop assuming I base everything I say on what Fox says?  Do you think I spend all my time watching that stuff.  Actually I watch CNN and MSNBC more to find out what the "enemy" thinks. :) Do I accuse you of saying everything from what you heard from CNN or MSNBC?  It's just a typical left way of trying to make people look stupid and uniformed.  You should know me by now that I'm far from stupid or uninformed and don;t need Fox to to learn things and draw my own conclusions about things.
And yet you always toe the Fox News line. And refer to CNN and MSNBC as the enemy.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 25, 2019, 02:12:38 pm
One thing I really don't get is why all those who have been asked to testify either in writing or by subpoena are refusing to do so.  If President Trump is innocent, wouldn't he welcome these folks going on the record.  I just see that two more subpoenas were issued for OMB personnel.  It would also be interesting to hear from the President's lawyer, Rudy Guiliani.  I think when the House moves to the public part of the inquiry all of this is going to reflect very poorly on the President.

When the opposition has been trying to get you before you even were sworn in and is now selectively leaking testimony to support their narrative, why fuel the fire? 

This whole thing is going to come down to Guillani.  Was Trump investigating Ukraine to get information to use against his rivals in the 2020 election, or was he continuing to investigate the 2016 election interference in an attempt to clear his name of any wrong doing since many in the media still think he was guilty of something. 

Personally, it is looking like the latter and that Guillani was getting bad information from nefarious actors, which he was relaying to the White House. 

For what it is worth, the more I hear from Guillani, the more I wonder how he took down the mob and ran NYC with little issues.  What the hell happened to him? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 25, 2019, 02:17:31 pm
For what it is worth, the more I hear from Guillani, the more I wonder how he took down the mob and ran NYC with little issues.  What the hell happened to him?
He fell within Trump's orbit.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 03:20:43 pm
For what it is worth, the more I hear from Guillani, the more I wonder how he took down the mob and ran NYC with little issues.  What the hell happened to him?
that was two wives and a lot of alimony ago.  Once he left office he took any job that was willing to pay big money.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 03:30:40 pm
You act as if Fox News doesn't exist. They are constantly tooting Trump's horn.
Do non-Americans actually watch Fox?  It must be very few people.  Most of the news people get from here are bylines in your regular press.  So that press is regurgitating American liberal press from the NY TImes or Washington Post or one of the major broadcast TV stations, ABC, NBC or CBS.  I doubt if 1% watch Fox. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 25, 2019, 03:32:40 pm
Do I accuse you of saying everything from what you heard from CNN or MSNBC?


No.  You accuse us of saying everything we heard from "Mainstream Media".  ie, everybody else except Fox, Breitbart and a few outlier blogs prone to clickbait.

Quote

It's just a typical left way of trying to make people look stupid and uniformed.


We certainly don't quote MSM to "make people look stupid and uninformed".  We quote them because they're the vast majority.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 03:32:59 pm
One thing I really don't get is why all those who have been asked to testify either in writing or by subpoena are refusing to do so.  If President Trump is innocent, wouldn't he welcome these folks going on the record.  I just see that two more subpoenas were issued for OMB personnel.  It would also be interesting to hear from the President's lawyer, Rudy Guiliani.  I think when the House moves to the public part of the inquiry all of this is going to reflect very poorly on the President.
Would you testify in a Soviet trial?  This is a Star Chamber investigation where the judges and jury are out to get a conviction no matter what.  No lawyer would let their client testify under such circumstances unless they were forced too. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 03:37:10 pm
When the opposition has been trying to get you before you even were sworn in and is now selectively leaking testimony to support their narrative, why fuel the fire? 

This whole thing is going to come down to Guillani.  Was Trump investigating Ukraine to get information to use against his rivals in the 2020 election, or was he continuing to investigate the 2016 election interference is an attempt to clear his name of any wrong doing since many in the media still think he was guilty of something. 

Personally, it is looking like the latter and that Guillani was getting bad information from nefarious actors, which he was relaying to the White House. 

For what it is worth, the more I hear from Guillani, the more I wonder how he took down the mob and ran NYC with little issues.  What the hell happened to him? 
He had major issues with NYC.  He was always under fire from minorities especially for his policing policies.  Of course it brought down the crime rate a lot so he got credit for that.  9-11 gave him big approval to for his action then, calmness, etc. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 25, 2019, 03:39:35 pm
When the opposition has been trying to get you before you even were sworn in and is now selectively leaking testimony to support their narrative, why fuel the fire? 

What fire?

If what he says is true, ("no collusion, no quid pro pro", etc.) you'd think Trump would want to encourage everyone in his orbit to testify to that truth.  In other words pour cold water on the fire. 
Instead, by forbidding testimony, he's fanning the fire and applying accelerant.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 25, 2019, 03:43:27 pm
Laying all this on Giuliani, ain't gonna work.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 04:26:20 pm
Would you testify in a Soviet trial?  This is a Star Chamber investigation where the judges and jury are out to get a conviction no matter what.  No lawyer would let their client testify under such circumstances unless they were forced too.
I take this to mean that you would ignore a Grand Jury summons if one was presented to you and you felt that was a closed session.  I honestly don't know how you can make such statements.  Grand Juries do not try or judge people!!!!  This joint committee is not trying the President or anyone else.  that is the responsibility of the Senate (read the Constitution!).  All that is happening right now is evidence is being gathered.

Subpoena's are meant to mean something.  If we can just choose to ignore them when we see fit, the nation is no longer under the rule of law.  Eventually these claims of immunity and executive privilege will be decided by the courts and not you, the President, or any of his enablers.  I always hate to get repetitious, but there is nothing wrong with the way the House is proceeding.  they are using rules passed when the Republicans were in power and John Boehner was Speaker.  Do you think that what they did was wrong when they used the EXACT same approach to probe what happened in Benghazi.  You also cannot draw any parallels with either the Nixon or Clinton investigations because they had special counsels that did all the grunt work up front.

As I and others have pointed out, Republicans serve on this investigative committee and have the right to question witnesses.  In the end it will come down to how the public process of reviewing these statements and those of public witnesses that are called. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 25, 2019, 04:36:51 pm
Aren't there a significant number of Republicans present inside the SCIF?  Also taking part in that "secret trial"?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 04:40:53 pm
Aren't there a significant number of Republicans present inside the SCIF?  Also taking part in that "secret trial"?
I think the count is 47 Republicans from each of the three relevant Committees. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 25, 2019, 05:00:30 pm
The Late Show Comedy with Stephen Colbert is your source of news?

That’s not the point and you know it.

The easy to check fact is that:
1.12 of the Republicabs senators who were protesting against the lack of transparency of hearings they call unconstitutional... were part of these hearings, which is simply crazy
2. The very format and proceedings of these hearings was defined by Republicans 4 years ago... which is even crazier.

It’s as if the passengers of a plane working at Boeing were attacking the airline for using planes made by... Boeing... and for taking off without them although themselves decided to exit the plane before take off.

Even in Belgium, often called the country of surrealism, we’be never gotten close to such absolute non sense Alan.

There is an objective truth and you not liking it isn’t sufficient to make it untrue. Nor is the fact that this truth has been aired by a TV program you don’t like.

The reality is that Republicans themselves are realizing how bad the position of Trump is, the obvious unconstitutional nature of his actions (even without quid pro quo, double so with quid pro quo, whther it’s about Biden or not) and they are taking mire and more desperate course of action.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 25, 2019, 05:22:29 pm
... The easy to check fact is that:
1.12 of the Republicabs senators who were protesting against the lack of transparency of hearings they call unconstitutional... were part of these hearings, which is simply crazy
2. The very format and proceedings of these hearings was defined by Republicans 4 years ago... which is even crazier...

Can you provide a link to those claims, please?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 25, 2019, 05:32:12 pm
Can you provide a link to those claims, please?

Do the work Slobodan. You aren’t afraid of the truth are you?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 25, 2019, 05:32:32 pm
Can be a record deficit a valid reason for impeachment?

Quote
The U.S. Treasury on Friday said that the federal deficit for fiscal 2019 was $984 billion. The gap between revenues and spending was the widest it’s been in seven years as expenditures on defense, Medicare and interest payments on the national debt ballooned the shortfall.

The government said corporate tax revenues totaled $230 billion, up 12%, thanks to a rebound in the second half of the year. Individual tax revenues rose 2% to $1.7 trillion. Receipts totaled $3.4 trillion, up 4% through September, while federal spending rose 8%, to $4.4 trillion. The U.S. government also collected nearly $71 billion in customs duties, or tariffs, a 70% increase compared to the year-ago period.

Annual deficits have nearly doubled under President Donald Trump’s tenure notwithstanding an unemployment rate at multidecade lows and better earnings figures. Deficits usually shrink during times of economic growth as higher incomes and Wall Street profits buoy Treasury coffers, while automatic spending on items like food stamps decline. Two big bipartisan spending bills, combined with the administration’s landmark tax cuts, however, have defied the typical trends and instead aggravated deficits. The Congressional Budget Office projects the trillion-dollar deficit could come as soon as fiscal 2020.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/25/federal-deficit-increases-26percent-to-984-billion-for-fiscal-2019.html

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 05:43:35 pm
I take this to mean that you would ignore a Grand Jury summons if one was presented to you and you felt that was a closed session.  I honestly don't know how you can make such statements.  Grand Juries do not try or judge people!!!!  This joint committee is not trying the President or anyone else.  that is the responsibility of the Senate (read the Constitution!).  All that is happening right now is evidence is being gathered.

Subpoena's are meant to mean something.  If we can just choose to ignore them when we see fit, the nation is no longer under the rule of law.  Eventually these claims of immunity and executive privilege will be decided by the courts and not you, the President, or any of his enablers.  I always hate to get repetitious, but there is nothing wrong with the way the House is proceeding.  they are using rules passed when the Republicans were in power and John Boehner was Speaker.  Do you think that what they did was wrong when they used the EXACT same approach to probe what happened in Benghazi.  You also cannot draw any parallels with either the Nixon or Clinton investigations because they had special counsels that did all the grunt work up front.

As I and others have pointed out, Republicans serve on this investigative committee and have the right to question witnesses.  In the end it will come down to how the public process of reviewing these statements and those of public witnesses that are called. 
This is a palace coup being run by the Democrats.  Schiff is acting like a Commisar. The government isn't like a grand jury.  The Constitution respects equal powers between the Congress and the Executive. The Executive may resist subpoenas and in this case especially when the Democrats only aim is to destroy the President to gain power for the Democrats.  To argue something else is going on is just bias on your part.    If the executive witnesses wrongfully resisting subpoenas, the Federal courts will decide who's right.  That's how it works.  Of course you disagree because you want to impeach the President come hell or high water. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 25, 2019, 05:56:24 pm
To argue something else is going on is just bias on your part.
Or bias on your part.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on October 25, 2019, 06:02:44 pm
Do non-Americans actually watch Fox?  It must be very few people.  Most of the news people get from here are bylines in your regular press.  So that press is regurgitating American liberal press from the NY TImes or Washington Post or one of the major broadcast TV stations, ABC, NBC or CBS.  I doubt if 1% watch Fox.

"Regurgitating?" Please. The NY Times is perhaps the most respected newspaper in the world, with accurate and in-depth reporting every day. The Post is not far behind. Yes, their editorial opinions are liberal, but their news reporting is accurate. When they make an error, it is reported as a "correction" very soon.

Lord, what fun to be a conservative, where anything you WANT to be true just becomes true in you mind. No thinking, no smarts, no research.
 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 25, 2019, 06:04:13 pm
Can be a record deficit a valid reason for impeachment?

No.

The delegates to the 18th-Century U.S. consitutional convention (https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/convention-and-ratification) rejected a proposal that "maladminstration"—what currently might be referred to as "incompetence" or "defective judgment"—be included as one of the grounds for impeachment.  They substituted the common law term "high crimes and misdemeanors," which might best be summarized as "abuse of power" or, in the American constitutional context, "behavior inconsistent with the defendant's oath of office."

Also, it's not clear whether President Trump ever actually understood the content of the tax law he signed at the end of 2017, which was enacted by the then Republican majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate—reportedly without personal involvement on his part.  (Tax law is complicated; Trump doesn't seem to have much patience for dealing with complexity.)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 25, 2019, 06:07:39 pm
I doubt if 1% watch Fox.
I think I have see statements to the effect that Fox News has been the most watched cable news program for the past 17 years.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 25, 2019, 06:17:27 pm
[...]
Lord, what fun to be a conservative, where anything you WANT to be true just becomes true in you mind. No thinking, no smarts, no research.

I heard the following comment in one of the many news programs, that seems to illustrate that:
"People weren't voting in their own economic interest. They were voting to try and keep the country the way they hoped it would be. They really wanted to bring us back to the 1980s or something."

The 2020 elections may be different in the sense that a large number of voters (the Millenials) will vote for the first time in their lives, so they are not necessarily so conservative. The turnout of the voters can be decisive.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 25, 2019, 06:24:08 pm
Do the work Slobodan. You aren’t afraid of the truth are you?

Bernard, I said "please." The reason I asked you to provide the links is so that you and I are reading the same source.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 25, 2019, 06:26:16 pm
Can be a record deficit a valid reason for impeachment?


Only "liberal" deficits are bad.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 06:26:38 pm
Can you provide a link to those claims, please?
Main link about Republican statements on closed hearings is here (you won't like this one):  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/22/then-now-how-republicans-downplay-subpoenas-when-they-target-trump/

There are 47 Republicans on the joint committees that are taking testimony during the closed sessions.  12 of them were in the group that stormed the meeting room (I know that Congressmen Jordan and Meadows are on the joint committee but don't know the other names.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 25, 2019, 06:28:53 pm
... The NY Times is perhaps the most respected newspaper in the world, with accurate and in-depth reporting every day. The Post is not far behind...

They are bat-shit crazy liberals, respected by... liberals. Otherwise, they are just a more foxy (pardon the pun) propaganda outlet.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 25, 2019, 06:30:18 pm
I think I have see statements to the effect that Fox News has been the most watched cable news program for the past 17 years.

Have you noticed that Alan was referring to non-Americans (i.e., audience abroad)?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 25, 2019, 06:34:51 pm
Main link about Republican statements on closed hearings is here (you won't like this one):  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/22/then-now-how-republicans-downplay-subpoenas-when-they-target-trump/

There are 47 Republicans on the joint committees that are taking testimony during the closed sessions.  12 of them were in the group that stormed the meeting room (I know that Congressmen Jordan and Meadows are on the joint committee but don't know the other names.

Thanks for the link, but I couldn't' find anything about 47/12 Republicans there? Maybe I was reading too fast?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 07:57:59 pm
Thanks for the link, but I couldn't' find anything about 47/12 Republicans there? Maybe I was reading too fast?
there are too many stories out there.  I couldn't remember where I saw the number but will look at a couple of other places other than the WaPo or NYT.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 08:26:43 pm
Thanks for the link, but I couldn't' find anything about 47/12 Republicans there? Maybe I was reading too fast?
Slobodan's right, nothing in there except more reporting that shows Democrat Schiff running it like he's an Inquisitor in a Star Chamber trial.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 25, 2019, 08:28:04 pm
Main link about Republican statements on closed hearings is here (you won't like this one):  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/22/then-now-how-republicans-downplay-subpoenas-when-they-target-trump/

And here's another (similar) take on that:

Cuomo to Graham: Impeachment hasn't changed ... you have
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I69ASeEv8kc

Hipocricy of republicans rules ...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 25, 2019, 08:31:07 pm
Have you noticed that Alan was referring to non-Americans (i.e., audience abroad)?

Of course, we (non-US citizens) are not stupid.

And no, I'm not going to report you to the LuLa Moderator for the insult ...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 08:37:03 pm
Or bias on your part.
Moi? Never happen.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 08:39:05 pm
Which raises question I wanted to ask. How many people here have changed their minds about what should happen?  Only the Yes people have to post.  It'll be easier to count.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 25, 2019, 08:42:31 pm
Which raises question I wanted to ask. How many people here have changed their minds about what should happen?  Only the Yes people have to post.  It'll be easier to count.  :)

Yes, the more information that has emerged, the stronger my initial disgust has become.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 08:45:34 pm
Thanks for the link, but I couldn't' find anything about 47/12 Republicans there? Maybe I was reading too fast?

Here is one of the links:  https://www.axios.com/house-republicans-scif-impeachment-inquiry-67cf94d5-b2be-4420-ab4c-0582eb1369ef.html   Note that they state that not all of them were in the group that were in the group that entered the hearing room.  However, all did sign the protest press release.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 08:48:14 pm
And here's another (similar) take on that:

Cuomo to Graham: Impeachment hasn't changed ... you have
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I69ASeEv8kc

Hipocricy of republicans rules ...
Interesting that both Senator Graham and Alan Klein use the term 'star chamber inquiry.'
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 25, 2019, 09:03:15 pm
Interesting that both Senator Graham and Alan Klein use the term 'star chamber inquiry.'

I don't know why, but "Invasion of the body snatchers (https://youtu.be/wTP_SdjD5ms?t=109)" comes to mind ...  ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 25, 2019, 09:16:55 pm
Which raises question I wanted to ask. How many people here have changed their minds about what should happen?  Only the Yes people have to post.  It'll be easier to count.  :)

I should spend less time on this forum section and more time shooting.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 25, 2019, 09:33:59 pm
I should spend less time on this forum section and more time shooting.

When are you snowbirds coming down here? Let’s do some shooting together. And I don’t mean  the breeze 😊

P.S. Bart cordially invited too
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 25, 2019, 09:44:58 pm
Slobodan,

please, give us a possible list of shooting locations and ideas in the warm winter land.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 09:56:52 pm
Interesting that both Senator Graham and Alan Klein use the term 'star chamber inquiry.'
Wow.  That's interesting because I never heard anyone including Graham mention it.  It just came to me.  It must have a Star Chamber feel.  Anyone who's lived through Soviet broadcasted trials knows what I'm talking about. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 09:58:10 pm
I should spend less time on this forum section and more time shooting.
Exactly my point for the "poll".  All this time wasted when we could be shooting.  Talk about priorities.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 10:02:23 pm
When are you snowbirds coming down here? Let’s do some shooting together. And I don’t mean  the breeze 😊

P.S. Bart cordially invited too
A bunch of my friends here in New Jersey in my 55+ community have already hightailed it to the Gold Coast of Florida (chad country) for the next few months as "snow birds"avoiding the upcoming harsh winter.  For them, climate change can't come fast enough. Of course my wife and I are the ones suffering because we stay here in cold New Jersey braving the snow.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 25, 2019, 11:09:12 pm
"Regurgitating?" Please. The NY Times is perhaps the most respected newspaper in the world, with accurate and in-depth reporting every day. The Post is not far behind. Yes, their editorial opinions are liberal, but their news reporting is accurate. When they make an error, it is reported as a "correction" very soon.

Lord, what fun to be a conservative, where anything you WANT to be true just becomes true in you mind. No thinking, no smarts, no research.

Of course the NYT and others have a liberal bias.  So do the colleges and universities. The TRUTH has a liberal bias.

They all can’t be wrong.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 25, 2019, 11:25:21 pm
... The TRUTH has a liberal bias...

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 11:32:18 pm
Of course the NYT and others have a liberal bias.  So do the colleges and universities. The TRUTH has a liberal bias.

They all can’t be wrong.
Wow.  Just, wow. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 26, 2019, 12:45:49 am
Dunno why that should be a "wow, just wow".  When you have most of the western media and educational systems on one side and Fox news and Breitbart on the other, it pretty well explains itself.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 01:03:55 am
Dunno why that should be a "wow, just wow".  When you have most of the western media and educational systems on one side and Fox news and Breitbart on the other, it pretty well explains itself.
Surveys have shown that 93% of journalists are Democrats.  Liberals are attracted to the "arts", education, journalism, etc more than conservatives.  You tend to write and produce things along your belief system.  It's not a mystery or conspiracy.  But that doesn't make their belief systems truth any more than it does for conservatives.  It's just how we're wired. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 26, 2019, 05:58:21 am
Of course the NYT and others have a liberal bias.  So do the colleges and universities. The TRUTH has a liberal bias.

They all can’t be wrong.


Don't know about 'the Truth', but facts are facts, and the NYT does score high in that regard (see attached).

Quote
... highly factual and considered one of the most reliable sources ...

The NYT's only bias is in subject selection and wording. Not sure though, whether they can currently do very different subject selection if it involves important news that forces itself upon the world stage.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 08:11:57 am
The NY Times fails not on fact but on presentation.  That's makes its reporting more Liberal, anti-Trump, and Democrat favoring news.  I gave an example in another thread.  I've copied it here. If you click on the date link, you can see the complete post in the original thread.

...  It's like bias in the N Y Times.  A negative story about TRump is put on page one above the paper's fold.  A good story is buried on pg 47.  Of course the Times will claim both stories were printed. 

Of course how headlines and photo captions are written can change the entire meaning and effect. "Trump Pulls Out of Syria Abandoning the Kurds Without American Protection".  Or, "Trump Pulls American Troops Out of Syria Ending Further US Deaths Defending the Kurds". Both tell the truth. But which one makes you feel better about Trump?  Worse?  The meanings are different.  It's all in the interpretation.  It can stir hearts and opinions in different directions.  This is what Fake News is all about.  Not about lies.  About false imaging.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 26, 2019, 08:24:08 am
Surveys have shown that 93% of journalists are Democrats. 
I'm curious how they arrive at this number.  I don't think journalists routinely say what their party affiliation is.  Obviously one can 'infer' this but is that the same as having a documented statement?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 26, 2019, 08:39:33 am
I'm curious how they arrive at this number.

Some folks live in a fact free bubble.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on October 26, 2019, 08:41:46 am
The NY Times fails not on fact but on presentation.  That's makes its reporting more Liberal, anti-Trump, and Democrat favoring news.  I gave an example in another thread.  I've copied it here. If you click on the date link, you can see the complete post in the original thread.

So Trump is often just plain wrong about facts, but you blame the NY Times for presenting facts with a biased view.

Also the Kurds were not so much protected by the US soldiers. It were the Kurds that did the fighting against ISIS on the ground and the US helped with material and weapons.
They have prevented US casualties. the protection the US army forces were providing to the Kurds was just there presence... They just had to stay put - no fighting needed.

And as said before ; Democrats and Republicans were against pulling out of Syria as was the US defence staff...   Only Trump, Erdogan, Poetin, Assad and Alan Klein thought it was a brilliant idea.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 08:53:42 am
I'm curious how they arrive at this number.  I don't think journalists routinely say what their party affiliation is.  Obviously one can 'infer' this but is that the same as having a documented statement?
What just surprised me when I googled it, was how many financial journalists are left leaning.  No wonder Socialism is getting a good name.

"When you add it up, 58.47% admit to being left of center. Along with that, another 37.12% claim to be "moderate."

What about the mythic "conservative" financial journalist? In fact, a mere 0.46% of financial journalists called themselves "very conservative," while just 3.94% said they were "somewhat conservative." That's a whopping 4.4% of the total that lean right-of-center.

That's a ratio of 13 "liberals" for every one "conservative."

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/ (https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/)


For "regular journalists", it seems only 7% claim being a Republican.  The 93% balance are not Democrats as I said.  To clarify it seem that's 28% or 4x Republicans are Democrats, the rest claiming "independent".   The big issue is what are the political leanings of the journalists at the NY Times and Washington Post, two anti-Trump, liberal, Democrat leaning newspapers.    Institutional bias also is big.   These papers are also centered in big cities like NY that are overwhelming liberal and Democrat.  These big papers where political leanings of journalists really count because of their power and range of readers around the world who get news from them directly or through bylines.  These few journalists have enormous power.   What conservative, Republican newspapers are there that people can easily identify?  Journalism at the three major networks, ABC NBC and CBS are left leaning as well.  For ever Fox you got these three, plus MSNBC CNN etc.  I doubt if our overseas friends here every watch Fox. 


Here's an interesting article how journalists missed the Trump win. 
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048 (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 09:01:05 am
So Trump is often just plain wrong about facts, but you blame the NY Times for presenting facts with a biased view.

Also the Kurds were not so much protected by the US soldiers. It were the Kurds that did the fighting against ISIS on the ground and the US helped with material and weapons.
They have prevented US casualties. the protection the US army forces were providing to the Kurds was just there presence... They just had to stay put - no fighting needed.

And as said before ; Democrats and Republicans were against pulling out of Syria as was the US defence staff...   Only Trump, Erdogan, Poetin, Assad and Alan Klein thought it was a brilliant idea.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.  I wasn't taking a position on the Kurdish situation.   I was illustrating how two different but truthful headlines can create different feelings about a story.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 26, 2019, 09:15:05 am
What just surprised me when I googled it, was how many financial journalists are left leaning.  No wonder Socialism is getting a good name.

"When you add it up, 58.47% admit to being left of center. Along with that, another 37.12% claim to be "moderate."

What about the mythic "conservative" financial journalist? In fact, a mere 0.46% of financial journalists called themselves "very conservative," while just 3.94% said they were "somewhat conservative." That's a whopping 4.4% of the total that lean right-of-center.

That's a ratio of 13 "liberals" for every one "conservative."

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/ (https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/)

This is why you need to drill down and go to the original manuscript to examine the methodology.  The researchers got a response rate of only 10% to their survey.  They also used the questionable tactic of offering a donation to charity for completed surveys.  80% of the respondents fall into the somewhat conservative to somewhat liberal spectrum but this is self reported so we really don't know what it means.  This is typical of a lot of social science research, small data set and ill-defined responses.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 09:31:58 am
This is why you need to drill down and go to the original manuscript to examine the methodology.  The researchers got a response rate of only 10% to their survey.  They also used the questionable tactic of offering a donation to charity for completed surveys.  80% of the respondents fall into the somewhat conservative to somewhat liberal spectrum but this is self reported so we really don't know what it means.  This is typical of a lot of social science research, small data set and ill-defined responses.

Well, here's a survey I did of the NY Times and Washington Post.  I looked at various articles on-line where they have readers' responses on Trump related articles.  90-95%  of the reader's responses are Trump negative.  Because the Times moderates the responses, they could be vitriolic but never nasty.  More high-brow, often intellectual and well-written.  The Washington Post however, does not moderate.  Their responses are vile and bile and can get really nasty.  I'm surprised the editors even allow that to happen.  They make our disputes here seem kind and friendly by comparison.   Jeremy does a good job keeping the lid on it.  The readers reflect the leanings of the two papers:  Democrat, liberal, anti-Trump.  You see the slant in the articles.  Check it out yourself.  You'll see what I mean.

The remaining 5% who read these articles and post responses, people like me, are just checking in on the enemy.  :)

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 26, 2019, 09:59:40 am
Alan, check out today’s NYT op-Ed piece entitled “Elizabeth Warren Wants to Lose Your Vote”.
Then, please, report back to us on the unrelenting bias of the NYT.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 26, 2019, 10:22:28 am
Well, here's a survey I did of the NY Times and Washington Post.  I looked at various articles on-line where they have readers' responses on Trump related articles.  90-95%  of the reader's responses are Trump negative.  Because the Times moderates the responses, they could be vitriolic but never nasty.  More high-brow, often intellectual and well-written.  The Washington Post however, does not moderate.  Their responses are vile and bile and can get really nasty.  I'm surprised the editors even allow that to happen.
You are quite correct about the WaPo comments section and that's the reason I almost never read them.  The NY Times comment policy is the best approach.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 26, 2019, 10:24:52 am
Alan, check out today’s NYT op-Ed piece entitled “Elizabeth Warren Wants to Lose Your Vote”.
Then, please, report back to us on the unrelenting bias of the NYT.
It was written by Brett Stephens who is one of their op-ed writers.  He's a well known conservative.  The Washington Post has a far greater and more diverse set of Conservative op-ed writers, some of whom are strong supporters of the President (Marc Thiessen & Hugh Hewitt).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 26, 2019, 10:42:00 am
Alan, check out today’s NYT op-Ed piece entitled “Elizabeth Warren Wants to Lose Your Vote”.
Then, please, report back to us on the unrelenting bias of the NYT.

Perhaps. However, I read NYT and WaPo (mostly titles, because of the paywall) from aggregation sites (Apple News, Microsoft News, Google News, etc.) and the selection of articles from NYT and WaPo there is mostly liberal.

Then there is a possibility of paying only a lip service to diversity and objectivity. Similar to when, years ago, Sean Hannity had a Democratic counterpart on the show, so weak and ineffective that he only amplified Sean.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 26, 2019, 11:28:55 am
Then there is a possibility of paying only a lip service to diversity and objectivity. Similar to when, years ago, Sean Hannity had a Democratic counterpart on the show, so weak and ineffective that he only amplified Sean.
I'm old enough to remember when 60 minutes had James J. Kilpatrick (Conservative) and Shana Alexander (Liberal) on at the end of each show in a point - counterpoint discussion.  I think the alternated who went first.  I always felt that these types of discussions were useful and some of the cable news outlets did this in the early years but it's largely disappeared.  Too bad.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 26, 2019, 11:48:42 am
Our "racist" president in action:

Quote
... received the Bipartisan Justice Award from the 20/20 Bipartisan Justice Center for his efforts to pass the First Step Act, which grants early release to thousands of nonviolent offenders who are currently serving time in federal prisons.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 12:34:00 pm
Alan, check out today’s NYT op-Ed piece entitled “Elizabeth Warren Wants to Lose Your Vote”.
Then, please, report back to us on the unrelenting bias of the NYT.
I'm referring to the news section where they are biased.  They can do and say what they want in the editorial op-ed section.  That is the opinion-editorial section. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 12:38:52 pm
 
It was written by Brett Stephens who is one of their op-ed writers.  He's a well known conservative.  The Washington Post has a far greater and more diverse set of Conservative op-ed writers, some of whom are strong supporters of the President (Marc Thiessen & Hugh Hewitt).
That doesn't matter.  Everyone knows these are opinion pieces, not news.  It's the news section where the NY Times fails by being biased. It's here that the world gets an impression about things that are different than reality.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 26, 2019, 12:41:40 pm
That doesn't matter.  Everyone knows these are opinion pieces, not news.  It's the news section where the NY Times fails by being biased. It's here that the world gets an impression about things that are different than reality.
Whose reality?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 12:44:18 pm
Our "racist" president in action:


In the Times, they'll bury it on pg 47.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 12:46:39 pm
Whose reality?
If you want to believe everything that the NY Times says, go right ahead. I'm not stopping you.  I find myself more discerning. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 26, 2019, 12:48:55 pm
I find myself more discerning.
Of course you do. No surprise there.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 12:56:50 pm
Of course you do. No surprise there.
OK.  I'm more skeptical. :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 26, 2019, 01:36:35 pm
OK.  I'm more skeptical. :)
I trust this extends to the many statements from President Trump/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 26, 2019, 03:03:15 pm
I'm referring to the news section where they are biased. 
Here is a very good story the discusses in an even handed manner tariffs and the impact on the steel industry:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-a-kentucky-mill-shutters-steelworkers-see-the-limits-of-trumps-intervention/2019/10/25/a27d3bb2-f02f-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html   I don't see much bias here and as an investor who once owned stock in one of the steel companies mentioned, think that it gives a good assessment of what has gone wrong.  Domestic growth in industrial production has not been high enough to save jobs and some of the companies are in financial risk.  President Trump announced that the there would be some short term pain but the tariffs would right things.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 03:21:00 pm
What am I to learn from one story?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 26, 2019, 03:31:56 pm
What am I to learn from one story?
Read it and find out.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 05:16:57 pm
Read it and find out.
Why would reading it change my mind about the Washington Post? Ir doesn't change their overall biases.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 26, 2019, 06:35:32 pm
Surveys have shown that 93% of journalists are Democrats.  Liberals are attracted to the "arts", education, journalism, etc more than conservatives.  You tend to write and produce things along your belief system.  It's not a mystery or conspiracy.  But that doesn't make their belief systems truth any more than it does for conservatives.  It's just how we're wired.

This whole discussion about media bias isn’t relevant to the Trump impreachement for 2 obvious reasons:
1. Trump, his team and the various testimonies have clearly admitted to committing the deeds for which he is proposed for impreachement. The media coverage has nothing to do with it,

2. Trumps policies and actions are not at all aligned with the core values of Republicans. If he were to do the exact same things as a Democrat he would be killed by conservative media as being the most anti American president ever. Which means that the pro Trump bias isn’t about ideas or beliefs, it is only about politics. Based on ideas or beliefs or facts 100% of the press should be anti Trump. The fact that he is still getting some support from some media is the obvious proof of their bias resulting not from ideology, but simply from the fact that they would support a Republican associated president no matter what he does just because he is a Republican. They would continue to support him if he [edited] did whatever crazy thing.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 07:48:33 pm
This whole discussion about media bias isn’t relevant to the Trump impreachement for 2 obvious reasons:
1. Trump, his team and the various testimonies have clearly admitted to committing the deeds for which he is proposed for impreachement. The media coverage has nothing to do with it,

2. Trumps policies and actions are not at all aligned with the core values of Republicans. If he were to do the exact same things as a Democrat he would be killed by conservative media as being the most anti American president ever. Which means that the pro Trump bias isn’t about ideas or beliefs, it is only about politics. Based on ideas or beliefs or facts 100% of the press should be anti Trump. The fact that he is still getting some support from some media is the obvious proof of their bias resulting not from ideology, but simply from the fact that they would support a Republican associated president no matter what he does just because he is a Republican. They would continue to support him if he sent arabs to gas chambers.

Cheers,
Bernard

So you think it's OK to claim that supporters of Trump like me would support him if he acted like a Nazi who wanted to send Arabs to gas chambers?   Never mind the slur on me or him. That kind of off-hand hyperbolic attack just cheapens and diminishes the lives of millions of people who were actually killed in gas chambers.  The rest of your post isn't worthy of a response from me.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on October 26, 2019, 08:26:05 pm
They would continue to support him if he sent arabs to gas chambers.

Bravo! You have reached a new, despicable low!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 26, 2019, 08:46:00 pm
...arabs...

Arabs in lower case!? You racist you!   ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 26, 2019, 08:54:29 pm
That doesn't matter.  Everyone knows these are opinion pieces, not news.  It's the news section where the NY Times fails by being biased. It's here that the world gets an impression about things that are different than reality.

Wrong.  The item was in the Op-Ed section.  Few here have read it, obviously.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 10:43:49 pm
Wrong.  The item was in the Op-Ed section.  Few here have read it, obviously.
Peter, I don;t understand your post.  My complaint is that there's bias in the news section where straight reporting should be the standard.  What any newspaper does in their opinion-editorial section (op-ed) , is, well, opinion and editorial.  So having a conservative or liberal viewpoint there does not matter when measuring a newspaper's bias and slant.  Everyone understands that section is not the straight reporting of news.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 27, 2019, 05:53:09 am
Bravo! You have reached a new, despicable low!

The example was indeed exaggerated and I apologize.

The real, and totally valid question, is how far would Trump have to go to lose support from its base. So far I haven’t seen any hint that there is a limit.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 27, 2019, 05:54:51 am
So you think it's OK to claim that supporters of Trump like me would support him if he acted like a Nazi who wanted to send Arabs to gas chambers?   Never mind the slur on me or him. That kind of off-hand hyperbolic attack just cheapens and diminishes the lives of millions of people who were actually killed in gas chambers.  The rest of your post isn't worthy of a response from me.

I apologize for the overblown example.

I am not surprised that you haven’t much to answer about the rest of the post.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2019, 08:43:24 am
... The real, and totally valid question, is how far would Trump have to go to lose support from its base...

His base has not seen him doing anything wrong so far.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2019, 09:11:02 am
Of course the NYT and others have a liberal bias.  So do the colleges and universities. The TRUTH has a liberal bias.

They all can’t be wrong.

Of course our Pravda and Izvestia and others have a Soviet bias. So do our colleges and universities. Our writers are writing Soviet prose, and our artists are painting in Soviet style. The TRUTH (PRAVDA) has a Soviet bias.

They all can’t be wrong.

Leonid Brezhnev
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 09:31:25 am
I apologize for the overblown example.

I am not surprised that you haven’t much to answer about the rest of the post.

Cheers,
Bernard

I appreciate the apology Bernard.  We all get hyperbolic from time to time.  I know I have.

Quote
This whole discussion about media bias isn’t relevant to the Trump impreachement for 2 obvious reasons:
1. Trump, his team and the various testimonies have clearly admitted to committing the deeds for which he is proposed for impreachement. The media coverage has nothing to do with it,

2. Trumps policies and actions are not at all aligned with the core values of Republicans. If he were to do the exact same things as a Democrat he would be killed by conservative media as being the most anti American president ever. Which means that the pro Trump bias isn’t about ideas or beliefs, it is only about politics. Based on ideas or beliefs or facts 100% of the press should be anti Trump. The fact that he is still getting some support from some media is the obvious proof of their bias resulting not from ideology, but simply from the fact that they would support a Republican associated president no matter what he does just because he is a Republican. They would continue to support him ...

Cheers,
Bernard
1. First off, what he did was not illegal. Demanding a foreign country do things for us when we give them money is standard quid pro quo. You have a right to ask a drunk on the street who you just gave $5 to spend it on food and not a drink.  Well, the president was asking for Ukraine to clean up it's corruption, the same as Obama demanded they do.  He also asked to check on Biden who may have illegally used his position to violate US as well as Ukrainian law helping his son get a job and escape criminal investigation, all part of the corruption going on in the Ukraine.  Of course there's a side benefit that Biden is a political foe.  However, how is that different than Democrat congressman investigating Trump for the last three years for potential criminal activity knowing that they would benefit if it turns out Trump commiting a crime?  If Trump isn't above the law, neither is Vice President Biden.  If Democrats can get a side benefit politically from an legal investigation, why can't the Republicans?  None of it is illegal.  It's just politics. 


2. I'm glad you brought this up.  Trump is actually a liberal in many of his beliefs.  Being a New Yorker helps.  He never got excited about race issues, gays, and issues like that.  He's worked with these people all his life.   He's a cosmopolitan who lives and works and helped build the largest liberal, Democrat city in the USA, bar none. Remember, he won the election convincing traditional, blue-collar Democrats to vote for him.  They felt he was one of them. Many Republicans actually find he's too liberal for them, certainly not a VP Pence.  Republican newspapers still support him because his policies are still miles ahead conservatively of liberals like Warren and AOC.  Unfortunately, these newspapers and media, except for Fox, don't have the same power to influence as do the rest of the liberal, Democrat media.  So the latter set the tone and spin of the news.  It's very frustrating for Republicans to realize the press is almost never on their side.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 10:05:08 am
How will this affect a possible impeachment?  His re-election?

"Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead," Trump said at the White House, calling the ISIS leader's removal "the top national security priority of my administration."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/27/politics/isis-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-operation-donald-trump/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/27/politics/isis-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-operation-donald-trump/index.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 27, 2019, 10:52:40 am
How will this affect a possible impeachment?  His re-election?

"Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead," Trump said at the White House, calling the ISIS leader's removal "the top national security priority of my administration."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/27/politics/isis-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-operation-donald-trump/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/27/politics/isis-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-operation-donald-trump/index.html)
It will have the same significance and importance as the assassination of Bin Laden did by the Navy Seal team when Obama was President.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 27, 2019, 11:07:32 am
Here's an interesting reporting technique, essentially staking out the Trump hotel (Wash) electronically anyway, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/25/trump-hotel-sale-washington-dc-229880 (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/25/trump-hotel-sale-washington-dc-229880).

Modern political discourse in action. If the hotel does sell, then it magically falls off the radar, nothing to see here! Hilarious to watch.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 27, 2019, 11:08:13 am
Of course our Pravda and Izvestia and others have a Soviet bias. So do our colleges and universities. Our writers are writing Soviet prose, and our artists are painting in Soviet style. The TRUTH (PRAVDA) has a Soviet bias.

They all can’t be wrong.

Leonid Brezhnev

I love reverse-Godwin. :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 01:17:26 pm
It will have the same significance and importance as the assassination of Bin Laden did by the Navy Seal team when Obama was President.
Would you give Trump the credit he deserves?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 01:33:04 pm
It will have the same significance and importance as the assassination of Bin Laden did by the Navy Seal team when Obama was President.
Just a clarification.  al Baghdadi was not assassinated.  He refused to surrender to American forces and committed suicide killing three children along with himself.   That shows something about his character. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2019, 02:09:37 pm
Need-to-know basis. Feel the burn!

 ;D ;D ;D



Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 02:31:28 pm
Need-to-know basis. Feel the burn!

 ;D ;D ;D







Shows what he thinks about her impeachment threats.  He deliberately keeps challenger her.  Bring it on. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 27, 2019, 02:38:31 pm
Would you give Trump the credit he deserves?

How was the Trump involved in this operation?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 02:55:12 pm
How was the Trump involved in this operation?
Like Obama and Bin Laden, presidents make the decision and give the orders.  They get credit for successful operations and blame for the unsuccessful ones.  After all, the President is the Commander-in Chief.  If this came out bad, everyone would be chastising him.  How many Nazis did Churchill personally kill during WWII?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 27, 2019, 03:58:21 pm
More info about about the raid on Baghdadi.

Quote
U.S. intelligence officials were able to “scope out” his exact location two weeks ago, while Trump himself became aware of the planned raid three days ago.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-baghdadi-raid-timeline/timeline-anatomy-of-a-raid-how-the-united-states-took-out-baghdadi-idUSKBN1X60P8?il=0
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 27, 2019, 04:03:10 pm
Like Obama and Bin Laden, presidents make the decision and give the orders.  They get credit for successful operations and blame for the unsuccessful ones.  After all, the President is the Commander-in Chief.  If this came out bad, everyone would be chastising him.  How many Nazis did Churchill personally kill during WWII?

I'm pretty sure Trump himself would have been there for the kill, except the bone spurs on his feet probably would have made that impossible.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2019, 04:13:32 pm
Trump, the murderer of religious scholars.

How our dear free press reported the news and some totally unrelated and unwarranted twitter obituaries:
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 27, 2019, 05:21:59 pm
Trump, the murderer of religious scholars.

How our dear free press reported the news and some totally unrelated and unwarranted twitter obituaries:

That was the second of three edits, FWIW.  All three were radically different in tone, as well.  It was weird...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 27, 2019, 05:52:30 pm
That was the second of three edits, FWIW.  All three were radically different in tone, as well.  It was weird...

It is bewildering to say the least!  The fact that you would write a nonchalant, almost woeful, headline about such an infamous person is simply crass. 

I also look at it as another great example of Trump-derangement-syndrome and how the mainstream media goes out of it was to belittle anything Trump does, even at the expense of coming off as obtuse.  And people wonder why Trump canceled the WP from the White House. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 27, 2019, 06:06:55 pm
It is bewildering to say the least!  The fact that you would write a nonchalant, almost woeful, headline about such an infamous person is simply crass. 

I also look at it as another great example of Trump-derangement-syndrome and how the mainstream media goes out of it was to belittle anything Trump does, even at the expense of coming off as obtuse.  And people wonder why Trump canceled the WP from the White House.

Are you aware of what the first headline was?  Or the third?  Doesn't really fit with your theory.  As an aside, it's disturbing to see a self-professed moderate/libertarian starting to parrot the "mainstream media is out to get Trump" nonsense.  The "mainstream media" is perceived as "anti-Trump" because Trump is a ginormous fool.  As I believe I said here before, if a purveyor of sh*t sandwiches is in a kerfluffel because Italian restaurants continually get better reviews, it's not because the media is biased against poo.

All you have to do is look at media that was reliably conservative (Dallas Morning News) or previously non-committal (USA Today), and then look how they treat Trump.  It's not because they hate conservatives, it's because Donald Trump is unfit to serve in intellect, temperament, and judgment.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2019, 06:11:27 pm
... the "mainstream media is out to get Trump" nonsense...

If it is nonsense, how do you explain the WaPo headline? Just as "weird"?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 27, 2019, 06:17:23 pm
If it is nonsense, how do you explain the WaPo headline? Just as "weird"?

Well, it IS weird.  But I don't it has anything to do with Trump, honestly.   The first headline was something like, "Master Terrorist Killed blah blah blah..." The second was the completely bizarre "Islamic Scholar" nonsense, and the last was something more or less factual as I recall.

My opinion?  The first was overly dramatic, and whoever revised it over-reacted in a really odd way.   If anything it strikes me more as something some would consider "PC pandering" than any sort of reflection on Trump. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 27, 2019, 06:44:08 pm
Would you give Trump the credit he deserves?
Neither Trump nor Obama deserve any credit other than saying yes to the assassination(s).  The military and intelligence did 98% of the work.  I never gave Obama any credit for bin Laden and I won't give Trump any credit for this.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 27, 2019, 06:51:15 pm
Well, it IS weird.  But I don't it has anything to do with Trump, honestly.   
What is weird and does have to do with President Trump is that he did not notify House Speaker Pelosi about what was going to happen.  He offered some phony excuses about leaking information ignoring that Congresswoman Pelosi served on the House Intelligence Committee for 20 years and was never accused of leaking sensitive information.

EDIT:  Obama notified the leaders of both Congressional parties and the relevant intelligence committee chairs prior to the bin Laden assassination
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2019, 07:00:46 pm
What is weird and does have to do with President Trump is that he did not notify House Speaker Pelosi about what was going to happen...

Given the current political climate of lynching the president at all and any costs, it is not inconceivable that Pelosi, other Democrats, or their staff would leak the info just to make Trump look bad. You think I am exaggerating? Rumor has it that Reagan asked the Iranians to free the hostages not during Carter's reign, but when he comes to power. Literally twenty minutes after Reagan's inauguration speech, the hostages were freed. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 27, 2019, 07:10:23 pm
Are you aware of what the first headline was?  Or the third?  Doesn't really fit with your theory.  As an aside, it's disturbing to see a self-professed moderate/libertarian starting to parrot the "mainstream media is out to get Trump" nonsense.  The "mainstream media" is perceived as "anti-Trump" because Trump is a ginormous fool.  As I believe I said here before, if a purveyor of sh*t sandwiches is in a kerfluffel because Italian restaurants continually get better reviews, it's not because the media is biased against poo.

All you have to do is look at media that was reliably conservative (Dallas Morning News) or previously non-committal (USA Today), and then look how they treat Trump.  It's not because they hate conservatives, it's because Donald Trump is unfit to serve in intellect, temperament, and judgment.
f

Well, if you are so enlightened, please tell use the first and third headline. 

Perhaps the WP has an incredibly obtuse editor out of touch with the current reality of things.  Or perhaps the first headline was a little too positive for Trump, just like with the NYT's headline months ago, so a change was done, but oops, that went a little too far and a 2nd change was needed. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 27, 2019, 07:10:35 pm
Why is everything a conspiracy with you guys?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 27, 2019, 07:15:02 pm
Why is everything a conspiracy with you guys?

It is either the editor was beyond incompetent, or it was a nefarious action.

Take your pick.  Right now, I give it a 50/50, although I would assume with the former the editor would eventually be reprimanded in some fashion. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2019, 07:17:17 pm
Why is everything a conspiracy with you guys?

If you read the Wikipedia article, you'd find at the very beginning this:

Quote
Nevertheless, several individuals—most notably former Iranian President Abulhassan Banisadr,[4] former naval intelligence officer and U.S. National Security Council member Gary Sick, and former Reagan/Bush campaign staffer and White House analyst Barbara Honegger—have stood by the allegation.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 07:20:08 pm
Quote
Perhaps the WP has an incredibly obtuse editor out of touch with the current reality of things.  Or perhaps the first headline was a little too positive for Trump, just like with the NYT's headline months ago, so a change was done, but oops, that went a little too far and a 2nd change was needed.

It is either political correctness taken to obscenity.  Or a misplaced anti Trump refusal to give even a modicum of credit. Typical Washington Post bias - fake news.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 27, 2019, 07:21:15 pm
What is weird and does have to do with President Trump is that he did not notify House Speaker Pelosi about what was going to happen.  He offered some phony excuses about leaking information ignoring that Congresswoman Pelosi served on the House Intelligence Committee for 20 years and was never accused of leaking sensitive information.

EDIT:  Obama notified the leaders of both Congressional parties and the relevant intelligence committee chairs prior to the bin Laden assassination

Come on now.  The Dems are currently holding secret hearings and selectively leaking what supports their narrative to the public, not to mention the two year Muller probe that was put into motion before Trump was even sworn in.  On top of that, officials in the White House have been leaking information to the press since Trump was first sworn in.  Last, in the coming weeks a book is being released supposedly written by a (coward who lacks his convictions too quit) senior official in the White House. 

"It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 07:26:07 pm
Come on now.  The Dems are currently holding secret hearings and selectively leaking what supports their narrative to the public, not to mention the two year Muller probe that was put into motion before Trump was even sworn in.  On top of that, officials in the White House have been leaking information to the press since Trump was first sworn in.  Last, in the coming weeks a book is being released supposedly written by a (coward who lacks his convictions too quit) senior official in the White House. 

"It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you."
Years ago,  Democrat and Republican political fights used to end at American shores. No longer.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 07:43:00 pm
Given the current political climate of lynching the president at all and any costs, it is not inconceivable that Pelosi, other Democrats, or thier staff would leak the info just to make Trump look bad. You think I am exaggerating? Rumor has it that Reagan asked the Iranians to free the hostages not during Carter's reign, but when he comes to power. Literally twenty minutes after Reagan's inauguration speech, the hostages were freed. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory
It's not Pelosi who would leak.  But Schiff, the head of the House Intelligence Committee, who would and has.  He is the natural recipient of news like this. Yet there he is leaking all the time like a sieve in his attempt to impeach Trump and make him look bad at any cost to the country.  No offense to the legal profession.  But I've met lawyers and I've met lawyers.  And this guy is the sleaziest.  He'd sell out his mother for an advantage. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on October 27, 2019, 07:43:41 pm
The example was indeed exaggerated and I apologize.

The real, and totally valid question, is how far would Trump have to go to lose support from its base. So far I haven’t seen any hint that there is a limit.

So, a non-apology.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 07:46:05 pm
Frans, let's be generous.  I read it as a sincere apology. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 27, 2019, 07:50:27 pm
Neither Trump nor Obama deserve any credit other than saying yes to the assassination(s).  The military and intelligence did 98% of the work.  I never gave Obama any credit for bin Laden and I won't give Trump any credit for this.

Well said. And 2% presidential credit for "yes, do it" is overly generous.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2019, 07:52:09 pm
Well said. And 2% presidential credit for "yes, do it" is overly generous.

And yet, Carter lost election because of it. So, you may or may not give credit, but the importance of success or failure (in case of Carter) is huge,
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 27, 2019, 07:56:17 pm
And yet, Carter lost election because of it. So, you may or may not give credit, but the importance of success or failure (in case of Carter) is huge,

Well, in that case maybe the intelligence analysis and risk assessment by the military advisers were to blame.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 08:02:38 pm
And yet, Carter lost election because of it. So, you may or may not give credit, but the importance of success or failure (in case of Carter) is huge,
For those not familiar with Slobodan's reference, here's an article about the disastrous rescue attempt President Carter did to get out American embassy hostages being held in Iran.  8 American servicemen died in the operation, 6 helicopters and 1 transport plane were lost, and the rescue was a complete failure.  Carter said this was the reason he lost his bid for re-election. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw#Casualties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw#Casualties)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2019, 08:04:56 pm
Well, in that case maybe the intelligence analysis and risk assessment by the military advisers were to blame.

Perhaps, but it was he who lost the next election because of it. After all, he gave the order to abort the mission.

While Americans in general tend to give a disproportionate credit or blame to personalities, be it Saddam, Slobodan, or a CEO,  2% is way too low. After all, CEOs, leaders, presidents, etc. set the tone, provide direction, select personnel, etc. In that sense, Obama did deserve a decent amount of credit. As Bush deserves a decent amount of blame for dismantling a CIA unit in charge of pursuing Bin Laden (decision that may or may not have had a direct impact on 9/11). In other words, give Trump credit when credit is due.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 08:07:25 pm
Well, in that case maybe the intelligence analysis and risk assessment by the military advisers were to blame.
Unlike Obama who blamed Bush for 7 years, Americans hold their leaders responsible.  That's the way of the world.  Democrat President Truman had a plaque on his desk in the Oval Office of the White House:  "The Buck Stops Here"
(https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intel/2012/10/16/16-truman.w700.h467.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 27, 2019, 08:14:33 pm
The intelligence team does the research, military experts work out the worst and best scenarios, and the president rolls the dice.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 08:17:38 pm
Perhaps, but it was he who lost the next election because of it. After all, he gave the order to abort the mission.

While Americans in general tend to give a disproportionate credit or blame to personalities, be it Saddam, Slobodan, or a CEO,  2% is way too low. After all, CEOs, leaders, presidents, etc. set the tone, provide direction, select personnel, etc. In that sense, Obama did deserve a decent amount of credit. As Bush deserves a decent amount of blame for dismantling a CIA unit in charge of pursuing Bin Laden (decision that may or may not have had a direct impact on 9/11). In other words, give Trump credit when credit is due.
As an officer aboard a nuclear submarine, who served in the US Navy for 7 years, Carter was very familiar with the stern belief that captains of ships are ultimately the ones responsible for what happens on their ship.  The Navy does not like finger pointing and passing the buck. Interestingly, the USS Jimmy Carter is the only US submarine names after a living president, something Carter must be very proud of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Jimmy_Carter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Jimmy_Carter)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 27, 2019, 08:20:04 pm
In other words, give Trump credit when credit is due.

Okay, the Kurds did a fantastic job. They tracked down the target 4-5 weeks ago in area that was inaccessible to the USA forces.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 09:21:44 pm
Okay, the Kurds did a fantastic job. They tracked down the target 4-5 weeks ago in area that was inaccessible to the USA forces.
And then they needed American forces to finish the job.  So that's why we partnered with them to kill ISIS.  But we never promised to build them a homeland and war with Turkey our and your NATO partner. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 27, 2019, 10:07:14 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 10:46:12 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States
John, because of politics, you can't rate acting presidents.  Obviously, because Democrats oppose him,  you immediately have half the population saying he's bad.  A stupid and meaningless statistic. You have to wait at least twenty years, preferably longer after they're out of office and they're dead and buried when no one cares about them any longer.  In any case, what does rating a president have to do with impeachment.  If you don;t like him, don't vote for him in 2020. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 28, 2019, 01:36:00 am
1. First off, what he did was not illegal. Demanding a foreign country do things for us when we give them money is standard quid pro quo. You have a right to ask a drunk on the street who you just gave $5 to spend it on food and not a drink.  Well, the president was asking for Ukraine to clean up it's corruption, the same as Obama demanded they do.  He also asked to check on Biden who may have illegally used his position to violate US as well as Ukrainian law helping his son get a job and escape criminal investigation, all part of the corruption going on in the Ukraine.  Of course there's a side benefit that Biden is a political foe.  However, how is that different than Democrat congressman investigating Trump for the last three years for potential criminal activity knowing that they would benefit if it turns out Trump commiting a crime?  If Trump isn't above the law, neither is Vice President Biden.  If Democrats can get a side benefit politically from an legal investigation, why can't the Republicans?  None of it is illegal.  It's just politics. 

It's illegal at 2 levels:
1. Asking a foreign leader for help against a political opponent is illegal even without a quid Pro quo. It's easy to understand why, this is a threat to democracy. Think about how any former President of the US would have been treated had they done the same thing (and you can be 100% it would known had they done it),
2. Quid Pro Quos are illegal too, even if the White House says they do it all the time, it doesn't make it any more legal just like drunks driving drunk every day aren't any more allowed to do so. It just makes it profoundly illegal.

2. I'm glad you brought this up.  Trump is actually a liberal in many of his beliefs.  Being a New Yorker helps.  He never got excited about race issues, gays, and issues like that.  He's worked with these people all his life.   He's a cosmopolitan who lives and works and helped build the largest liberal, Democrat city in the USA, bar none. Remember, he won the election convincing traditional, blue-collar Democrats to vote for him.  They felt he was one of them. Many Republicans actually find he's too liberal for them, certainly not a VP Pence.  Republican newspapers still support him because his policies are still miles ahead conservatively of liberals like Warren and AOC.  Unfortunately, these newspapers and media, except for Fox, don't have the same power to influence as do the rest of the liberal, Democrat media.  So the latter set the tone and spin of the news.  It's very frustrating for Republicans to realize the press is almost never on their side.

As mentioned, this isn't about how the press depicts Trump's actions, it's about how illegal they are.

Besides, I keep wondering how far Trump would have to go for you and other to drop your apparently unconditional support.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 28, 2019, 01:44:54 am
Bernard,

1) it remains to be seen if anything illegal happened.
2) how was Biden’s quid pro quo legal? He asked for a prosecutor to be fired (quid) in order to release money (quo).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 28, 2019, 03:21:07 am
Bernard,

1) it remains to be seen if anything illegal happened.
2) how was Biden’s quid pro quo legal? He asked for a prosecutor to be fired (quid) in order to release money (quo).

If there was a Quid pro quo with Biden, it will be just as illegal as the one Trump committed. Why would it not be? It isn't because you look at this as a political topic that it's one, or that people thinking Trump should be impreached do.

Why on earth would Republicans be looking for a quid Pro quo involving Biden if it were a legal practice though...

I hope you see the crazy inconsistency between claiming simultaneously that a Quid Pro Quo isn't illegal and saying "look, the other camp did it too"... ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 28, 2019, 04:14:43 am
Bernard,

1) it remains to be seen if anything illegal happened.
2) how was Biden’s quid pro quo legal? He asked for a prosecutor to be fired (quid) in order to release money (quo).

The difference is that Trump benefited personally whereas Biden did not.

But you knew that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 28, 2019, 05:26:20 am
Bernard,

1) it remains to be seen if anything illegal happened.

What's not illegal about soliciting a foreign state to interfere with the US elections?

Quote
2) how was Biden’s quid pro quo legal? He asked for a prosecutor to be fired (quid) in order to release money (quo).

That's a different subject, and an off-topic diversion attempt. But by all means, investigate it. If it was illegal, and Congress was not informed, then Trump's quid pro quo was also illegal.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 28, 2019, 07:19:37 am
What's not illegal about soliciting a foreign state to interfere with the US elections?


Ask Hillary. 

In all seriousness, it is either Trump asked them to help with his re-election OR Trump asked them to investigate the 2016 election interference, which the Dems already shown is okay to do along with holding back aid to get them to do so since they did the same exact thing to the same exact country during the same exact term. 

All evidence is pointing to the latter being what happened.  If there is a smoking gun that proves the former, by all means vote for impeachment, but as of right now there is not any. 

Furthermore, this whole conversation is ignoring the fact that the Senate, with the current evidence, will not convict and that either Warren or Biden will get the ticket, both of which guarantee Trump's re-election.  Warren because she is too far left and will never get the swing states (and even some blue ones IMHO), and Biden because his campaign has no enthusiasm and cant even raise any money. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 28, 2019, 07:54:45 am
Come on now.  The Dems are currently holding secret hearings and selectively leaking what supports their narrative to the public, not to mention the two year Muller probe that was put into motion before Trump was even sworn in.  On top of that, officials in the White House have been leaking information to the press since Trump was first sworn in.  Last, in the coming weeks a book is being released supposedly written by a (coward who lacks his convictions too quit) senior official in the White House. 

"It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you."
Why do you try to conflate all kinds of different things?  The impeachment inquiry is just as secret as the Kenneth Starr investigation of Clinton and the special prosecutor's investigation of Nixon.  What is wrong with that?  Both of those reports ended up being released and discussed by Congress during subsequent deliberations.  The impeachment inquiry will travel down the same path.  Do you have any special knowledge of who is leaking what?  How do you know it is not a Republican(s) that is doing the leaking?  The Muller investigation was designed to examine specific questions about Russian influence on the 2016 election.  do you think this was not a good thing?  Do you favor foreign involvement in US elections?  As for the 'anonymous' book that may be coming out, who cares?  One of the most famous articles on foreign policy was published anonymously back in 1947 about the Soviet pressure on free institutions in the West and what should be done to 'contain' it.  the author of that piece was George Kennan, a famous diplomat and civil servant (maybe he was even the first member of the 'deep state').

As to your final quote, Thomas Pynchon said this with much more insight in his Proverbs for Paranoids (always useful to read and re-read 'Gravity's Rainbow' to understand how the world works).  My favorite of the five is, "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."  This is of course our President's strategy and maybe a good one for him but not the American public.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 28, 2019, 08:01:31 am
Why do you try to conflate all kinds of different things?  The impeachment inquiry is just as secret as the Kenneth Starr investigation of Clinton and the special prosecutor's investigation of Nixon.  What is wrong with that?  Both of those reports ended up being released and discussed by Congress during subsequent deliberations.  The impeachment inquiry will travel down the same path.  Do you have any special knowledge of who is leaking what?  How do you know it is not a Republican(s) that is doing the leaking?  The Muller investigation was designed to examine specific questions about Russian influence on the 2016 election.  do you think this was not a good thing?  Do you favor foreign involvement in US elections?  As for the 'anonymous' book that may be coming out, who cares?  One of the most famous articles on foreign policy was published anonymously back in 1947 about the Soviet pressure on free institutions in the West and what should be done to 'contain' it.  the author of that piece was George Kennan, a famous diplomat and civil servant (maybe he was even the first member of the 'deep state').

As to your final quote, Thomas Pynchon said this with much more insight in his Proverbs for Paranoids (always useful to read and re-read 'Gravity's Rainbow' to understand how the world works).  My favorite of the five is, "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."  This is of course our President's strategy and maybe a good one for him but not the American public.

The point is, leaking is taking place in many different places, much more then with previous Presidents.  It is happening in Congress and in the White House.  Trump has every right to be concerned about things leaking to the Press and screwing up missions, like this raid. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 28, 2019, 09:23:33 am
The point is, leaking is taking place in many different places, much more then with previous Presidents.  It is happening in Congress and in the White House.  Trump has every right to be concerned about things leaking to the Press and screwing up missions, like this raid.

If it's true that there are more leaks now than with previous administrations, it may be interesting to ask why. Is it to do with Trump or is it simply because online media is more pervasive now so there are more opportunities. In some small part though, doesn't Trump sort of invite it since he seems to conduct so much of his policy making on Twitter.

Anyway, isn't he supposed to be such a clever CEO/businessman media-savvy entrepreneur? He had GOP majorities in both houses to begin with but his administration seemed confused right out the gate. And we still hear people complain about how the media is against him. Well, boo-hoo, is my response. Grow a pair and act like a President, I say. Am I really supposed t believe that the "fake news" New York Times has more power that POTUS, that's a reach, isn't it?

And I am also confused about the complaints about secret investigations. Investigations are always conducted in secret, it's the trials that are public. What's wrong with that, seems like a good arrangement to me. Can you imagine televised police interrogations on cable? Those criticisms are a phoney distraction, nothing more.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 28, 2019, 09:33:26 am
And then they needed American forces to finish the job.  So that's why we partnered with them to kill ISIS.

And betrayed them with a free Turkish massacre and displacement of 160,000 citizens.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 09:39:35 am
Ask Hillary. 

In all seriousness, it is either Trump asked them to help with his re-election OR Trump asked them to investigate the 2016 election interference, which the Dems already shown is okay to do along with holding back aid to get them to do so since they did the same exact thing to the same exact country during the same exact term. 

All evidence is pointing to the latter being what happened.  If there is a smoking gun that proves the former, by all means vote for impeachment, but as of right now there is not any. 

Furthermore, this whole conversation is ignoring the fact that the Senate, with the current evidence, will not convict and that either Warren or Biden will get the ticket, both of which guarantee Trump's re-election.  Warren because she is too far left and will never get the swing states (and even some blue ones IMHO), and Biden because his campaign has no enthusiasm and cant even raise any money. 
+1  It's perfectly legal for a president to ask another leader to investigate if there's reason to believe the American commited a crime.  The president may get a political benefit from it.  But what's the alternative?  Let the American get away with the crime?  Both things can happen simultaneous.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 09:44:14 am
If there was a Quid pro quo with Biden, it will be just as illegal as the one Trump committed. Why would it not be? It isn't because you look at this as a political topic that it's one, or that people thinking Trump should be impreached do.

Why on earth would Republicans be looking for a quid Pro quo involving Biden if it were a legal practice though...

I hope you see the crazy inconsistency between claiming simultaneously that a Quid Pro Quo isn't illegal and saying "look, the other camp did it too"... ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

Holding back American aid to get the recipient country to investigate an American who may have committed a crime is not illegal. 

Let me tell you a little secret.  It's exactly why America gives aid.  So we can control foreign countries.  Duh. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 28, 2019, 09:46:31 am
+1  It's perfectly legal for a president to ask another leader to investigate if there's reason to believe the American commited a crime.  The president may get a political benefit from it.  But what's the alternative?  Let the American get away with the crime?  Both things can happen simultaneous.

You and Joe are incorrect.  This explains it in detail.   (https://www.lawfareblog.com/self-dealing-ukraine-core-impeachment-inquiry). See the pull quote below for the directly relevant part. Perhaps Chris Kern could comment further...


Quote
Even if Trump and Giuliani sincerely believe that Trump was wronged in the 2016 election or that his opponents are criminals, this does not make their 2019 desire for vindication, revenge or political advantage into a public, rather than private, interest. If they think Americans have committed crimes, they could have brought those allegations to the public institutions that investigate such allegations, which must follow certain rules—including in an international investigation. Trump and Giuliani did not do that. What they therefore must prove, against the prima facie evidence of bad, private intent, is that they really believed—even falsely—that working on these 2016 allegations would help clean up Ukrainian politics in 2019.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 10:04:05 am
You and Joe are incorrect.  This explains it in detail.   (https://www.lawfareblog.com/self-dealing-ukraine-core-impeachment-inquiry). See the pull quote below for the directly relevant part. Perhaps Chris Kern could comment further...


The article you referenced is practically a lawyer's brief.  It's like complicated papers they submit to a court in a trial.  You can't even explain it.  So you now need to call on another lawyer, Chris, to explain the first lawyer's explanation as to why the president did something illegal, then it's about politics, not the law.  Should we get another lawyer to write a brief as to what Trump did was legal?  You know that's what happens in a trial.  Both sides get to present their case.

The case is very simple. If Trump used aid to try to force Ukraine to investigate Biden and corruption in general, then it's legal.  If he used it only for political advantage, then it would be illegal.  Even if it was illegal, then  the question becomes does it rise to the level our "Treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors" to make it an impeachable offense or is it just political hijinks typical in American politics.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 28, 2019, 10:05:54 am
+1  It's perfectly legal for a president to ask another leader to investigate if there's a reason to believe the American commited a crime.

Q: What reason? That Giuliani was already conspiring with people linked to Russian Oligarchs to create/fabricate dirt?
Trump's son didn't even work at Burisma when the corrupt prosecutor was ousted after combined international pressure agianst corruption.
Instead, a less corrupt prosecutor was put in place.

Q: Then why hide the transcript of the call on a different server with more restricted access than all other call transcripts?

Q: Why the many concerned staffers who knew that when Trump went off-script it caused legal issues?

A: Because they thought/knew it was illegal.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 28, 2019, 10:49:35 am
The point is, leaking is taking place in many different places, much more then with previous Presidents.  It is happening in Congress and in the White House.  Trump has every right to be concerned about things leaking to the Press and screwing up missions, like this raid.
Does hard data exist for this statement?  there are probably many more leaks coming out of the White House than Congress.  Virtually all Congressional activity is open to the public other than Intelligence Committee work.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 28, 2019, 10:53:31 am
+1  It's perfectly legal for a president to ask another leader to investigate if there's reason to believe the American commited a crime.  The president may get a political benefit from it.  But what's the alternative?  Let the American get away with the crime?  Both things can happen simultaneous.
...and to extrapolate in a fair manner, it is perfectly legal for Congress to investigate the President if they believe he committed a '...high crime or misdemeanor..' 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 11:01:00 am
...and to extrapolate in a fair manner, it is perfectly legal for Congress to investigate the President if they believe he committed a '...high crime or misdemeanor..' 
Yes, but the public can also see that as just political as they did with the Clinton impeachment.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 11:04:27 am
And betrayed them with a free Turkish massacre and displacement of 160,000 citizens.


We didn't betray them.  You Europeans betrayed them after WWI. A hundred years ago and have done nothing to help them ever since. At least we saved them from ISIS.  What did you do?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 28, 2019, 12:00:52 pm
We didn't betray them.  You Europeans betrayed them after WWI. A hundred years ago and have done nothing to help them ever since. At least we saved them from ISIS.  What did you do?

As one of the coalition members we supplied air support with an F-16s squadron in Syria and Irak, and financial and material support ("non-Lethal Assistence") to 22 select Rebel groups. We're just a small country (17 million people), but we do what we can do (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War).

Today, the first of 46 ordered F35 Lightning II jets arrives in the Netherlands after lots of delays due to technical issues. Pilots have been trained, and we manufacture parts for the F35. This allows us to keepcontributing our bit in NATO, as long as it's a coalition. Let's hope it was the right choice, instead of e.g. a Swedish alternative.
https://www.f35.com/global/participation/netherlands
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 28, 2019, 12:05:48 pm
+1  It's perfectly legal for a president to ask another leader to investigate if there's reason to believe the American commited a crime.  The president may get a political benefit from it.  But what's the alternative?  Let the American get away with the crime?  Both things can happen simultaneous.

What crime are you talking about?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 28, 2019, 12:46:24 pm
The point is, leaking is taking place in many different places, much more then with previous Presidents.  It is happening in Congress and in the White House.  Trump has every right to be concerned about things leaking to the Press and screwing up missions, like this raid.

You do know that the first leak about the raid came from Trump, when he tweeted that something big was coming? It was after the raid, but before they'd confirmed the identity of the dead man, and when it was presumably still secret?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 12:56:43 pm
As one of the coalition members we supplied air support with an F-16s squadron in Syria and Irak, and financial and material support ("non-Lethal Assistence") to 22 select Rebel groups. We're just a small country (17 million people), but we do what we can do (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War).

Today, the first of 46 ordered F35 Lightning II jets arrives in the Netherlands after lots of delays due to technical issues. Pilots have been trained, and we manufacture parts for the F35. This allows us to keepcontributing our bit in NATO, as long as it's a coalition. Let's hope it was the right choice, instead of e.g. a Swedish alternative.
https://www.f35.com/global/participation/netherlands
ISIS was a threat to Europe.   They committed acts of terror there so you were also fighting for yourselves as were the Kurds and the US fighting for themselves.   So it wasn't an act of charity.  But your effort there is appreciated. But how can the Netherlands and America,  both NATO countries,  go against another NATO country Turkey.   We're supposed to be helping Turkey against Kurdish terrorists wanting to take Turkish lands this themselves.   Wouldn't you want us to support the Dutch in such a situation? After all,  Turkey has supported us for decades.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 12:59:08 pm
You're getting caught up in American politics trying to make a Republican president look bad for the elections coming up.   It has nothing to do with the Kurds
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 28, 2019, 01:24:47 pm
You're getting caught up in American politics trying to make a Republican president look bad for the elections coming up.   It has nothing to do with the Kurds

This must be an awfully important photo forum if you think that a few contributors can affect a US election.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 28, 2019, 01:56:04 pm
This must be an awfully important photo forum if you think that a few contributors can affect a US election.

It's mainly Dutch and Canadians meddling in US elections.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 02:44:32 pm
Stop meddling.
😀
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 28, 2019, 02:46:57 pm
It's mainly Dutch and Canadians meddling in US elections.

Oh no, maybe the US will push up the tariffs on tulip bulbs and maple syrup if we don't stop!

Personally speaking, I couldn't care less if they impeach him or not. It risks making him a martyr, as improbable as that sounds. It's not as if they need to keep the pressure on to induce bizarre behaviour on Trump's part, he's more than happy to oblige all on his own. I see that today he's attacking officials in Chicago for some reason or other. It's a sure sign that politics is screwed up these days because at first blush it should be easy to find someone reasonable to win against him, but the internecine fight among the Democrats seems to be as poisoned as anything else. Why should that be?

It's ironic to listen to these "debates" as if dire consequences will emerge if one side or another is picked. We have all the food and shelter we need, there is always ample money to conduct wars, maintain weapons systems, etc., always plenty of cash for that. There's money to give Amazon tax breaks and pay off Big Corn, but a rise in the minium wage will cripple the country. Is it possible to sound more stupid. I think these "battles" are taking place at the level of symbolism, not reality. Trump is no Nazi, the Democrats are not Stalins buying up land to build the new Gulag. The rhetoric is largely moronic and utterly without meaning. Meanwhile, Amazon pays no taxes and the infrastructure rusts. The coal miners won't get their jobs back, there is no need to retract regulations, we were all doing fine with them in place. It's mostly all smoke.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 28, 2019, 03:05:44 pm
If it's true that there are more leaks now than with previous administrations, it may be interesting to ask why. Is it to do with Trump or is it simply because online media is more pervasive now so there are more opportunities. In some small part though, doesn't Trump sort of invite it since he seems to conduct so much of his policy making on Twitter.

Anyway, isn't he supposed to be such a clever CEO/businessman media-savvy entrepreneur? He had GOP majorities in both houses to begin with but his administration seemed confused right out the gate. And we still hear people complain about how the media is against him. Well, boo-hoo, is my response. Grow a pair and act like a President, I say. Am I really supposed t believe that the "fake news" New York Times has more power that POTUS, that's a reach, isn't it?

And I am also confused about the complaints about secret investigations. Investigations are always conducted in secret, it's the trials that are public. What's wrong with that, seems like a good arrangement to me. Can you imagine televised police interrogations on cable? Those criticisms are a phoney distraction, nothing more.

What's not clever about keeping the Dems in the dark?   ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 28, 2019, 03:10:12 pm
Q: What reason? That Giuliani was already conspiring with people linked to Russian Oligarchs to create/fabricate dirt?
Trump's son didn't even work at Burisma when the corrupt prosecutor was ousted after combined international pressure agianst corruption.
Instead, a less corrupt prosecutor was put in place.

Q: Then why hide the transcript of the call on a different server with more restricted access than all other call transcripts?

Q: Why the many concerned staffers who knew that when Trump went off-script it caused legal issues?

A: Because they thought/knew it was illegal.

Since day one, the White House staff has been leaking information.  So, in response Trump has been putting certain things in a more secure server to avoid leaks.  This has been reported on and the conversation was not the first item stored in this fashion, nor was it only one of a few. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 28, 2019, 03:12:02 pm
You do know that the first leak about the raid came from Trump, when he tweeted that something big was coming? It was after the raid, but before they'd confirmed the identity of the dead man, and when it was presumably still secret?

What?  ???

Leaking after the raid was over and a success does not compromise the mission or lead to soldiers being killed.  It's leaks beforehand that do. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 28, 2019, 03:24:06 pm
... as if dire consequences will emerge if one side or another is picked...

Venezuela didn't reach the dire stage it is in currently the day after the election of a socialist. It took years. Soviet Union lasted 70+ years, etc.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 28, 2019, 03:25:51 pm
Since day one, the White House staff has been leaking information.  So, in response Trump has been putting certain things in a more secure server to avoid leaks.  This has been reported on and the conversation was not the first item stored in this fashion, nor was it only one of a few.

Aw come on, man... you’re spinning as hard as Alan now.  This is like when a cheating husband gets busted and then starts whining about how the REAL breach of trust is that his wife was looking at his texts. 

The reason why previously buttoned up civil servants are doing this is because Donald Trump does dangerous, uninformed, ill-advised things.  Period. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 28, 2019, 03:29:40 pm
It's a wonderful thing that The Coffee Corner has a "Mark Read" button.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 28, 2019, 03:30:27 pm
... The reason why previously buttoned up civil servants are doing this is because Donald Trump does dangerous, uninformed, ill-advised things.  Period. 

Or the commies have finally succeeded in their long march through the institutions.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 28, 2019, 03:32:12 pm
Venezuela didn't reach the dire stage it is in currently the day after the election of a socialist. It took years. Soviet Union lasted 70+ years, etc.

How would you describe the domestic political stance of Russia today?

It might even be seen as the ultimate success story of present-and future-day capitalism/globalism where more and more is controlled by fewer and fewer. In the end, it boils down to much the same thing it always has: the magnates and the proles.

If there's a difference, today the gloves are off and they no longer give a shit if the rest of us see through the smoke and around the mirrors: we stopped counting a while ago.

I guess they learned from the Romans, with the difference that as we have almost run out of lions and Christians, they gave us baseball, cricket and football to occupy our feeble minds. Cycling has started to be an alternative distraction from the realities over which we lost control, so put your money - what's left at the end of the week or whatever - into bicycles; they have another couple of decades for growth.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 28, 2019, 03:34:40 pm
How would you describe the political stance of Russia today?... In the end, it boils down to much the same thing it always has...

A simple question: where would you rather live? In the present day Russia, or in the Soviet one?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 28, 2019, 03:41:39 pm
A simple question: where would you rather live? In the present day Russia, or in the Soviet one?


Does a Russian edition of Vogue really make that much difference?

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on October 28, 2019, 05:04:10 pm
A simple question: where would you rather live? In the present day Russia, or in the Soviet one?

Pointless question. Just because you prefer A over B does not mean A is OK.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 05:19:48 pm
You do know that the first leak about the raid came from Trump, when he tweeted that something big was coming? It was after the raid, but before they'd confirmed the identity of the dead man, and when it was presumably still secret?
The president does not and cannot leak information-classified or not. He controls it as President.  As such he determines classification and when to declassify information.  If he feels that certain "secrets' would be better off declassified so the public can know, that's perfectly acceptable.  He does not need anyone else's authority.  He is the authority.  Presidents do that all the time.  The problem is when others leak information that could influence policy.  It's not their prerogative to make those determinations.  People go to jail for leaking classified information. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 28, 2019, 05:44:51 pm
Oh no, maybe the US will push up the tariffs on tulip bulbs and maple syrup if we don't stop!

Personally speaking, I couldn't care less if they impeach him or not. It risks making him a martyr, as improbable as that sounds. It's not as if they need to keep the pressure on to induce bizarre behaviour on Trump's part, he's more than happy to oblige all on his own. I see that today he's attacking officials in Chicago for some reason or other. It's a sure sign that politics is screwed up these days because at first blush it should be easy to find someone reasonable to win against him, but the internecine fight among the Democrats seems to be as poisoned as anything else. Why should that be?

It's ironic to listen to these "debates" as if dire consequences will emerge if one side or another is picked. We have all the food and shelter we need, there is always ample money to conduct wars, maintain weapons systems, etc., always plenty of cash for that. There's money to give Amazon tax breaks and pay off Big Corn, but a rise in the minium wage will cripple the country. Is it possible to sound more stupid. I think these "battles" are taking place at the level of symbolism, not reality. Trump is no Nazi, the Democrats are not Stalins buying up land to build the new Gulag. The rhetoric is largely moronic and utterly without meaning. Meanwhile, Amazon pays no taxes and the infrastructure rusts. The coal miners won't get their jobs back, there is no need to retract regulations, we were all doing fine with them in place. It's mostly all smoke.

I agree with all of that except the bolded part. He's not a capital "N" Nazi, but he certainly fits the mold a Mussolini-type fascist -- the whole great man thing, the belief in conspiracies against the great leader, the taste for dictatorial regimes, the attacks on a legitimately-elected Congress, the encouraging of violence against opponents. It's really all there. Before I go further, I'd like to say that I really have no problems with a conservative President, which Trump isn't. When Reagan was President, I went about my business and didn't worry too much about politics. I was exactly the same way during the Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama administrations -- they were all very different, but they seemed to be taking care of the nation's business in their own particular ways. Trump seems intent on tearing down the country, and that was right out in the open with his first Svengali, Steve Bannon, who is quite explicitly a fascist.

"Darkness is good: Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when they get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing." -- Steve Bannon.

(Bannon had more to say in Michael Wolff's anti-Trump books, and though the books are distinctly anti-Trump, Bannon hasn't denied the quotes.)

From the Wiki:
In his 2019 book Siege, Wolff wrote, “Trump was vulnerable because for 40 years he had run what increasingly seemed to resemble a semi-criminal enterprise,” then quoted Bannon as saying, “I think we can drop the 'semi' part.” Wolff wrote that Bannon predicted investigations into Trump's finances would be his political downfall, quoting Bannon as saying "This is where it isn't a witch hunt – even for the hard core, this is where he turns into just a crooked business guy, and one worth $50 million instead of $10 billion. Not the billionaire he said he was, just another scumbag.")

Not a Nazi with a capital N, but certainly a fascist, although in my heart of hearts, I don't think Trump is smart enough to know what fascism is. He doesn't have a theory, he just does it.


Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on October 28, 2019, 05:46:55 pm
It's a wonderful thing that The Coffee Corner has a "Mark Read" button.

Ain't that the truth. Sadly for me...

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 28, 2019, 06:34:54 pm
Pointless question. Just because you prefer A over B does not mean A is OK.

Except when your alternative is B.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 28, 2019, 06:39:56 pm
... He's not a capital "N" Nazi, but he certainly fits the mold a Mussolini-type fascist...

...Trump seems intent on tearing down the country...

My, my... TDS in full display.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on October 28, 2019, 06:40:41 pm
Pointless question. Just because you prefer A over B does not mean A is OK.

Except when your alternative is B.

not even then
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 08:31:54 pm
Doesn't anyone who opposes Trump here have anything positive to say about him regarding al Baghdadi?  What would you want him to do that you would actually praise him?  Would your fingers fall off your hand if you typed something positive about him?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 28, 2019, 09:05:38 pm
Trump, The Leaker-in-Chief, just leaked the identity of the key agent participating in the raid:

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 09:22:24 pm
My men's club visited Mcguire Air Force Base here in New Jersey a few months ago.  Beside airmen giving us a tour of the C17 and base fire brigade company, they ran us threw their dog training area explaining all the procedures they use.  We then got a demo of how dogs bring down "villains".  Of course most of those would be drug people here in the states. But of course, overseas, the dogs are used for other things.  They don't know a drug pusher from a terrorist or care.  They seem to enjoy biting people in general and aren't particular about which one.  :) 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 28, 2019, 09:26:42 pm
Doesn't anyone who opposes Trump here have anything positive to say about him regarding al Baghdadi?  What would you want him to do that you would actually praise him?  Would your fingers fall off your hand if you typed something positive about him?

We don't have enough information how the mission unfolded and what was Trump's involvement. But as shown in another Coffee Corner thread (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132453.msg1136419#msg1136419), NYT and Times Of Israel stated that the operation was successful despite Trump, not thanks to him. And that's very positive.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 28, 2019, 09:29:59 pm
My men's club visited Mcguire Air Force Base here in New Jersey a few months ago.  Beside airmen giving us a tour of the C17 and base fire brigade company, they ran us threw their dog training area explaining all the procedures they use.  We then got a demo of how dogs bring down "villains".  Of course most of those would be drug people here in the states. But of course, overseas, the dogs are used for other things.  They don't know a drug pusher from a terrorist or care.  They seem to enjoy biting people in general and aren't particular about which one.  :)

Nice dog, but it seems slightly overweight. Same as Baghdadi.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 09:35:03 pm
We don't have enough information how the mission unfolded and what was Trump's involvement. But as shown in another Coffee Corner thread (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132453.msg1136419#msg1136419), NYT and Times Of Israel stated that the operation was successful despite Trump, not thanks to him. And that's very positive.
That's just another hit on Trump, Les.  Obama did nothing more than Trump but got high praises for weeks about his "courage" on ordering the raid which eliminated Bin Laden.  Had it failed, Obama would have been blasted as Democrat President Carter was when his raid to rescue American hostages in Iran failed.  He lost his re-election bid because of it.  So would have Trump been lambasted if he had failed.  Yet you read and mimic the anti-Trump press and refuse to give him any credit. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 28, 2019, 09:42:38 pm
I didn't think it was Obama's achievement. Main thing I remember from that mission is that Hillary Clinton couldn't control herself in the war room.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 11:11:34 pm
To fight off another recession, I see the Federal Reserve Bank is lowering interest rates twice and will again for the third time before the end of the month. Meanwhile, they're again printing $60 billion a month to support bonds and debt.  At the top of the 2008 crisis they were printing $85 billion a month.  So we're back into Qualitative Easing, printing cash.  Our debt is massive; so is our deficit.  So despite the fact the economy looks so good, the Fed thinks otherwise.  If it pops, or should I say when, impeachment will be a secondary concern.  Trump will never get re-elected because a pop this time will make 2008 look like child's play.  And the whole world will be impacted as well. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 28, 2019, 11:19:23 pm
My, my... TDS in full display.

[Trump Derangement Syndrome -- I had to look it up.]

I won't argue that; I even agree with it. I covered politics as a reporter for quite a long time, for major metro newspapers; and I majored in American Studies in college, which was a combination of American history, political science and literature. I served in the Army, as did my father and both of my uncles (in World War II.) I love this country. It's the greatest country that's ever been. I loathe Trump, I really do. He's the most destructive influence we've ever seen in this nation. He is immoral, ignorant, personally vicious, suffers from a severe mental disorder, and refuses even the basic sort of education necessary to run this country. He is doing great damage to it, and encouraging the very worst of it -- racism, white nationalism, political corruption on an unprecedented scale.

For me, he's also quite an interesting case study. That's why I say he's a fascist -- because it fits. If instead of a wise-ass reply to this, go out to wiki or some other source, and see what fascism means, and understand that it was quite a popular political position in Europe, part of South America, and Japan, for quite a long time. And then look what it led to. In every case.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 11:38:01 pm
[Trump Derangement Syndrome -- I had to look it up.]

I won't argue that; I even agree with it. I covered politics as a reporter for quite a long time, for major metro newspapers; and I majored in American Studies in college, which was a combination of American history, political science and literature. I served in the Army, as did my father and both of my uncles (in World War II.) I love this country. It's the greatest country that's ever been. I loathe Trump, I really do. He's the most destructive influence we've ever seen in this nation. He is immoral, ignorant, personally vicious, suffers from a severe mental disorder, and refuses even the basic sort of education necessary to run this country. He is doing great damage to it, and encouraging the very worst of it -- racism, white nationalism, political corruption on an unprecedented scale.

For me, he's also quite an interesting case study. That's why I say he's a fascist -- because it fits. If instead of a wise-ass reply to this, go out to wiki or some other source, and see what fascism means, and understand that it was quite a popular political position in Europe, part of South America, and Japan, for quite a long time. And then look what it led to. In every case.
John to compare Trump to let's say Spanish Fascism under Franco is a bridge too far.  Trump is a loudmouth, true.  A bull in a china shop.  All right. Course, rough.  OK.  But, his bark is louder than his bite.  The Constitution and federal courts control all presidents including this one.  Franco made war on his people and was a dictator who killed his countrymen.  To compare Trump to that is, well, TDS.   You're just being hyperbolic like all the other anti-Trump people here. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 28, 2019, 11:58:07 pm
... If instead of a wise-ass reply to this, go out to wiki or some other source, and see what fascism means...

You think I need Wikipedia to know what fascism is? Or any other subject under discussion here?

Since you stated your credentials, I will state mine. My father was in a fascist concentration camp. My people fought fascism. I lived, worked, or visited 38 countries. I lived in Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and the USA. I speak five languages. I am a trained economist and hold an MBA degree from the #1 business school in the world (Booth). I worked for four major US multinationals, here and abroad. I think I can discuss politics and fascism without resorting to Wikipedia. I see no fascism here. I see no racism in his actions or words, or in the broader environment, for that matter. I see no damage to the country, just perhaps someone's sensitive feelings hurt, causing a TDS. The only real threat to this country is the slow, steady advance of socialism. The only thing I might agree with you is his personality (short of "severe mental disorder"). He is a New Yorker. Spoiled, jerkish billionaire. Enough said. But people knew it well before voting for him. People did not vote for his charming personality, but for his policy proposals.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 29, 2019, 12:20:54 am
Doesn't anyone who opposes Trump here have anything positive to say about him regarding al Baghdadi?  What would you want him to do that you would actually praise him?  Would your fingers fall off your hand if you typed something positive about him?

Yes. I am not sure what Trump had to do with it (nor what Obama had to do with Bin Laden btw), but the special forces who were able to take him down must certainly be praised.

Now, the whole thing is complicated by the fact that al Baghdadi is an indirect, but obvious, consequence of previous GOP action in the region though. Had Irak not been attacked on false premises spread by Bush and the Republican falcons, IS would never have reached the level of influence that created the need to take down al Baghdadi.

Do we congratulate our kids when they fix the mess they created? Probably, but certainly not as much as Trump congratulated himself during his 50 mins speech.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 29, 2019, 08:06:28 am
Doesn't anyone who opposes Trump here have anything positive to say about him regarding al Baghdadi?  What would you want him to do that you would actually praise him?  Would your fingers fall off your hand if you typed something positive about him?
LOL, as if he had much to do with this other than giving the go ahead.  Reports coming out yesterday pointed out that his military withdrawal forced them to accelerate the timetable.  Shouldn't the military and intelligence groups be praised much more than the President?  I found it curious that in his praise of those who had ancillary roles, the Syrian Kurds who provided most of the key intelligence were listed last.  Of course this also had to be the 'greatest' assassination of a terrorist even though the Caliphate never posed any threat to the US unlike bin Laden's group who murdered several thousand Americans.  Good that the President got in yet another dig at Obama for not doing more against Gaghdadi!! 

President Trump is the greatest; at least that's what his press secretary, Stephanie Grisham said the other day referring to "...the genius of our great president..."  I guess this must be true and I salute you Mr. President for your genius in taking down the evil leader of the Caliphate for without you this would all not be possible.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 29, 2019, 08:14:35 am
I speak five languages. I am a trained economist and hold an MBA degree from the #1 business school in the world (Booth).
According to whose metric?  A quick Google search shows a variety of rankings with several #1 business schools both in the the US and abroad.  There are lots of people who graduate from #1 colleges/universities and that means very little.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 29, 2019, 09:24:09 am
According to whose metric?  A quick Google search shows..

This:
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 29, 2019, 10:19:22 am
This:
Yes, you can validate anything on the Internet.  The US News rating is from 2018.  US News now has it tied for 3rd behind Wharton and Stanford.  In the end it really doesn't matter at all what the ratings mean, it is what the graduate does with the degree that matters.  In the good old days when I was growing up we didn't have college/university rankings; perhaps we were better off.  We always told our daughters that they could go to what ever school they wanted.  They chose wisely and have fulfilling careers helping at risk children.  That's what it's all about.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 29, 2019, 10:46:40 am
Turns out, Trump was, once again, totally wrong. Once again, betting on the wrong horse (errr... dog). Not such a hero, after all:

https://babylonbee.com/news/cnn-uncovers-evidence-hero-dog-sniffed-butts?fbclid=IwAR0zucm3faFUyDOJdT555E4TvtapxxHvbwl8o5s0lqoB_JyFvYlF7drd5ss

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on October 29, 2019, 11:03:35 am
Doesn't anyone who opposes Trump here have anything positive to say about him regarding al Baghdadi?  What would you want him to do that you would actually praise him?  Would your fingers fall off your hand if you typed something positive about him?

Trump had nothing to do with al-Baghdadi except perhaps for okaying the mission--just like Obama/bin Ladin. But Obama never took any credit while here's the Bone Spur Boy prancing around patting himself on the back. And Trump's moronic decision to pull US troops out and leave the Kurds hanging by their testicles came very close to scuttling the entire al-Baghdadi mission. And Trump has been spouting classified information about the mission to the press. And military sources involved in the operation say that some of Trump's statements about the operation are false.

You want me to praise Trump? Have him resign. It will finally be something good for the country.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 29, 2019, 11:08:43 am
Turns out, Trump was, once again, totally wrong. Once again, betting on the wrong horse (errr... dog). Not such a hero, after all:

https://babylonbee.com/news/cnn-uncovers-evidence-hero-dog-sniffed-butts?fbclid=IwAR0zucm3faFUyDOJdT555E4TvtapxxHvbwl8o5s0lqoB_JyFvYlF7drd5ss

That's great.  Love this, "He was always sniffing any butt he could find. Cats, dogs, humans, you name it. He didn't have a preference. He identified as pansniffual."

Pansniffual   ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 29, 2019, 11:10:19 am
Trump had nothing to do with al-Baghdadi except perhaps for okaying the mission--just like Obama/bin Ladin. But Obama never took any credit while here's the Bone Spur Boy prancing around patting himself on the back. And Trump's moronic decision to pull US troops out and leave the Kurds hanging by their testicles came very close to scuttling the entire al-Baghdadi mission. And Trump has been spouting classified information about the mission to the press. And military sources involved in the operation say that some of Trump's statements about the operation are false.

You want me to praise Trump? Have him resign. It will finally be something good for the country.

What?  ???

I seem to remember Obama touting this on his re-election campaign, "Osama is dead and Detroit is alive," along with other variants said plenty of times in 2012. 

Insofar as the Kurds, there is no way that we could meddle with the Kurds, Turkey, Syria and Russia without pissing someone off to the point of making a new enemy. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 29, 2019, 11:14:31 am
Turns out, Trump was, once again, totally wrong. Once again, betting on the wrong horse (errr... dog). Not such a hero, after all:

https://babylonbee.com/news/cnn-uncovers-evidence-hero-dog-sniffed-butts?fbclid=IwAR0zucm3faFUyDOJdT555E4TvtapxxHvbwl8o5s0lqoB_JyFvYlF7drd5ss

Must have been part of AI Deep sniffing training. NVIDIA did something similar recently, but with animal faces. 

Quote
A team of NVIDIA researchers has defined new AI techniques that give computers enough smarts to see a picture of one animal and recreate its expression and pose on the face of any other creature. The work is powered in part by generative adversarial networks (GANs), an emerging AI technique that pits one neural network against another.

Before this work, network models for image translation had to be trained using many images of the target animal. Now, one picture of Rover does the trick, in part thanks to a training function that includes many different image translation tasks the team adds to the GAN process.

https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2019/10/27/ai-gans-pets-ganimals/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 29, 2019, 02:35:23 pm
I think we beat this to death.  I'm signing off to get on with life.  Carry on.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on October 29, 2019, 03:33:36 pm
What?  ???

I seem to remember Obama touting this on his re-election campaign, "Osama is dead and Detroit is alive," along with other variants said plenty of times in 2012. 


Obama saying "Osama is dead" is a simple, undeniable fact. He did not take personal credit for it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on October 29, 2019, 03:54:57 pm
Turns out, Trump was, once again, totally wrong. Once again, betting on the wrong horse (errr... dog). Not such a hero, after all:

Amazing. I'd never heard of that site before, and my attention has been drawn to two links in 24 hours.

(This (https://babylonbee.com/news/motorcycle-that-identifies-as-bicycle-sets-world-cycling-record?fbclid=IwAR0CnN19DAs5PgvN7BQ7Z6BhxbNGTiim8zdYDg1vT_LhOwYX1rb6Lz7jLDU) is the other.)

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 29, 2019, 05:46:21 pm
Obama saying "Osama is dead" is a simple, undeniable fact. He did not take personal credit for it.

Are you kidding me.  He made it part of his re-election campaign; that is taking credit for it. 

He may not have been as boisterous, but Obama did take credit for it. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 29, 2019, 05:53:21 pm
Amazing. I'd never heard of that site before, and my attention has been drawn to two links in 24 hours.

(This (https://babylonbee.com/news/motorcycle-that-identifies-as-bicycle-sets-world-cycling-record?fbclid=IwAR0CnN19DAs5PgvN7BQ7Z6BhxbNGTiim8zdYDg1vT_LhOwYX1rb6Lz7jLDU) is the other.)

Jeremy

Another great satire sure to rile up emotions, although, consider a recent story, it should have been in London. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 29, 2019, 09:50:45 pm
Amazing. I'd never heard of that site before, and my attention has been drawn to two links in 24 hours.

It's a website know for Satire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Babylon_Bee
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 29, 2019, 10:59:20 pm
It's a website known for Satire...

Nooooo... and all this time I thought...  :-[
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 29, 2019, 11:04:33 pm
Happens every time. The discussion starts with a serious statement and ends with a joke.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 29, 2019, 11:20:36 pm
Happens every time. The discussion starts with a serious statement and ends with a joke.

Especially when you try to treat a joke (impeachment) as a serious statement ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 30, 2019, 12:03:12 am
Especially when you try to treat a joke (impeachment) as a serious statement ;)

Good punchline!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 30, 2019, 05:59:57 am
Especially when you try to treat a joke (impeachment) as a serious statement ;)

How is the impeachment a joke?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 30, 2019, 07:46:16 am
Well Tom Brokaw, on MSNBC none the less, said, “The big difference is … they still don’t have what you call 'the goods' on this president in terms of breaking the law and being an impeachable target for them."  It's important to remember that (a) aid was not withheld and (b) the investigation was not implemented.  Even if you think Trump's words were concerning helping him in the 2020 election, he did not follow through with it. 

But anyway, I think the below "political article" sums up the points I have been making about the current field of Dems. 

RNC Raising Money To Help Democrats Televise Five Debates A Week (https://babylonbee.com/news/republican-national-committee-raising-money-to-help-democrats-televise-5-live-debates-a-week)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 30, 2019, 10:10:58 am
It's time for Noah Mk 2.

All of them, politicians of all persuasions (they have none), the European ones too, should be barred from boarding and left to swim and then sink to the bottom. Quite who might replace them when the waters subside, I have no idea; perhaps we could start electing pigs - no, wait, been there, done that.

Medacity is the new religion.

;-(
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 30, 2019, 10:32:23 am
Well Tom Brokaw, on MSNBC none the less, said, “The big difference is … they still don’t have what you call 'the goods' on this president in terms of breaking the law and being an impeachable target for them."  It's important to remember that (a) aid was not withheld and (b) the investigation was not implemented.  Even if you think Trump's words were concerning helping him in the 2020 election, he did not follow through with it.

I think that's not correct, or even relevant. He did solicit for a foreign nation to influence the national elections. That's the ground for impeachment, and from the looks of it there is enough first-hand evidence to prove that. It was only made worse by the attempted cover-up, and the going outside of the official diplomatic channels (making it more difficult for Congress to do its duty) doesn't help either. Then the coercion of witnesses to not testify raised more suspicion, what (else) are they trying to hide.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 30, 2019, 10:41:11 am
I think that's not correct, or even relevant. He did solicit for a foreign nation to influence the national elections. That's the ground for impeachment, and from the looks of it there is enough first-hand evidence to prove that. It was only made worse by the attempted cover-up, and the going outside of the official diplomatic channels (making it more difficult for Congress to do its duty) doesn't help either. Then the coercion of witnesses to not testify raised more suspicion, what (else) are they trying to hide.

Cheers,
Bart

All of these can be explained by other possible actions and motives.  Sorry Bart, but there is no clear cut evidence.  They don't have the goods.  I am half expecting the vote to fail on Thursday; as of this morning, at least one Dem in the house is saying he will most like vote against the resolution. 

In other news though, it really getting bad for the dog!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 30, 2019, 10:45:22 am
... In other news though, it really getting bad for the dog!

 ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 30, 2019, 11:40:19 am
All of these can be explained by other possible actions and motives.  Sorry Bart, but there is no clear cut evidence.  They don't have the goods.  I am half expecting the vote to fail on Thursday; as of this morning, at least one Dem in the house is saying he will most like vote against the resolution. 
Speaker Pelosi will not bring a vote to the floor that she will lose.  I don't know how you can say there is no clear cut evidence.  We have already seen several credible witnesses come before the inquiry panel that lay out the problem.  In addition, the President only released an edited transcript of the phone call and put the actual phone call in a lock box. There is also the significant matter regarding the role of Giuliani, who may or may not have been delegated with carrying out the President's foreign policy and other goals in the Ukraine. The bigger problem for the President is obstruction of justice which will likely be one of the Impeachment articles 'if' they bring a charge to forward to the Senate. 

There are going to be some difficult votes to take by both sides though I think more will be of consequence in the Senate if there is an Impeachment vote.  The Republicans who seem only to be attacking this on procedural grounds and not trying to seek the truth are leading the US to a dangerous place.  Many of them have argued in the past that the executive branch has grown in power and much of this results from poor Congressional oversight.  Now that we have some Congressional oversight, the Republicans are lining up to argue against the process.  I've done my share of Congressional testimony during my working career and it's never very pleasant (I got severely upbraided by Senator Boxer on an environmental issue that we were actually the 'good guys').  The Senate can ultimately vote not to impeach but they ought to welcome oversight.  the only Senate committee that is doing a passable job is the Intelligence Committee that is chaired by Senator Burr with Senator Warner as the ranking member.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 30, 2019, 12:02:00 pm
;D


Something else I'm not clear about: if Wardog was sent in to catch the target, and then target self-exploded (we are not yet sure if from indignation, chemicals or nothing more exciting than Delhi Belly), one has to ask: is Wardog still joyously alive, barking mad, or in that big kennel in the sky? If he is to appear on tv to win awards, one assumes he is alive and well, or otherwise his ròle in the play would have been censored to prevent the various animal lobbies from protesting in front of the Casa Blanca.

That said, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that a stand-in could be employed: as Rembrandt famously said, they do all look the same in a certain light.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 30, 2019, 12:21:17 pm
Speaker Pelosi will not bring a vote to the floor that she will lose.  I don't know how you can say there is no clear cut evidence.  We have already seen several credible witnesses come before the inquiry panel that lay out the problem.  In addition, the President only released an edited transcript of the phone call and put the actual phone call in a lock box. There is also the significant matter regarding the role of Giuliani, who may or may not have been delegated with carrying out the President's foreign policy and other goals in the Ukraine. The bigger problem for the President is obstruction of justice which will likely be one of the Impeachment articles 'if' they bring a charge to forward to the Senate. 

There are going to be some difficult votes to take by both sides though I think more will be of consequence in the Senate if there is an Impeachment vote.  The Republicans who seem only to be attacking this on procedural grounds and not trying to seek the truth are leading the US to a dangerous place.  Many of them have argued in the past that the executive branch has grown in power and much of this results from poor Congressional oversight.  Now that we have some Congressional oversight, the Republicans are lining up to argue against the process.  I've done my share of Congressional testimony during my working career and it's never very pleasant (I got severely upbraided by Senator Boxer on an environmental issue that we were actually the 'good guys').  The Senate can ultimately vote not to impeach but they ought to welcome oversight.  the only Senate committee that is doing a passable job is the Intelligence Committee that is chaired by Senator Burr with Senator Warner as the ranking member.

I disagree.  Regardless though on who is right, it's really not going to matter. 

As someone else is found of saying, all the Dems had to do was not go crazy but they went totally crazy.  Warren's policies are so far to the left, I don't think this impeachment process is really going to matter. 

The only hope is that Biden wins, but I dont see that being great either since there is no enthusiasm and he cant seem to raise any money. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 30, 2019, 01:02:43 pm
... s Wardog still joyously alive, barking mad, or in that big kennel in the sky?...

Apparently, the dog was injured in the blast, but survived and is ok now.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 30, 2019, 01:16:41 pm
I disagree.  Regardless though on who is right, it's really not going to matter. 
Neither of us can vote on this matter until next November.  We will have to see how it all plays out when the evidence is made public and how the House decides to proceed.  All else is mere conjecture. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 30, 2019, 01:17:32 pm
Apparently, the dog was injured in the blast, but survived and is ok now.

Seems unlikely, if he was close to the bombvest blast...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 30, 2019, 02:28:07 pm
Man, things are getting really tough for Dems when Barack Hussein Obama has to step in and bitch-slap them

;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 31, 2019, 12:46:34 am
Oh no... it seems that the transcript of the Ukraine conversation was not word for word after all...

This is very surprising since Trump said at least 4 times in public that absolutely nothing had been left out...

Why would he lie on this?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 31, 2019, 06:43:30 am
Oh no... it seems that the transcript of the Ukraine conversation was not word for word after all...

This is very surprising since Trump said at least 4 times in public that absolutely nothing had been left out...

Why would he lie on this?

Cheers,
Bernard

He didn't Bernard; it's an example of the new freedom: elastic reality.

It travels really well: utterly changed the concept of British politics, and how a statement - made verbally and also writ large on advertising buses on one day, recorded on video for all time, nevertheless doesn't mean a thing when it is admitted to as being a "mistake" immediately after it wins a referendum, a "mistake" whose consequences have wasted almost three years of Parliamentary time, split families and is going to screw the country in the longer run.

Far from helping the NHS to the tune of 350 million pounds a week, more and more UK doctors are seeing the colour of their future and voting with their pretty feet.

Trump and his like are stoking the fires of a revolution, much as is happening in other parts of the world. It will get a lot worse than it is now, mild, half-hearted little spats on a website.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 31, 2019, 11:28:59 am
it's an example of the new freedom: elastic reality.... It will get a lot worse than it is now...

Truth Decay
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 31, 2019, 12:12:45 pm
Truth Decay

Only simple minds believe in simple truths.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 31, 2019, 01:22:41 pm
Simple minds like Occam’s?

Occam's Razor is not a simple truth, or whole truth. It is a good starting point in search for truth. Simple answers are sometimes sufficient, sometimes, or more correctly, oftentimes, not.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 31, 2019, 04:54:59 pm
I'm not going to lie, I am really questioning the authenticity of this image.  I really hope the NYTs and the Washington Post gets on this story. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 01, 2019, 08:31:09 am
Only simple minds believe in simple truths.

You don’t think that Trumps lies on purpose?

Or you do not think it’s problematic for the president of the US to lie on purpose?

Exactly, what degree of respect do you have for the Presidential function?

Perhaps the difference btwn Trump supporters and opponents lies in the respect or lack of respect of institutions such as the role of President or the Constitution?

Because the Republicans who voted against the impreachement procedure today have done nothing but show incredible disrespect for the Constitution they have swore to protect. I guess you are fine with that?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 01, 2019, 09:40:27 am
Bernard, if there is any “disrespect” for the Constitution, it comes from Democrats, who have been desperately trying to overturn election results by a slow-motion coup d’etat, clutching at the straws, and making mountains out of molehills. As if they haven’t learned anything from the spectacular failure that the Russian Connection was, they are now going for the Ukrainian one. The result will be the same: Trump 2020.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on November 01, 2019, 11:24:15 am
Bernard, if there is any “disrespect” for the Constitution, it comes from Democrats, who have been desperately trying to overturn election results by a slow-motion coup d’etat, clutching at the straws, and making mountains out of molehills. As if they haven’t learned anything from the spectacular failure that the Russian Connection was, they are now going for the Ukrainian one. The result will be the same: Trump 2020.

Slobodan, is that a practical demonstration of the theory that two negatives make a positive?

Were my wife around I'd ask her instead, as she was much better at maths than I.

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 01, 2019, 12:55:29 pm
Bernard, if there is any “disrespect” for the Constitution, it comes from Democrats, who have been desperately trying to overturn election results by a slow-motion coup d’etat, clutching at the straws, and making mountains out of molehills. As if they haven’t learned anything from the spectacular failure that the Russian Connection was, they are now going for the Ukrainian one. The result will be the same: Trump 2020.

Russian investigation a failure? Where do you get your news, the Nancy and Sluggo show? It provided tons of evidence for illegal collusion, but for reasons I do not understand Mueller concluded it was not enough to indict a sitting president. Some 1,000 prosecuting attorneys signed a statement (or some such) to the effect that they saw enough evidence in the report for an indictment.

It must be nice to be a conservative. If you want something to be true, just declare it true and - poof - there ya go. No need to think or investigate.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 01, 2019, 01:04:51 pm

... If you want something to be true, just declare it true and - poof - there ya go. No need to think or investigate.

Yup. "Alternative Facts".
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 01, 2019, 01:08:28 pm
Russian investigation a failure? Where do you get your news, the Nancy and Sluggo show? It provided tons of evidence for illegal collusion, but for reasons I do not understand Mueller concluded it was not enough to indict a sitting president.

The reason was that a sitting President cannot be indicted. When he is not the President anymore, he can still be indicted. Several of his helpers are already in Jail.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 01, 2019, 03:00:19 pm
You guys!

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 01, 2019, 03:38:36 pm
Meanwhile...

R:  "This is a total sham!!! These hearings are SECRET and REPUBLICANS ARE SHUT OUT!!!"
(note: totally not true.  Republicans are in the hearings, which are using the rules set forth by a Republican speaker and a Republican House, but I digress..)

D:  Hey buddy... these are your rules, but ok.. let's vote on open hearings.

R:  I vote NO!  BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!
(ok, I made that last part up - but gee whiz.)

 ::)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 01, 2019, 04:48:23 pm
Russian investigation a failure? . . .  It provided tons of evidence for illegal collusion, but for reasons I do not understand Mueller concluded it was not enough to indict a sitting president.

Actually, Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report (https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf) concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that then-candidate Trump or any member of his campaign staff participated in a criminal conspiracy with the Russian agents who interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

The report documented multiple potential instances of obstruction of justice by President Trump involving attempts to interfere with the government's investigation of the hostile Russian operations.  However, based on a longstanding Department of Justice policy, by which Mueller considered himself bound, he declined to make "a traditional prosecutorial judgment" regarding them:

Quote
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the  President’s conduct.  The  evidence we obtained  about  the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.  At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.  Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.  Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

After Trump leaves office, or is removed by the impeachment process, he could be charged with any federal crimes he committed during his tenure.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 01, 2019, 05:28:46 pm
Meanwhile...

R:  "This is a total sham!!! These hearings are SECRET and REPUBLICANS ARE SHUT OUT!!!"
(note: totally not true.  Republicans are in the hearings, which are using the rules set forth by a Republican speaker and a Republican House, but I digress..)

D:  Hey buddy... these are your rules, but ok.. let's vote on open hearings.


There are 40+ republicans on the three committees that are conducting the impeachment investigations.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 01, 2019, 06:16:44 pm
There are 40+ republicans on the three committees that are conducting the impeachment investigations.

Yep.  That's (one reason) why their little dog and pony show is total nonsense. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 01, 2019, 06:30:55 pm
There are 40+ republicans on the three committees that are conducting the impeachment investigations.

At this point truth and common sense have become totally unrelated to the behaviour of republicans.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 01, 2019, 06:32:33 pm
Bernard, if there is any “disrespect” for the Constitution, it comes from Democrats, who have been desperately trying to overturn election results by a slow-motion coup d’etat, clutching at the straws, and making mountains out of molehills. As if they haven’t learned anything from the spectacular failure that the Russian Connection was, they are now going for the Ukrainian one. The result will be the same: Trump 2020.

I am at a loss why a smart person like you is comfortable looking himself in the mirror and feel that this bunch of lies is aligned with who you are and the values you stand for.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 01, 2019, 07:05:14 pm
I am at a loss...

That is because you totally misjudged the situation. Which shouldn't be surprising, given the distance you are observing.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 01, 2019, 07:12:56 pm
... After Trump leaves office, or is removed by the impeachment process, he could be charged with any federal crimes he committed during his tenure.

Again, there are NONE. Were there at least a single one, Dems would pounce on it for impeachment. The fact that Mueller couldn't indict a sitting president doesn't mean that Congress could not start impeachment. The fact that he couldn't exonerate him either is a simple formal logic: you can not prove a negative (in this case, absence of proof).

But hey, keep drinking that Russian vodka. Or even better, switch to a Ukrainian one.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 01, 2019, 07:22:58 pm
There are 40+ republicans on the three committees that are conducting the impeachment investigations.

Can somebody provide evidence for that? I didn't dig deep into that, but the only "proof" I saw is that those Republicans are members of those committees. That fact might or may not mean that they are actually participating in those impeachment hearings. And if they are, then they are protesting the closed nature of the hearings in which, procedurally, they are not allowed to issue their own subpoenas or question witnesses. Again, I admit that I did not dig deep into the issue, so I welcome if someone proves me wrong. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 01, 2019, 07:24:25 pm
At this point truth and common sense have become totally unrelated to the behaviour of republicans.

Which (whose) truth and which (whose) common sense? You state that as if you (collective you) are the holder of absolute truth and common sense.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on November 01, 2019, 07:41:20 pm
Here's a prediction for you guys: The Democrat impeachment circus will lead to (1) The Republicans retaking the House next year. (2) The Republicans hanging on to the Senate next year, and (3) The reelection of Trump next year. Keep your eyes peeled and your ear to the ground. (Can't think of any more clichés at the moment.) Stay alert.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on November 01, 2019, 08:20:08 pm
Bernard, if there is any “disrespect” for the Constitution, it comes from Democrats, who have been desperately trying to overturn election results by a slow-motion coup d’etat, clutching at the straws, and making mountains out of molehills. As if they haven’t learned anything from the spectacular failure that the Russian Connection was, they are now going for the Ukrainian one. The result will be the same: Trump 2020.

It's not in any sense a coup.

A coup d'état (/ˌkuː deɪˈtɑː/ ( listen); French: [ku deta]), also known by its German name putsch (/pʊtʃ/), or simply as a coup, is the overthrow of an existing government by non-democratic means; typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction.

An impeachment and trial is clearly and specifically Constitutional and legal. You might not like it, but it's not a coup.

What I really don't understand about Trump supporters -- and specifically you Slobodan -- is your acceptance of a guy like Trump. I assume you're pretty conservative. Trump isn't. Neither are his politics. I mean, as an economist do you think the signature Trump achievement so far, his tax cut, which has led to a near trillion dollar deficit at a time of increasing tax collections was a good idea? Or are you one of those people who believe the deficits don't matter? People say, "I don't like Trump, but I support his policies." Which policies? The trade war with China that's devastated our farm economy? The encouragement of such things as coal mining, at a time when we know if does great damage to the environment AND is already uneconomic, given the rise of fracking and natural gas? I personally don't disagree that socialism is a threat we need to deal with (see Soviet Communism, Mao, Pol Pot -- it's generally been as bad or worse than fascism, when it's leaders get cornered) but you don't deal with it by supporting a fascist like Trump. But the thing that worries me more than anything is the fact that Trump is deranged. He suffers from known mental illnesses called delusional disorder of the grandiose type and from narcissism. As I made clear in an earlier post, I can live with a conservative president, or, for that matter, a liberal President. I have a hard time with a crazy one, who makes decisions like the one he made on Syria, apparently without consulting virtually any military leaders.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 01, 2019, 09:58:12 pm
Here's a prediction for you guys: The Democrat impeachment circus will lead to (1) The Republicans retaking the House next year. (2) The Republicans hanging on to the Senate next year, and (3) The reelection of Trump next year. Keep your eyes peeled and your ear to the ground. (Can't think of any more clichés at the moment.) Stay alert.

And Warren on the ticket pretty much seals the deal. 

$51T healthcare plan, and she claims taxes on the middle class wont go up.   ::)

Oops, excuse me, it's actually $52T. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Two23 on November 02, 2019, 12:29:38 am
At this point truth and common sense have become totally unrelated to the behaviour of republicans.

Cheers,
Bernard


You're apparently not even an American.  Why even respond?  And, do you really think what your media spoon feeds you is the truth?  Myself I don't give a rat's ass what the politics are in Canada or UK.  Have no idea what they are in Japan.  I leave it up to their citizens to decide what they want.


Kent in SD
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 02, 2019, 01:38:04 am
Let me Google that for you...

How did you miss what I said:

Can somebody provide evidence for that? I didn't dig deep into that, but the only "proof" I saw is that those Republicans are members of those committees. That fact might or may not mean that they are actually participating in those impeachment hearings. And if they are, then they are protesting the closed nature of the hearings in which, procedurally, they are not allowed to issue their own subpoenas or question witnesses. Again, I admit that I did not dig deep into the issue, so I welcome if someone proves me wrong. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 02, 2019, 04:15:15 am
You're apparently not even an American.  Why even respond?  And, do you really think what your media spoon feeds you is the truth?  Myself I don't give a rat's ass what the politics are in Canada or UK.  Have no idea what they are in Japan.  I leave it up to their citizens to decide what they want.

Fine, I’ll stop to care about US politics the day US stops to attempt to influence the politics of Japan, Europe and the Middle East and the US$ ceases to control the price of oil and most other core utilities.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 02, 2019, 04:21:40 am
That is because you totally misjudged the situation. Which shouldn't be surprising, given the distance you are observing.

Have you even considered the possibility that you may be misjudging the situation completely?

Which wouldn’t be surprising if you are limiting your information sources or casting unfounded judgements about those you are ruling out, in the way I suspect you do.

Because any way you look at it, Trump has been violating the constitution.

And you have not provided any sensible explanation showing that he didn’t. You have just kept whining about a conspiracy from liberals without showing any interest whatsoever for the facts at hand, starting from the own admissions of Trump.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 02, 2019, 04:32:19 am
Can somebody provide evidence for that? I didn't dig deep into that, but the only "proof" I saw is that those Republicans are members of those committees. That fact might or may not mean that they are actually participating in those impeachment hearings. And if they are, then they are protesting the closed nature of the hearings in which, procedurally, they are not allowed to issue their own subpoenas or question witnesses. Again, I admit that I did not dig deep into the issue, so I welcome if someone proves me wrong.

How can you participate to this thread without having checked yourself the most basic aspects about Trump’s impreachement proceedings?

You have just demonstrated without any possible doubt that your opinion is not based on the facts, just on pre-conceived view that democrats are bring unfair to Trump.

Please do yourself a favor and look into this seriously, just look at the facts and make up your opinion based on them.

What’s to be feared?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 02, 2019, 05:20:56 am
What’s to be feared?

That there is life outside the bubble?
Or that people are going to take someone seriously, instead of assuming that that person is trolling?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 02, 2019, 09:51:40 am
... Because any way you look at it, Trump has been violating the constitution.

And you have not provided any sensible explanation showing that he didn’t...

There is this little annoying thing called presumption of innocence, i.e., it is your job to prove his guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, not his job or mine. Two years of investigations, with media screeching about his guilt 24/7, with everything and a kitchen sink thrown at him, and... nothing. No proof.

Now we are at the beginning of the circus #2, Ukraine. Good luck with that.

And again, a negative is impossible to prove. It is a basic formal logic. So, no one can “prove” that he didn’t violate the constitution.

Since you are in Japan, it would behoove you to watch Akira Kurosawa’s movie Rashomon. It would teach you a lot about complexities of truth and justice, and that a story may have a number of different views and interpretations.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 02, 2019, 10:31:42 am
What I really don't understand about Trump supporters -- and specifically you Slobodan -- is your acceptance of a guy like Trump. I assume you're pretty conservative. Trump isn't. Neither are his politics. I mean, as an economist do you think the signature Trump achievement so far, his tax cut, which has led to a near trillion dollar deficit at a time of increasing tax collections was a good idea? Or are you one of those people who believe the deficits don't matter? People say, "I don't like Trump, but I support his policies." Which policies? The trade war with China that's devastated our farm economy? The encouragement of such things as coal mining, at a time when we know if does great damage to the environment AND is already uneconomic, given the rise of fracking and natural gas? I personally don't disagree that socialism is a threat we need to deal with (see Soviet Communism, Mao, Pol Pot -- it's generally been as bad or worse than fascism, when it's leaders get cornered) but you don't deal with it by supporting a fascist like Trump. But the thing that worries me more than anything is the fact that Trump is deranged. He suffers from known mental illnesses called delusional disorder of the grandiose type and from narcissism. As I made clear in an earlier post, I can live with a conservative president, or, for that matter, a liberal President. I have a hard time with a crazy one, who makes decisions like the one he made on Syria, apparently without consulting virtually any military leaders.

I don't think it's about policy, it's culture war. These are not policy discussions. Trump doesn't represent nor discuss policy. He doesn't act from ideology or philosophy. People like him because they think he's sticking it "the man". Trouble is "the man" is whoever you choose him to be.

Trump gets away with a lot because people inherently know he's a low-rent jerk and so they don't expect decency from him. That lack of decency is mistaken for rebellion because people can't tell the difference any more. Can you imagine the outrage if Warren or Biden or AOC threw paper towels at people on the Jersey shores after hurricane Sandy's granddaughter knocks them on their ass again.

People can convince themselves of anything. The coal miners won't get their jobs back and the manufacturing industries (which are doing fine btw, it's only unskilled factory workers who suffered) won't be hiring the unskilled to carry boxes around any more. But they think that Trump has solved these problems because the distance between high-level policy and low-level effects on people's daily lives is so great that nobody can see the link in the first place. It serves the purpose of many to convince people to not look beyond their fingertips for analysis and understanding. Achieving in depth understanding of anything is hard work, it requires thought, evidence gathering and study. We may no longer have the infrastructure to do that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 02, 2019, 10:58:19 am
... it's culture war...

You bet it is.

You want to abolish the first and second amendment (and some others along the way). You want open borders. You want to send people to jail for using the “wrong” pronoun for freaks. You want to send people to jail for using terms like “illegal alien” and “bitch.” You want people losing their jobs for a joke from decades ago. You wage a culture war on everything: on whites, on men, on Christmas, on Columbus, on Christians, on comedy, on humor, on sex, on families, on having children, on meat, on airplanes...

And then you wonder people like a jerk who has the tenacity to stand in your way.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Two23 on November 02, 2019, 11:15:37 am
Fine, I’ll stop to care about US politics the day US stops to attempt to influence the politics of Japan, Europe and the Middle East and the US$ ceases to control the price of oil and most other core utilities.



The market controls the price of oil.  All countries try to influence others to some degree, but as an individual I basically don't care.


Kent in SD
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on November 02, 2019, 12:16:17 pm

The market controls the price of oil. 

In a simplistic way, yes, but the supply of oil is controlled by states to a large extent and the demand is rather inflexible.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 02, 2019, 01:15:32 pm

You want to abolish the first and second amendment (and some others along the way). You want open borders. You want to send people to jail for using the “wrong” pronoun for freaks. You want to send people to jail for using terms like “illegal alien” and “bitch.” You want people losing their jobs for a joke from decades ago. You wage a culture war on everything: on whites, on men, on Christmas, on Columbus, on Christians, on comedy, on humor, on sex, on families, on having children, on meat, on airplanes...


WTF are you talking about?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 02, 2019, 01:29:35 pm
WTF are you talking about?
Some people are adaptable; others, not so much.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 02, 2019, 02:01:58 pm
Achieving in depth understanding of anything is hard work, it requires thought, evidence gathering and study. We may no longer have the infrastructure to do that.

Precisely.  It has been destroyed by toxic disinformation.  Hence the comment "Truth Decay"
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 02, 2019, 02:26:14 pm
Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic on Today at 10:58:19 am

You want to abolish the first and second amendment (and some others along the way). You want open borders. You want to send people to jail for using the “wrong” pronoun for freaks. You want to send people to jail for using terms like “illegal alien” and “bitch.” You want people losing their jobs for a joke from decades ago. You wage a culture war on everything: on whites, on men, on Christmas, on Columbus, on Christians, on comedy, on humor, on sex, on families, on having children, on meat, on airplanes...

               WTF are you talking about?

He is talking about the same things as our Jordan Peterson. Sometimes, the bleeding hearts cause more damage than the jerks. Of course, with good intentions.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 02, 2019, 03:03:16 pm
You bet it is.

You want to abolish the first and second amendment (and some others along the way). You want open borders. You want to send people to jail for using the “wrong” pronoun for freaks. You want to send people to jail for using terms like “illegal alien” and “bitch.” You want people losing their jobs for a joke from decades ago. You wage a culture war on everything: on whites, on men, on Christmas, on Columbus, on Christians, on comedy, on humor, on sex, on families, on having children, on meat, on airplanes...

And then you wonder people like a jerk who has the tenacity to stand in your way.

Reductio ad absurdum


With accent on the "absurdum" part.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 02, 2019, 03:22:38 pm
WTF are you talking about?

I wondered the same thing. I have rarely seen such a collection of straw men.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 02, 2019, 03:41:42 pm
https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/339392/beto-orourke-pushes-tech-platforms-to-ban-hate-sp.html

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/10/04/new-york-citys-war-on-free-speech/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/massachusetts-leftists-want-to-throw-you-in-jail-for-saying-bitch



Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 02, 2019, 04:00:06 pm
I would impeach the President for wasting a colossal amount of money on a border fence that apparently is easily breached:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/smugglers-are-sawing-through-new-sections-of-trumps-border-wall/2019/11/01/25bf8ce0-fa72-11e9-ac8c-8eced29ca6ef_story.html

Quick trip to Home Depot or Lowes gets you all the needed equipment for a couple of hundred dollars.  I will admit that it is indeed a beautiful fence!!!!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 02, 2019, 04:02:13 pm

The market controls the price of oil.  All countries try to influence others to some degree, but as an individual I basically don't care.


Kent in SD
Maybe you are not old enough to have lived through the oil boycotts in the 1970s.  It proves that your statement is false and I can tell you as an individual I had to care as there were long gas lines to get one's care refueled.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 02, 2019, 04:06:20 pm
Can somebody provide evidence for that? I didn't dig deep into that, but the only "proof" I saw is that those Republicans are members of those committees. That fact might or may not mean that they are actually participating in those impeachment hearings. And if they are, then they are protesting the closed nature of the hearings in which, procedurally, they are not allowed to issue their own subpoenas or question witnesses. Again, I admit that I did not dig deep into the issue, so I welcome if someone proves me wrong.
What you say is totally irrelevant.  It makes no difference as the respective members had the 'right' to attend every meeting and question witnesses.  If they chose not to do so the fault is on them.  the only true thing you state above relates to the power to issue their own subpoenas but that's because the Republicans took this power away from the minority when they were  in power.  Dems did not have this power during the Benghazi hearings which were also closed to members not on the relevant committee.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 02, 2019, 04:10:32 pm

People can convince themselves of anything. The coal miners won't get their jobs back and the manufacturing industries (which are doing fine btw, it's only unskilled factory workers who suffered) won't be hiring the unskilled to carry boxes around any more. But they think that Trump has solved these problems because the distance between high-level policy and low-level effects on people's daily lives is so great that nobody can see the link in the first place. It serves the purpose of many to convince people to not look beyond their fingertips for analysis and understanding. Achieving in depth understanding of anything is hard work, it requires thought, evidence gathering and study. We may no longer have the infrastructure to do that.
Latest data points out that in some regions of the country manufacturing is slowing down, particularly for industries in export driven businesses.  Were it not for financial services and health care industries things would be a lot worse.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 02, 2019, 04:12:28 pm
What I really don't understand about Trump supporters -- and specifically you Slobodan -- is your acceptance of a guy like Trump. I assume you're pretty conservative. Trump isn't. Neither are his politics. I mean, as an economist do you think the signature Trump achievement so far, his tax cut, which has led to a near trillion dollar deficit at a time of increasing tax collections was a good idea? Or are you one of those people who believe the deficits don't matter? People say, "I don't like Trump, but I support his policies." Which policies? The trade war with China that's devastated our farm economy? The encouragement of such things as coal mining, at a time when we know if does great damage to the environment AND is already uneconomic, given the rise of fracking and natural gas? I personally don't disagree that socialism is a threat we need to deal with (see Soviet Communism, Mao, Pol Pot -- it's generally been as bad or worse than fascism, when it's leaders get cornered) but you don't deal with it by supporting a fascist like Trump. But the thing that worries me more than anything is the fact that Trump is deranged. He suffers from known mental illnesses called delusional disorder of the grandiose type and from narcissism. As I made clear in an earlier post, I can live with a conservative president, or, for that matter, a liberal President. I have a hard time with a crazy one, who makes decisions like the one he made on Syria, apparently without consulting virtually any military leaders.
It will be interesting to see if these questions elicit any serious responses from US posters on this forum. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 02, 2019, 04:15:38 pm
I will admit that it is indeed a beautiful fence!!!!

Very expensive, however.  We're fortunate that México agreed to pay for it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 02, 2019, 04:24:42 pm
Very expensive, however.  We're fortunate that México agreed to pay for it.

Then there are the repairs to the wall. No word on who is paying for those.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/smugglers-usd100-hardware-store-power-tools-saw-holes-in-trumps-usd10-billion-wall.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 02, 2019, 04:51:10 pm
Here is one of the best explanations of the impeachment process:  https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article230483449.html

For my good friends to the right of center who may not want to read the whole thing, here is the money quote:

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role,” the politician said. “Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

this was spoken back in 1999 by, wait for it...................................................................Lindsey Graham, now the senior Senator from South Carolina speaking about President Clinton.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 02, 2019, 05:27:28 pm
There is this little annoying thing called presumption of innocence, i.e., it is your job to prove his guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, not his job or mine. Two years of investigations, with media screeching about his guilt 24/7, with everything and a kitchen sink thrown at him, and... nothing. No proof.

Now we are at the beginning of the circus #2, Ukraine. Good luck with that.

And again, a negative is impossible to prove. It is a basic formal logic. So, no one can “prove” that he didn’t violate the constitution.

You’ve answered the wrong post Slobodan. The most important one was the one where I highlighted the fact that you have not bothered to look at the clear facts about this case.

How can you know what Trump did or didn’t do without having done your job as a citizen to collect the facts?

To help you here, there is no comparison to the Muller report (even though it was far from exonerating Trump of any wrong doing), this time Trump himself confessed on TV his violation of the constitution. All you need to do is listen to him and read the constitution.

When supporting Trump blindly this way, you are clearly building the ground for any possible violation of the constitution to go unpunished. Don’t come whining if a President walks over the second amendment some day, you as an individual will have contributed significantly to the creation of the conditions that will make this possible.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Two23 on November 02, 2019, 05:31:30 pm
Maybe you are not old enough to have lived through the oil boycotts in the 1970s.  It proves that your statement is false and I can tell you as an individual I had to care as there were long gas lines to get one's care refueled.


Yes, I was in college.  I note you had to go all the way back about 45 years to find anything even close to an example.  At that time there were many fewer producers, and eventually the market did correct the problem.


Kent in SD
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 02, 2019, 05:42:24 pm
Yes, I was in college.  I note you had to go all the way back about 45 years to find anything even close to an example.  At that time there were many fewer producers, and eventually the market did correct the problem.

My point was different though.

My point was that, until recently, the US$ was recognized universally as the currency in which oil was traded.

How is this providing a huge advantage to the US on the international scene?

Through the fact that the US can print US$ pretty much for free without any measurable downside.

But this is just one example of the huge influence the US has over various parts of the world.

This should explain quite clearly one of the reasons why many informed non US citizens appear to care more about Trump than the millions of his supporters who appear to blindly believe whetever lie they are being fed with. Talk about the great freedom... ;)

But I gave a list of 10+ more reasons a few pages ago that I could summarize in “I respect too much positions of high governance to accept them being owned by people without the historical understanding, culture and mental abilities”.

Finally, I have a young child and I am trying to teach her about right and wrong. I would also prefer the world she will be evolving in not to be infected more by the level of mediocrity Trump’s approach has started to spread everywhere. A mediocrity best summarized by “instead of working hard to change the world, I’ll just lie about the fact it’s already the way I want it to be”. No, that doesn’t work. And it’s not fair to the millions of people suffering in America and elsewhere. It has nothing to do with the American dream I love, it’s just the opposite.

So I still don’t understand why so many smart people here prefer to go against their own values to support Trump out of fear that a socialist may come in office if they don’t. This really is a severe misjudgment of the terrible impact Trump is having on this world.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Two23 on November 02, 2019, 06:17:28 pm


1. My point was that, until recently, the US$ was recognized universally as the currency in which oil was traded.


2. Through the fact that the US can print US$ pretty much for free without any measurable downside.


3. This should explain quite clearly one of the reasons why many informed non US citizens appear to care more about Trump than the millions of his supporters who appear to blindly believe whetever lie they are being fed with. Talk about the great freedom... ;)

4. But I gave a list of 10+ more reasons a few pages ago that I could summarize in “I respect too much positions of high governance to accept them being owned by people without the historical understanding, culture and mental abilities”.

5. Finally, I have a young child and I am trying to teach her about right and wrong. I would also prefer the world she will be evolving in not to be infected more by the level of mediocrity Trump’s approach has started to spread everywhere. A mediocrity best summarized by “instead of working hard to change the world, I’ll just lie about the fact it’s already the way I want it to be”. No, that doesn’t work. And it’s not fair to the millions of people suffering in America and elsewhere. It has nothing to do with the American dream I love, it’s just the opposite.

6. So I still don’t understand why so many smart people here prefer to go against their own values to support Trump out of fear that a socialist may come in office if they don’t. This really is a severe misjudgment of the terrible impact Trump is having on this world.



1. That will be true no matter who is president, or if there's even one at all.
2. There is always a downside.  The downsides are a weakening of the country and increase of percentage of annual budget paid for interest.  Eventually the rates will go up and that will be trouble.
3. Very few "blindly believe."  And the same could be said about Obama's constant BS of "Hope & Change."  Nothing substantive changed at all.
4. If there is little understanding it's because the national media is basically run by partisan fanatics intent on MISinforming the population.  They are dishonest to the core.
5.  When it comes to right/wrong and morals, politicians can universally be used as bad examples.  NONE of the top four people in the current U.S. presidential race are by any stretch moral and honest.
6.  I can help you with this.  I'm not a Trump supporter--I'm a "not Hillary" voter.  Here's what your national press won't tell you.  Hillary is corrupt and phony to the bone.  She has never told the truth about anything and her whole life has been about collecting wealth for herself by hook or crook.  She corrupted the Democratic Party AND the news media in charge of the national primary debates into giving her in advance the questions that would be asked, thus stabbing Bernie in the back.  One of her campaign themes was Trump had a "war" against women, and yet later it came out that she kept a predatory campaign manager despite numerous complaints by women because "he was so good."  Wikileaks founder Julian Assaunge recently went on record that the reason he leaked Hillary's emails was he believed she was a "sadistic, vindictive sociopath" and that the national media would never hold her to account.  (He has been proven correct.)  Finally, in a famous email by Colin Powell the media loved to quote the part where he was negative about Trump but only one provided the whole email.  In that we read Powell wrote, "Hillary always manages to screw it up, usually a result of her own Hubris."  The whole "Russia" investigation just concluded this year turns out to have been instigated by Hillary's campaign staff dirty tricks.    Hillary et al. are the type that could easily turn our country into something equally corrupt as any banana republic.  Most of the people I've talked weren't voting for Trump, they were voting for the "least bad."  Somehow the Democratic Party managed against all odds to find someone worse than Trump.  They seem to be doing the same now by promoting Elizabeth Warren, a person who stole a high paying job that was supposed to go to a minority person, lied about it for years, had the poor judgement to announce a DNA test that showed she was 1/1024 American Indian proved she had been telling the truth, and is now lying about being fired because she was pregnant.  This is another dishonest person who has spent their entire life in protected academia and never had to deal with the real world, and like Bernie is telling us, "Vote for me and everything will be FREE!"  No thanks.   Our political parties have been hijacked by emotion driven partisan fanatics, not people with real governing skills.  The other problem is a national media that is nothing more than the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party, and I would bet your's is exactly the same.


Kent in SD
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 02, 2019, 10:46:43 pm
1. That will be true no matter who is president, or if there's even one at all.
2. There is always a downside.  The downsides are a weakening of the country and increase of percentage of annual budget paid for interest.  Eventually the rates will go up and that will be trouble.
3. Very few "blindly believe."  And the same could be said about Obama's constant BS of "Hope & Change."  Nothing substantive changed at all.
4. If there is little understanding it's because the national media is basically run by partisan fanatics intent on MISinforming the population.  They are dishonest to the core.
5.  When it comes to right/wrong and morals, politicians can universally be used as bad examples.  NONE of the top four people in the current U.S. presidential race are by any stretch moral and honest.
6.  I can help you with this.  I'm not a Trump supporter--I'm a "not Hillary" voter.  Here's what your national press won't tell you.  Hillary is corrupt and phony to the bone.  She has never told the truth about anything and her whole life has been about collecting wealth for herself by hook or crook.  She corrupted the Democratic Party AND the news media in charge of the national primary debates into giving her in advance the questions that would be asked, thus stabbing Bernie in the back.  One of her campaign themes was Trump had a "war" against women, and yet later it came out that she kept a predatory campaign manager despite numerous complaints by women because "he was so good."  Wikileaks founder Julian Assaunge recently went on record that the reason he leaked Hillary's emails was he believed she was a "sadistic, vindictive sociopath" and that the national media would never hold her to account.  (He has been proven correct.)  Finally, in a famous email by Colin Powell the media loved to quote the part where he was negative about Trump but only one provided the whole email.  In that we read Powell wrote, "Hillary always manages to screw it up, usually a result of her own Hubris."  The whole "Russia" investigation just concluded this year turns out to have been instigated by Hillary's campaign staff dirty tricks.    Hillary et al. are the type that could easily turn our country into something equally corrupt as any banana republic.  Most of the people I've talked weren't voting for Trump, they were voting for the "least bad."  Somehow the Democratic Party managed against all odds to find someone worse than Trump.  They seem to be doing the same now by promoting Elizabeth Warren, a person who stole a high paying job that was supposed to go to a minority person, lied about it for years, had the poor judgement to announce a DNA test that showed she was 1/1024 American Indian proved she had been telling the truth, and is now lying about being fired because she was pregnant.  This is another dishonest person who has spent their entire life in protected academia and never had to deal with the real world, and like Bernie is telling us, "Vote for me and everything will be FREE!"  No thanks.   Our political parties have been hijacked by emotion driven partisan fanatics, not people with real governing skills.  The other problem is a national media that is nothing more than the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party, and I would bet your's is exactly the same.


Kent in SD

Lol.  Thing is, even if, for the sake of argument, we pretend that your complaints about HRC are factual, Donald Trump embodies every one of them to a greater degree - usually a much greater degree.

I mean, how am I supposed to take you even remotely seriously when you claim that your problem is that Hillary is a liar and only cares about accumulating wealth, and you follow that by saying, “so THAT’S why I support Donald Trump instead.”   

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Two23 on November 02, 2019, 11:25:30 pm
Lol.  Thing is, even if, for the sake of argument, we pretend that your complaints about HRC are factual, Donald Trump embodies every one of them to a greater degree - usually a much greater degree.

I mean, how am I supposed to take you even remotely seriously when you claim that your problem is that Hillary is a liar and only cares about accumulating wealth, and you follow that by saying, “so THAT’S why I support Donald Trump instead.”



Your ability to read and comprehend is in question here.  I never said I "supported" Trump.  I said I voted "not Hillary."  Everything she has said and done since has only reassured me I made the right choice.  As for pretending my "claims" are true, if you do just a minimal amount of research you will find they are indeed and for the sake of brevity I skipped over many.  Do you deny she conspired with Debbie Wasserman Schultz (former head of the Democratic Party,) Donna Brazil (formerly of CNN,)  She admits to it; Hillary never addresses it. 
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donna-brazile-leaves-cnn/

Do you deny the Powell email?
https://www.npr.org/2016/09/14/493927155/powell-trump-a-national-disgrace-clinton-screws-up-everything-with-hubris

Do you deny Julian Assange's stated motivation was Hillary is a sadistic sociopath and the press will never hold her to account?
https://qz.com/1599384/mueller-report-on-trump-campaigns-contacts-with-wikileaks/

Do you deny that former head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, conspired with Hillary to stab poor old Bernie in the back during teh 2016 campaign?
https://www.change.org/p/debbie-wasserman-schultz-a-call-for-corruption-dripping-debbie-wasserman-schultz-head-of-dnc-to-resign

Do you deny that after making a big deal about the "war on women" during her campaign, Hillary herself refused to remove a campaign manager after several complaints from her women staffers?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/01/27/hillary-clinton-metoo-meet-sowhat/

Do you deny E. Warren did not claim to be an "Indian" in order to get a high paying job that was set aside for a minority?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/06/28/harvard_must_set_the_record_straight_on_elizabeth_warren_140678.html


Are you denying anything I wrote was not factual?


My degree is in medical science, I like to deal with facts when making decisions.  The facts clearly show Hillary was and is corrupt, dishonest, incompetent, and phony to the bone.  That made Trump the "least worst" choice.  As a suggestion I'll recommend you not use MSNBC as your only information source.


Kent in SD

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 02, 2019, 11:39:48 pm
Why is this all about HRC?  She's done.  Who cares?

This discussion is about now, not three years ago.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on November 03, 2019, 03:45:47 am

Yes, I was in college.  I note you had to go all the way back about 45 years to find anything even close to an example.  At that time there were many fewer producers, and eventually the market did correct the problem.


Kent in SD

You have obviously not kept up to date with recent events in Iran, then?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 03, 2019, 04:36:40 am
Why is this all about HRC?  She's done.  Who cares?

It's a distraction.

Quote
This discussion is about now, not three years ago.

+1
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 03, 2019, 06:24:26 am


Your ability to read and comprehend is in question here.  I never said I "supported" Trump.  I said I voted "not Hillary."  Everything she has said and done since has only reassured me I made the right choice.  As for pretending my "claims" are true, if you do just a minimal amount of research you will find they are indeed and for the sake of brevity I skipped over many.  Do you deny she conspired with Debbie Wasserman Schultz (former head of the Democratic Party,) Donna Brazil (formerly of CNN,)  She admits to it; Hillary never addresses it. 
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donna-brazile-leaves-cnn/

Do you deny the Powell email?
https://www.npr.org/2016/09/14/493927155/powell-trump-a-national-disgrace-clinton-screws-up-everything-with-hubris

Do you deny Julian Assange's stated motivation was Hillary is a sadistic sociopath and the press will never hold her to account?
https://qz.com/1599384/mueller-report-on-trump-campaigns-contacts-with-wikileaks/

Do you deny that former head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, conspired with Hillary to stab poor old Bernie in the back during teh 2016 campaign?
https://www.change.org/p/debbie-wasserman-schultz-a-call-for-corruption-dripping-debbie-wasserman-schultz-head-of-dnc-to-resign

Do you deny that after making a big deal about the "war on women" during her campaign, Hillary herself refused to remove a campaign manager after several complaints from her women staffers?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/01/27/hillary-clinton-metoo-meet-sowhat/

Do you deny E. Warren did not claim to be an "Indian" in order to get a high paying job that was set aside for a minority?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/06/28/harvard_must_set_the_record_straight_on_elizabeth_warren_140678.html

Are you denying anything I wrote was not factual?

My degree is in medical science, I like to deal with facts when making decisions.  The facts clearly show Hillary was and is corrupt, dishonest, incompetent, and phony to the bone.  That made Trump the "least worst" choice.  As a suggestion I'll recommend you not use MSNBC as your only information source.

I can relate with your concerns about Hilary Clinton, but do you still think today that voting Trump was a good decision?

Clinton is certainly corrupt (all politicians in the US by design since the law allows their funding by private parties), dishonest and phony, but there is zero doubt that she is way more competent than Trump.

Heck, I am pretty certain I would do a better job than Trump as a President.

You calling her incompetent makes me wonder if you are objective about her abilities.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 08:36:20 am
I'm baaack!  Well, Sunday's a good day to catch up.  I see not much has changed.  Nobody's changed their minds.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 03, 2019, 08:41:58 am
...  do you still think today that voting Trump was a good decision?..

Hell, yeah!

Not just was, but will be as well.

Competence!? Who cares about the competence? Especially since just being “competent” would make even you* the president. It is policy that matters, as stated many times so far, not personality.

* since even your competency (at stitching 100 Mpx files into gazillion Mpx ones) doesn’t matter, what exactly are your policy proposals that would make me vote for you? So far, I heard only whining. Not really an attractive campaign platform (than again, it has worked for Bernie splendidly, but I wouldn’t vote for him either)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Two23 on November 03, 2019, 08:42:57 am
Why is this all about HRC?  She's done.  Who cares?

This discussion is about now, not three years ago.

Trump is president because the other choice was Hillary.  Very relevant.



Kent in SD
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Two23 on November 03, 2019, 08:48:43 am
I can relate with your concerns about Hilary Clinton, but do you still think today that voting Trump was a good decision?

1.  Clinton is certainly corrupt (all politicians in the US by design since the law allows their funding by private parties), dishonest and phony, but there is zero doubt that she is way more competent than Trump.

2.  Heck, I am pretty certain I would do a better job than Trump as a President.

You calling her incompetent makes me wonder if you are objective about her abilities.

Cheers,
Bernard


1.  Yes.  Trump is still better.

2.  Nothing in Hillary's past suggests she did a good job at anything other than collecting wealth for herself while in public office.  As Colin Powell noted, "She manages to screw up everything, usually a result of her own hubris."


I was for Kasich in the last election.  He has real political skills as evidenced by his ability to successfully govern a divided state.  Unfortunately none of the people in the lead for the next election give me any confidence.  Not one has much political skill or has shown an ability to compromise to get something done.


Kent in SD
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 08:50:37 am
I can relate with your concerns about Hilary Clinton, but do you still think today that voting Trump was a good decision?

Clinton is certainly corrupt (all politicians in the US by design since the law allows their funding by private parties), dishonest and phony, but there is zero doubt that she is way more competent than Trump.

Heck, I am pretty certain I would do a better job than Trump as a President.

You calling her incompetent makes me wonder if you are objective about her abilities.

Cheers,
Bernard
I originally prefered Bush but he only got 3% of the nomination vote after spending $100 million on his campaign.  How is Hillary competent?  She rode her husband's coattails to become senator in NYS even though she's from Arkansas.  The Democrats who run democrat NYS got her the job.  She became Secretary of State with Obama again as a payoff to keep the Clintons quiet and so she wouldn't run against Obama in his re-election.  As Secretary of State, she handled the disaster in Benghazi, the overthrow of Gaddafi, almost got us into war with Russia and North Korea.  Meanwhile she sold influence to foreign leaders due to her position.  Her husband was able to make $100 million off of it for the same reason.  She never ran anything in her life.

Similar to Elizabeth Warren who's a phony as well.  She sold her race faking a minority to get ahead and never ran anything either.  Now she wants to spend America down into bankruptcy lying that the middle class won't have to pay higher taxes for government health care.  A liar, a faker and a phoney all the way through. 

PS:  I don;t know your qualifications, but I doubt if you ran 500 companies and made $3.5 billion like Trump did. 

Finally, giving money to people running is not corrupt.  You ought to familiarize yourself with the American Constitution before making such a claim.  Being able to support your needs and desires in a person who represents you and to petition them for redress in Congress is part of our free speech guarantees.  It takes money to get those ideas out.  And since all candidates need money, it evens itself out.  For example, corporations make a pitch, but so do unions as do environmental organizations.  They all take contributions from people to get their points across. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on November 03, 2019, 08:52:38 am
I'm baaack!  Well, Sunday's a good day to catch up.  I see not much has changed.  Nobody's changed their minds.

How did that "getting a life" work out?  How long till the next flounce?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 08:55:28 am
How did that "getting a life" work out?  How long till the next flounce?
Ask my wife.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 03, 2019, 08:55:51 am

Yes, I was in college.  I note you had to go all the way back about 45 years to find anything even close to an example. At that time there were many fewer producers, and eventually the market did correct the problem.


Kent in SD
That was before the huge consolidation of the petroleum industry.  there were many more refiners and integrated petroleum companies.  Were it not for the fracking revolution and new approaches such as horizontal drilling, the US would not be in the self-sufficient state regarding petro energy that they are today.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 08:58:01 am
That was before the huge consolidation of the petroleum industry.  there were many more refiners and integrated petroleum companies.  Were it not for the fracking revolution and new approaches such as horizontal drilling, the US would not be in the self-sufficient state regarding petro energy that they are today.
The Democrats want to shut down fracking and make as dependent on the Middle East again.  That will open us up to more war there.  Are you in favor of fracking? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 03, 2019, 09:27:35 am
The Democrats want to shut down fracking and make as dependent on the Middle East again.  That will open us up to more war there.  Are you in favor of fracking?
Absolutely but I'm also cognizant of the issues that it raises.  Look at all the earthquakes that are taking place in Oklahoma right now.  there are environmental issues but as with anything they can be managed.  There is no free lunch and never has been.  It did not escape my notice that there was a major leak on the Canadian side of the Keystone pipeline and a large amount of oil was spilled.  Stuff happens.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 03, 2019, 09:35:42 am
Absolutely but I'm also cognizant of the issues that it raises.  Look at all the earthquakes that are taking place in Oklahoma right now.  there are environmental issues but as with anything they can be managed.  There is no free lunch and never has been.  It did not escape my notice that there was a major leak on the Canadian side of the Keystone pipeline and a large amount of oil was spilled.  Stuff happens.

See! There are things we can agree on  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 09:52:10 am
Al three of us agree.  Pretty impressive.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 10:02:45 am
Fracking also produces natural gas in huge amounts.  While not directly related to ME oil, it's a major fuel used in heating especially.  I use gas and there's no smell like oil burning furnaces.  It's also cheaper than oil for the same Btu's.  No trucks have to deliver it.  Cleaner than oil. Also, when you use more natural gas, you're less dependent on foreign oil as well and it lowers oil prices since it's a competitor to oil.  Trump is a heavy supporter of fracking but I don't know how much that will affect the upcoming election. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 03, 2019, 10:19:40 am
It seems that neither Hilary, nor “Russian Collusion” can go away. Facebook just reminded me of my post from three years ago:
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 03, 2019, 11:10:10 am
Fracking also produces natural gas in huge amounts.  While not directly related to ME oil, it's a major fuel used in heating especially.  I use gas and there's no smell like oil burning furnaces.  It's also cheaper than oil for the same Btu's.  No trucks have to deliver it.  Cleaner than oil. Also, when you use more natural gas, you're less dependent on foreign oil as well and it lowers oil prices since it's a competitor to oil.  Trump is a heavy supporter of fracking but I don't know how much that will affect the upcoming election.
It also destroyed the coal mining industry but our President refuses to acknowledge this and is trying to prop the industry up by weakening environmental regulations.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 11:22:16 am
Do you think he ate his steaks too? :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 03, 2019, 11:43:39 am
It did not escape my notice that there was a major leak on the Canadian side of the Keystone pipeline and a large amount of oil was spilled.  Stuff happens.

That's incorrect.  The spill was entirely in ND.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6104304/keystone-north-dakota-spill/

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 03, 2019, 11:43:53 am
Fracking also produces natural gas in huge amounts.  While not directly related to ME oil, it's a major fuel used in heating especially.  I use gas and there's no smell like oil burning furnaces.  It's also cheaper than oil for the same Btu's.  No trucks have to deliver it.  Cleaner than oil. Also, when you use more natural gas, you're less dependent on foreign oil as well and it lowers oil prices since it's a competitor to oil.  Trump is a heavy supporter of fracking but I don't know how much that will affect the upcoming election.

Hi Alan,

I wondered how long it would take you to come back. Beats watching the football.
Anyway, the fracking is not all roses. In UK, the fracking has been recently banned because of the danger of earthquakes. No wonder, if you shake something or somebody, violent reactions can follow. Including gas release.

Quote
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he had "very considerable anxieties" about fracking, which is a controversial method of extracting shale gas. The government has withdrawn support and said it will block further proposals to change the planning process for fracking sites.

https://news.sky.com/story/fracking-banned-in-uk-after-earthquake-fears-11851577


Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 03, 2019, 11:51:41 am
Trump is president because the other choice was Hillary.  Very relevant.
Kent in SD

The topic is (ostensibly) about impeaching Trump, not about why he was elected.  It's quite apparent why he was elected. That was then. This is now.

People keep claiming that this "coup" is an attempt at an end run around democracy.  In fact, it appears to be an attempt to implement the American constitutional provisions and to correct an obvious mistake.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on November 03, 2019, 11:52:59 am
That's incorrect.  The spill was entirely in ND.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6104304/keystone-north-dakota-spill/

True, but there have been plenty of other spills on the Candian side of the border.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 11:55:56 am
It also destroyed the coal mining industry but our President refuses to acknowledge this and is trying to prop the industry up by weakening environmental regulations.
Gas was hurting the coal industry long before fracking came along.  Coal miners were looking for support from politicians who were just ignoring them.  So he gave them hope, just like Obama gave his supporters hope when he ran.  While Trump couldn;t reverse the trend, he still helped the coal industry where he could.  That's better than the Democrats would have done.  Who would you vote for if you lived in a coal mining town?  The fact is Trump got millions of crossover votes from traditional working class Democrats.  They see him a one of them, not some guy living up in the clouds despite the fact he's a billionaire.  He worked hard, took a lot of crap, still does, and knows how to give it back.  Coal miners identify with people like that, not with the Hillarys or Warrens or Buttigiegs. 

Biden is a better match for them, but I don't think he's going to win the nomination.  As long as the Democrats focus on impeachment, the more they put a target on Biden's back as being just another insider who used his position to get his son a job.  Trump can get away with that because that's who he is.  But Biden claims to be different when he isn't.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 11:58:30 am
True, but there have been plenty of other spills on the Candian side of the border.
Canada isn't going to shut down their fossil fuel industry.  It's too valuable.  Environmentalists are stuck between a rock and a hard spot.  Hillary tried that here and lost the election because she didn't care about the industry workers.  Future politicians will make that mistake again at their peril.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on November 03, 2019, 12:02:43 pm
Canada isn't going to shut down their fossil fuel industry.  It's too valuable.  Environmentalists are stuck between a rock and a hard spot.  Hillary tried that here and lost the election because she didn't care about the industry workers.  Future politicians will make that mistake again at their peril.

A lot of Canada's fossil fuel industry is shutting itself down because it's not competitive. Same with coal. Trump can wear a funny hat and pretend to drive a tractor all he wants, and maybe people will be fooled for a little while, but in the long run those miners will be out of work just the same.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 12:13:56 pm
The topic is (ostensibly) about impeaching Trump, not about why he was elected.  It's quite apparent why he was elected. That was then. This is now.

People keep claiming that this "coup" is an attempt at an end run around democracy.  In fact, it appears to be an attempt to implement the American constitutional provisions and to correct an obvious mistake.
It is a palace coup.  It's not an "obvious mistake" when almost half the population don't want an impeachment.  Impeachment is serious business.  Only 3 or 4 presidents have in over 200 years have been impeached and none were found guilty in a Senate trial and lost their office.  It's not like in a parliamentary system, when they call for an election regularly because they no longer like the PM or his policies.  Like what's happening in Great Britain now.  Americans don't go for that.  We have a different system, maybe one you're not familiar with.  Americans want their presidents to serve out their 4 year term.  Even presidents they didn't vote for.  Then you have another chance to vote them in or out of office.  During an election, not some politically contrived "mistake" that isn't treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors.  Impeachment takes the focus off of governing.  And remember,  what comes around goes around. One day there will be a Democrat president and a Republican Congress.  I don;t think Americans want to go through this again, but they will if the Democrats continue with this nonsense.   They been trying to impeach for three years.  All previous reasons have disappeared because there was no real crime.  So now, suddenly, they found Ukraine just three weeks ago.  The Democrats are just looking for an excuse.  People smell a rat. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 12:17:55 pm
A lot of Canada's fossil fuel industry is shutting itself down because it's not competitive. Same with coal. Trump can wear a funny hat and pretend to drive a tractor all he wants, and maybe people will be fooled for a little while, but in the long run those miners will be out of work just the same.
I never said their industry was not in trouble.  What I said is only Trump cares about those people and tries to help.  When you're down and out, and know things probably won't get better, it's still nice to know that someone is trying to help.  That means a lot to people.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 12:19:17 pm
But you keep saying what you're saying.   Because the Democrats won;t get back those votes because you do keep saying it.  It shows you really don't care about these people.  Or do you?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on November 03, 2019, 12:20:20 pm
I never said their industry was not in trouble.  What I said is only Trump cares about those people and tries to help.  When you're down and out, and know things probably won't get better, it's still nice to know that someone is trying to help.  That means a lot to people.

Really?  So you are in favour of government intervention to support unprofitable industries?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on November 03, 2019, 12:21:43 pm
But you keep saying what you're saying.   Because the Democrats won;t get back those votes because you do keep saying it.  It shows you really don't care about these people.  Or do you?

Anyone got a clue what Alan's talking about?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 03, 2019, 12:24:33 pm
Your memory is fading, jeremyrh.  Alan isn't in favour of government taking sides with industry, remember?  They shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers.

He maintains that "all markets are free", IIRC
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 03, 2019, 12:26:00 pm
Anyone got a clue what Alan's talking about?

Nope.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 03, 2019, 12:26:58 pm
Anyone got a clue what Alan's talking about?
No. It was better when he was getting a life.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 12:27:51 pm
Really?  So you are in favour of government intervention to support unprofitable industries?
First off, coal is profitable.  It's cheaper than many other fuels.   However, the previous government has intervened by making it harder for coal to compete even though 30% of our electricity is made with coal.  So Trump has reversed some government regulations that Obama imposed unilaterally.  It's not subsidizing coal as far as I know otherwise.    I don;t believe in subsidies.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 03, 2019, 12:28:35 pm
It is a palace coup.  not some politically contrived "mistake" that isn't treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors.

So, Trump's phone call to Ukraine is none of those?  You approve of what he (apparently) did?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 12:30:55 pm
Nope.
Bart, I don't expect you to know. You're not American.  Neither are the others complaining.   Those that are, hate Trump so much they can't see the forest through the trees.  Keep hating coal miners.  Trump needs the votes. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 03, 2019, 12:31:24 pm
First off, coal is profitable.

WAS profitable.  Like buggy whips. 

Coal is failing because natural gas and, wait for it,

renewables

are cheaper.

We're still off topic.  This is supposed to be about impeaching Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 03, 2019, 12:32:50 pm
No. It was better when he was getting a life.

 :) :) :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 03, 2019, 12:32:55 pm
First off, coal is profitable.
That's why mines are shutting down and coal miners are losing their jobs. Because coal is so profitable.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 12:33:42 pm
So, Trump's phone call to Ukraine is none of those?  You approve of what he (apparently) did?
At worse, it's political shenanigans, and not impeachable.  All politicians play political games.  It's called politics.  However, in this case there is a nexus for investigating Biden as part of general Ukrainian corruption we wanted Ukraine to solve, including the last Obama administration.  That's perfectly legal.  We went over this before I went on a break.  We're just repeating again. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on November 03, 2019, 12:34:38 pm
Your memory is fading, jeremyrh.  Alan isn't in favour of government taking sides with industry, remember?  They shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers.

He maintains that "all markets are free", IIRC

Yes - it's almost as though he just invents stuff on the spur of moment to support whatever delusion has seized him last.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 12:35:11 pm
That's why mines are shutting down and coal miners are losing their jobs. Because coal is so profitable.

Just keep hating on coal miners.  I like that.  So does Trump.  I hope you're advising the Democrats. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on November 03, 2019, 12:36:13 pm
At worse, it's political shenanigans, and not impeachable. 

Err, no, it's abuse of his power for personal gain, and eminently impeachable. As may well be seen in the near future.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on November 03, 2019, 12:37:15 pm
No. It was better when he was getting a life.

True, there weren't so many empty speech boxes on the topic.

:-(
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on November 03, 2019, 12:37:35 pm
Just keep hating on coal miners.  I like that.  So does Trump.  I hope you're advising the Democrats.

Nobody is hating on coal miners. Or buggy whip drivers.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 12:38:34 pm
Nobody is hating on coal miners. Or buggy whip drivers.

Fine.  Just keep saying what you're saying.  Good for Trump.  Thank you for your help. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on November 03, 2019, 12:41:18 pm
Nobody is hating on coal miners. Or buggy whip drivers.

Were you perchance expecting a sweet, logical flow of reason? Wait until film vs. digital is brought in; you know, to keep the topic on track.

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on November 03, 2019, 12:42:45 pm
Fine.  Just keep saying what you're saying.  Good for Trump.  Thank you for your help.

Time for another little rest, Alan - I think you'll find that American coal miners are not paying that much attention to a mediocre photographer in west London.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 03, 2019, 12:48:45 pm
It's a good thing Canada's fossil fuel industry isn't dead, yet.  Otherwise I couldn't have made this image in the Canadian Rockies a couple of weeks ago. ie ALBERTA!  :)

(https://sprinter-source.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=119038&d=1569422570)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 03, 2019, 12:50:58 pm
First off, coal is profitable.  It's cheaper than many other fuels.   However, the previous government has intervened by making it harder for coal to compete even though 30% of our electricity is made with coal.  So Trump has reversed some government regulations that Obama imposed unilaterally.  It's not subsidizing coal as far as I know otherwise.    I don;t believe in subsidies.

So is marijuana. With the global warming trend, it might be more profitable to start growing weed than mining coal.

Quote
10 U.S. states have now legalized the recreational use of marijuana while another 34 have given it the green light for medicinal use. That has resulted in a noticeable boost in the American job market and it's estimated that 211,000 people are now directly employed in the industry full time. Counting indirect and induced jobs depending on legal marijuana, that number rises to 296,000. By comparison, the U.S. has 69,000 brewing workers while 52,000 people are employed in coal mining jobs.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/03/22/where-marijuana-jobs-are-booming-across-the-u-s-infographic/#345f9e47df6d
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 03, 2019, 12:59:33 pm
So, Trump's phone call to Ukraine is none of those?  You approve of what he (apparently) did?

Yes.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 03, 2019, 12:59:53 pm
In UK, the fracking has been recently banned because of the danger of earthquakes. No wonder, if you shake something or somebody, violent reactions can follow. Including gas release.

Finally a post relevant to the Trump impeachment inquiry.  This was a comment about Trump's latest Twitter rants about the "witch hunt," was it not?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 03, 2019, 01:12:08 pm
Yes.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how corruption is born.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 03, 2019, 01:16:02 pm
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how corruption is born.

What corruption?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 03, 2019, 01:18:23 pm
First off, coal is profitable.  It's cheaper than many other fuels.   However, the previous government has intervened by making it harder for coal to compete even though 30% of our electricity is made with coal.  So Trump has reversed some government regulations that Obama imposed unilaterally.  It's not subsidizing coal as far as I know otherwise.    I don;t believe in subsidies.
Why are all the coal companies going bankrupt?  How has Trump's plan helped save coal mining jobs.  According to all the data I've seen jobs in this industry continue to decline.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 03, 2019, 01:24:00 pm
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how corruption is born.
Quite right and one wonders what else there is behind all these claims for executive privilege.  There is also the very real case of the President's own lawyer, Mr. Giuliani and his various foreign policy escapades.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on November 03, 2019, 04:18:29 pm
These days, the emperors don't bother even with the idea of clothes.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 03, 2019, 04:38:07 pm
Just keep hating on coal miners.  I like that.  So does Trump.  I hope you're advising the Democrats.

Nobody hates coal miners. They hate coal and the awful damage it is doing to our planet.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 03, 2019, 05:10:23 pm
What corruption?

Corruption.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 03, 2019, 05:33:05 pm
Corruption.

Well, gee, if you say so, then I am all for impeaching the mofo. Good talk, bro!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 03, 2019, 05:33:51 pm
Now Trump wants to cut off the funds to fight wildfires in California.  BTW, more than half of California’s 33 million acres of forest are controlled by the federal government.

Quote
President Donald Trump said Sunday that he wants to cut off federal funds to fight wildfires raging across California, tweeting that Gov. Gavin Newsom should "get his act together" and properly manage the state's forests.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/11/03/california-wildfires-maria-fire-evacuations-lifted-winery-rebuild/4148812002/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 03, 2019, 05:38:44 pm
Nobody hates coal miners. They hate coal and the awful damage it is doing to our planet.

Well, gee, if only we never used coal. Candle makers, horse breeders,  buggy whip drivers, etc. would be so happy to this day.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 03, 2019, 05:49:16 pm
Just keep hating on coal miners.  I like that.  So does Trump.  I hope you're advising the Democrats.
Non sequitur. You are flailing around.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 05:58:55 pm
Nobody hates coal miners. They hate coal and the awful damage it is doing to our planet.
Yes.  Keep telling coal miners they're ruining the environment. Don;t leave out frackers, steel makers, electricity makers, gas producers, wildcatters, etc. That's the way to win votes.  Ohio are you listening?  Pennsylvania?  Thank you. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 03, 2019, 06:01:38 pm
Yes.  Keep telling coal miners they're ruining the environment. Don;t leave out frackers, steel makers, electricity makers, gas producers, wildcatters, etc. That's the way to win votes.  Ohio are you listening?  Pennsylvania?  Thank you.
Are you off your meds?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 06:06:48 pm
Are you off your meds?
I'll let the moderator answer you.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 03, 2019, 06:46:47 pm
CNN finally found an impeachable offense (to get this thread back on track):

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 06:58:51 pm
CNN finally found an impeachable offense (to get this thread back on track):


Definitely impeachable.  They finally got him.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 03, 2019, 07:18:20 pm
So, Trump's phone call to Ukraine is none of those?  You approve of what he (apparently) did?

Yes.

Trump's phone call was just the starting point for a deep dive into investigating the use of political office for personal gain. Trump used his office to cut off military aide to an ally who was facing an existential crisis as it was being overrun by our longtime foe Russia. He did this in order to get Ukraine to publicly announce they were looking into corruption of his political adversaries.

Although not necessary for impeachment the following laws were possibly broken:

1. Bribery.
2. Withholding duly appointed funds.
3. Soliciting political aid from a foreign government.
4. Obstruction.
5. Use of executive branch powers for political purposes. (Hatch act)

This is textbook what the framer's of the constitution were worried about when they decided to include impeachment as a remedy for a lawless president.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 03, 2019, 07:28:52 pm
Welcome to the forum, ah693973.

You are a welcome addition, too funny. Old members' desperate attempts to impeach Trump just got boring. Keep it coming, we need a good laugh.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 03, 2019, 07:38:45 pm
Welcome to the forum, ah693973.

You are a welcome addition, too funny. Old members' desperate attempts to impeach Trump just got boring. Keep it coming, we need a good laugh.

You can laugh Slobodan, but you do so to avoid the issue. How about a real argument?

Let me ask you this. Can you come up with any unforced move that Trump has made that harms Russia? It seems that everything the president does helps your old country. This is what I find most perplexing about your worship of Trump. It seems to contradict your obvious hatred of Russia.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 03, 2019, 07:48:08 pm
Oh sorry, where were my manners.  Hi Slobodan. I had a feeling you were going to respond and we would be chatting.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 03, 2019, 07:50:23 pm
You can laugh Slobodan, but you do so to avoid the issue. How about a real argument?

Let me ask you this. Can you come up with any unforced move that Trump has made that harms Russia? It seems that everything the president does helps your old country. This is what I find most perplexing about your worship of Trump. It seems to contradict your obvious hatred of Russia.

Let me correct two things: I am not Russian and I do not hate Russia. I just spent eight years in Moscow in the '90s, working for American companies as an expat.

I think we need a better relationship with Russia, which was also Trump's electoral platform. It was in the open before the election,  people knew that and still voted for him, therefore there should be no surprise he tried to improve the relationship. We need them to fight the common enemy: Islamic extremism. He was sabotaged all the way in that respect, to the point that the relationship is now worse than ever after the cold war, instead of improving.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 03, 2019, 07:51:20 pm
Oh sorry, where were my manners.  Hi Slobodan. I had a feeling you were going to respond and we would be chatting.

Would be nice to address you by your name, instead of your license plate ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 03, 2019, 08:04:47 pm
Although not necessary for impeachment the following laws were possibly broken:

1. Bribery.
2. Withholding duly appointed funds.
3. Soliciting political aid from a foreign government.
4. Obstruction.
5. Use of executive branch powers for political purposes. (Hatch act)

Trump arguably is vulnerable with respect to the first four items on your list, but the Hatch Act (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7323) does not on its face apply to the president, and I'm unaware of any federal court ruling to the contrary.  Certainly a non-starter for impeachment.

Would be nice to address you by your name, instead of your license plate ;)

I think Slobodan's suggestion is a good idea for any participant in these forums, Andy, but especially for someone who is going to post on political subjects.  I would also encourage you to include your location (at least country and major subdivision, such as state or province) in your forum user profile.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Two23 on November 03, 2019, 08:31:37 pm
You can laugh Slobodan, but you do so to avoid the issue. How about a real argument?

Let me ask you this. Can you come up with any unforced move that Trump has made that harms Russia? It seems that everything the president does helps your old country. This is what I find most perplexing about your worship of Trump. It seems to contradict your obvious hatred of Russia.


Well I certainly can.  If your only source of "information" is CNN you would have never hear about these:

1. Earlier this year Putin decided to test Trump's resolve in Syria.  He sent a mechanized column of about 500 Russians across the agreed upon boundary, the Euphrates River.  In what became known as the Battle of Kasham, Trump gave the OK to smoke the column first with Marine artillery and then with helicopter gunships and fighter bombers.  Reports were that 200-300 of the 500 troops were wiped out.  Putin was so humiliated that he ordered the bodies of the Russians to be incinerated and buried in the desert rather than that huge number be sent back to Russia.  Reports from inside Russia were that families were told the loss was from fighting terrorists if they were told at all.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/battle-syria-us-russian-mercenaries-commandos-islamic-state-a8370781.html

2. Ukraine.  The war between Ukrainian military and Russian proxies continued to simmer when Trump took over.  Recall that Obama, fearing Russian reprisal, pledged to only send "humanitarian" aid.  Trump gave the OK to send anti-tank missiles among other desperately needed weapons and ammunition.  This stopped the armored attacks cold and contributed to decreased Russian backed activity pretty quickly.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-trump-weapons-ukraine-20171222-story.html

3.  Remember Obama and Assad gassing civilians?  Obama said doing so would be "crossing a red line."  The Syrians did it anyway, obviously with Putin's approval.  They knew Obama was all talk and would never back it up.  When Syria did it again to test Trump, he blew the hell out of them with a missile strike.  You can bet Putin wasn't happy about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike

You probably knew about the last one, but if you didn't know about the first I'm guessing your only source of information is CNN?  I could also go into Trump's rebuilding U.S. military after years of neglect under Obama.  This has Putin scrambling to keep up and Russia simply can't afford it.  Really, this info is easily found out there if you keep an objective frame of mind.


Kent in SD
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 03, 2019, 08:31:51 pm
Non sequitur. You are flailing around.

Todally.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 03, 2019, 08:36:20 pm
Hi Chris,

It appears that it’s a felony to order federal government workers to further a partisan political campaign. So the effort with Sundland and the others would seem to count.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/10/29/president-trump-may-have-violated-criminal-provisions-hatch-act/

I'm from Oregon.

Slobodan,

My name is Andy. Pleased to meet you.

You appear to shrink away from engaging in debate and instead avoid answering questions or change the subject. You have not addressed any points in my original post and you have not come up with a single unforced move by Trump that checks Russian interests. I know it is easier to just lay down quips and dodge the tough stuff but this is the point of this thread after all. No thoughts?

Sorry for misrepresenting your view and background. I tried to go from memory and must not have done a good job.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 03, 2019, 08:50:46 pm
Hi Kent,

Let's start with the first one:


1. Earlier this year Putin decided to test Trump's resolve in Syria.  He sent a mechanized column of about 500 Russians across the agreed upon boundary, the Euphrates River.  In what became known as the Battle of Kasham, Trump gave the OK to smoke the column first with Marine artillery and then with helicopter gunships and fighter bombers.  Reports were that 200-300 of the 500 troops were wiped out.  Putin was so humiliated that he ordered the bodies of the Russians to be incinerated and buried in the desert rather than that huge number be sent back to Russia.  Reports from inside Russia were that families were told the loss was from fighting terrorists if they were told at all.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/battle-syria-us-russian-mercenaries-commandos-islamic-state-a8370781.html


You make it sound like there was an artillery and air battle between the US and a real Russian army column under Putin's orders. Not true. It was a Syrian column that had some Russian mercenaries in the mix. Read the story that you posted.

Some soldiers protecting themselves from an advancing column is not a calculated move by Trump to against Russia. If Trump is so eager to take on Putin militarily, why did he back down on Venezuela?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 03, 2019, 09:25:17 pm
... Slobodan,

My name is Andy. Pleased to meet you.

You appear to shrink away from engaging in debate and instead avoid answering questions or change the subject. You have not addressed any points in my original post and you have not come up with a single unforced move by Trump that checks Russian interests. I know it is easier to just lay down quips and dodge the tough stuff but this is the point of this thread after all. No thoughts?..

Hi Andy, pleased to meet you too.

No, I am not shrinking away from engaging in debate or dodging anything. After 15,000 posts, and making my stances clear so many times in the past, I am trying to avoid repeating myself. Or perhaps I am just bored with the same old, same old arguments from both sides. Now, your posts were at 6 when we engaged, so you can be forgiven for not knowing where I stand, or the arguments I provided at some point in the past. I realize it is possible that you've been a passive reader of our debates until now, and that you are well familiar with my prior posts, but as you said, our memories often betray us.

I have no intention to go point by point with your list, not out of lack of respect for you, but simply because I do not see a real reason for impeachment, I do no see a crime committed, I do not see corruption in this case, and as I said many times in the past, it is logically impossible to prove a negative.

As for asking me to list "a single unforced move by Trump that checks Russian interests," I thought I provided the answer? How can you expect him to go against Russia when his electoral platform was to improve the relationship, the intention that I support, and apparently a great deal of Americans, directly or indirectly, supported by voting for him. By the way, i am an American citizen, currently in Florida, before that Illinois and Indiana.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 10:02:41 pm
Trump's phone call was just the starting point for a deep dive into investigating the use of political office for personal gain. Trump used his office to cut off military aide to an ally who was facing an existential crisis as it was being overrun by our longtime foe Russia. He did this in order to get Ukraine to publicly announce they were looking into corruption of his political adversaries.

Although not necessary for impeachment the following laws were possibly broken:

1. Bribery.
2. Withholding duly appointed funds.
3. Soliciting political aid from a foreign government.
4. Obstruction.
5. Use of executive branch powers for political purposes. (Hatch act)

This is textbook what the framer's of the constitution were worried about when they decided to include impeachment as a remedy for a lawless president.

Hi Andy  Nice to meet you.  Some clarifications.  First off Ukraine is not an ally of the US.  We have bi-lateral relationships but I'm not aware of any military guarantees we made to them.  They're also not a member of NATO.

Concerning your five points, I'm not sure what bribery you're talking about.  America gives aid, military and other, to many countries for a purpose.  We wish to influence them to do things we want and get their support when we need it.  If they're not doing what we ask them to do, the president can hold up aid.  If the recipient country wants to dance, they have to pay the piper.  It's not the recipient country's power to control the situation. After all it's our money. 


Second, while it appears to be true that Trump wanted Biden and his son investigated for apparent corruption, Trump asked for investigation and elimination of corruption in general in the Ukraine.  This has been a big problem predating Trump's term.  Obama also tried to influence the Ukraine to clean up their act.  While there may be a political fallout advantage from investigating Biden for Trump, his basic request for investigating possible US violation of the law by Biden and his son and others falls squarely in the responsibility of the President.  Are you suggesting that VP Biden is above the law and should not be investigated because the president may get a political benefit?  That varies little from the Obama's administration investigation of Trump when they thought there was some collusion going on with the Russians.  In that case, the Democrats gained political advantage.  But it is argued by Democrats that there was apparent collusion so the investigation was legitimate.  Same with Biden's apparent corruption investigation. 



Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 03, 2019, 10:07:32 pm
Slobodan,

Since you are not willing to engage in debate on the impeachment issue, the point of this thread, there isn't much to discuss. I would wager that Trump will soon be trying to prove a negative or at least trying to raise a reasonable doubt.

I think it is desirable for Trump to put US interests ahead of Russia's, no matter what the status of relations, and in the Ukraine Trump withheld aide while Russia gained territory. In fact the Ukraine was almost ready to largely give up. That is not in the United State's national interest. We support Western democracies, while not perfect, the Ukraine certainly seems closer to that ideal than Russia.

What do you expect we have to gain with this "friendship" between Trump and Putin? And by we, I mean the US and our allies? I fear we will end up like Timothy Treadwell if we think we can befriend that bear.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 10:20:02 pm
Slobodan,

Since you are not willing to engage in debate on the impeachment issue, the point of this thread, there isn't much to discuss. I would wager that Trump will soon be trying to prove a negative or at least trying to raise a reasonable doubt.

I think it is desirable for Trump to put US interests ahead of Russia's, no matter what the status of relations, and in the Ukraine Trump withheld aide while Russia gained territory. In fact the Ukraine was almost ready to largely give up. That is not in the United State's national interest. We support Western democracies, while not perfect, the Ukraine certainly seems closer to that ideal than Russia.

What do you expect we have to gain with this "friendship" between Trump and Putin? And by we, I mean the US and our allies? I fear we will end up like Timothy Treadwell if we think we can befriend that bear.
Slobodan explained that Trump wanted to establish a better relation with Russia before his election.  You may not agree with that policy.  But policies of presidents aren't impeachable offenses.  That's what elections are for.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 03, 2019, 10:25:42 pm
I'll let the moderator answer you.

That is lame.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 03, 2019, 10:28:09 pm
Trump's phone call was just the starting point for a deep dive into investigating the use of political office for personal gain. Trump used his office to cut off military aide to an ally who was facing an existential crisis as it was being overrun by our longtime foe Russia. He did this in order to get Ukraine to publicly announce they were looking into corruption of his political adversaries.

Although not necessary for impeachment the following laws were possibly broken:

1. Bribery.
2. Withholding duly appointed funds.
3. Soliciting political aid from a foreign government.
4. Obstruction.
5. Use of executive branch powers for political purposes. (Hatch act)

This is textbook what the framer's of the constitution were worried about when they decided to include impeachment as a remedy for a lawless president.

+1
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2019, 10:33:40 pm
That is lame.
Tipping your toe in the water, are you Bart? :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 03, 2019, 10:37:19 pm
Hi Alan,

If you don't see a country on Russia's border trying to become a democracy with Western values as an ally, you are running in a different universe/value system than most people. Would they be an enemy? Would you rather have Russia as an ally?

If you withhold duly apportioned aid, to coerce a foreign country into providing (real or made up) dirt on your political rival, you are guilty of bribery and using your office for personal gain. Remember the "deliverable" they talked about was a public announcement of an investigation into the Bidens and HRC.

Your other arguments are not so hot Alan.

It was not a general corruption "ask" by Trump. It was specific, Bidens and HRC with a public announcement of the investigation.

You know that the whole argument hinges on intent. Did Trump have a corrupt intent when he asked for the investigation? A cop has the right to arrest someone for smoking a joint (well used to anyway) but if they arrest the joint smoker only because they didn't give him a bribe then the cop committed a crime.

How did the Democrats gain an advantage when Trump and his confidants were being investigated? Did it leak? Did the public know anything before the election? FYI, the investigation that did leak before the election was about HRC's emails.

Hi Andy  Nice to meet you.  Some clarifications.  First off Ukraine is not an ally of the US.  We have bi-lateral relationships but I'm not aware of any military guarantees we made to them.  They're also not a member of NATO.

Concerning your five points, I'm not sure what bribery you're talking about.  America gives aid, military and other, to many countries for a purpose.  We wish to influence them to do things we want and get their support when we need it.  If they're not doing what we ask them to do, the president can hold up aid.  If the recipient country wants to dance, they have to pay the piper.  It's not the recipient country's power to control the situation. After all it's our money. 


Second, while it appears to be true that Trump wanted Biden and his son investigated for apparent corruption, Trump asked for investigation and elimination of corruption in general in the Ukraine.  This has been a big problem predating Trump's term.  Obama also tried to influence the Ukraine to clean up their act.  While there may be a political fallout advantage from investigating Biden for Trump, his basic request for investigating possible US violation of the law by Biden and his son and others falls squarely in the responsibility of the President.  Are you suggesting that VP Biden is above the law and should not be investigated because the president may get a political benefit?  That varies little from the Obama's administration investigation of Trump when they thought there was some collusion going on with the Russians.  In that case, the Democrats gained political advantage.  But it is argued by Democrats that there was apparent collusion so the investigation was legitimate.  Same with Biden's apparent corruption investigation.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 03, 2019, 10:41:01 pm
Slobodan,

Since you are not willing to engage in debate on the impeachment issue, the point of this thread, there isn't much to discuss. I would wager that Trump will soon be trying to prove a negative or at least trying to raise a reasonable doubt.

I think it is desirable for Trump to put US interests ahead of Russia's, no matter what the status of relations, and in the Ukraine Trump withheld aide while Russia gained territory. In fact the Ukraine was almost ready to largely give up. That is not in the United State's national interest. We support Western democracies, while not perfect, the Ukraine certainly seems closer to that ideal than Russia.

What do you expect we have to gain with this "friendship" between Trump and Putin? And by we, I mean the US and our allies? I fear we will end up like Timothy Treadwell if we think we can befriend that bear.

Andy, I think we are going in circles or you are not reading my replies.

1. How do you expect me to engage in the debate? You provided a list of five personal opinions or yours, and I said I disagree with each of them. Am I supposed to prove that there is no crime committed, for instance? Your opinion that there was, is just that, your opinion, and I have no intention of debating personal opinions. You think he is guilty, I think he is not. End of story. When the SCOTUS determines that Trump committed a crime, I'll accept that. Not your opinion (no offense). If Senate impeaches Trump and removes him from office, I'll accept that (though I do not have to agree, as Senate is political, but I will, as a law abiding citizen, respect that).

2. Ukraine. It has been pointed out that Obama sent sleeping bags (how ironic!) to the Ukrainian army. Trump sent actual arms. I am sorry for having to ask, but do you actually understand what is going on in Ukraine? I have the impression that you see the whole Ukraine as an innocent, pro-Western democracy that is just a victim of Russian aggression and territory grab. Right? I hate to disappoint you, but Ukraine is a deeply divided country between the Catholic West and (Christian) Orthodox East. Between ethnic Ukrainians in the West and ethnic Russians in the East. Between Ukrainian language and Russian language. That Ukraine has a long fascist history to this day and was allied with Nazy Germany. That a legitimately elected president was driven out by the same mostly pro-fascist mob in a classic coup d'etat. That the first order of business of the new rulers was to eliminate Russian as the second official language of Ukraine. No wonder that the Ukrainian East, ethnic Russians living there for centuries, didn't like it and rebelled. The solution, as I see it, is to provide a political autonomy to the East. And guess what? That is exactly what is happening right now, with a ceasefire in place and promises of the autonomy by the new president.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 03, 2019, 10:48:29 pm
You can laugh Slobodan, but you do so to avoid the issue. How about a real argument?

Correct, some folks are more into avoiding and suggesting, but yes, such vague 'arguments', have led to many threads being closed.
Some folks mistakenly think that this is intelligent.

Quote
Let me ask you this. Can you come up with any unforced move that Trump has made that harms Russia? It seems that everything the president does helps your old country. This is what I find most perplexing about your worship of Trump. It seems to contradict your obvious hatred of Russia.

Russia, or any form of Sociaism, or Muslims, ...

Hateful people are potentially Negatively intelligent (https://mind-development.eu/negative-intelligence.html)....
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 03, 2019, 10:54:22 pm
... such vague 'arguments', have led to many threads being closed...

No, Bart, threads have been closed for obnoxious behavior and calling people names, as it has been increasingly practiced by only one side in this debate (and you, among others).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 03, 2019, 10:54:45 pm
We need them to fight the common enemy: Islamic extremism. He was sabotaged all the way in that respect, to the point that the relationship is now worse than ever after the cold war, instead of improving.

So, what has Trump done to improve that?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 12:11:06 am
Hi Alan,

If you don't see a country on Russia's border trying to become a democracy with Western values as an ally, you are running in a different universe/value system than most people. Would they be an enemy? Would you rather have Russia as an ally?

If you withhold duly apportioned aid, to coerce a foreign country into providing (real or made up) dirt on your political rival, you are guilty of bribery and using your office for personal gain. Remember the "deliverable" they talked about was a public announcement of an investigation into the Bidens and HRC.

Your other arguments are not so hot Alan.

It was not a general corruption "ask" by Trump. It was specific, Bidens and HRC with a public announcement of the investigation.

You know that the whole argument hinges on intent. Did Trump have a corrupt intent when he asked for the investigation? A cop has the right to arrest someone for smoking a joint (well used to anyway) but if they arrest the joint smoker only because they didn't give him a bribe then the cop committed a crime.

How did the Democrats gain an advantage when Trump and his confidants were being investigated? Did it leak? Did the public know anything before the election? FYI, the investigation that did leak before the election was about HRC's emails.

But Biden and his sons look like crooks.  His son used his father's position as VP to get a $50,000 a month ($600,000/ a year) job from a Ukrainian oil company.  Biden's son never ever worked in the oil field.  What a lucky guy.    How do you think that happened?  When the Ukraine began to investigate the company Biden's son worked for because of corruption, the VP got the investigator fired.  How convenient.  So we should let the VP be above the law because it might look like the president is going after him for political reasons.  Maybe so.  But he could be going after him because Biden and his son are crooks.  Same deal in CHina where Biden's kid got a deal with a Chinese corp worth 1 1/2 billion.    Wow, His son was lucky again.  Some people got all the luck.  Stuff like that never happened to me.   Well, my father wasn't a politician. 

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 12:16:23 am
So, what has Trump done to improve that?
Trump destroyed ISIS for one, and its leader, al Baghdadi and his #2 were just killed.  Russia has been killing terrorists as well.  They're no friend of Russia either.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on November 04, 2019, 02:43:08 am
Are you off your meds?

Not acceptable. Behave or be gone.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 07:42:32 am
Alan,

None of this stuff is illegal on it's face. Wrong maybe, but not illegal. It will always be a fact that the family of powerful people get breaks (Ivanka's Chinese patents for example). It will always be the case that fathers help their sons get ahead (you can probably figure out the proper example to insert here).

Again, it is motivation. Did Trump ask China to look into Ivanka? Does he have a history of being concerned about corruption other than when it benefits him? Why was a crucial part of the "ask" a public announcement of the investigation by Ukraine? Can you imagine what that would do to Biden's campaign if that announcement came out of "nowhere"? Why did they release the money 2 days after things became public?

 
But Biden and his sons look like crooks.  His son used his father's position as VP to get a $50,000 a month ($600,000/ a year) job from a Ukrainian oil company.  Biden's son never ever worked in the oil field.  What a lucky guy.    How do you think that happened?  When the Ukraine began to investigate the company Biden's son worked for because of corruption, the VP got the investigator fired.  How convenient.  So we should let the VP be above the law because it might look like the president is going after him for political reasons.  Maybe so.  But he could be going after him because Biden and his son are crooks.  Same deal in CHina where Biden's kid got a deal with a Chinese corp worth 1 1/2 billion.    Wow, His son was lucky again.  Some people got all the luck.  Stuff like that never happened to me.   Well, my father wasn't a politician.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 04, 2019, 07:54:37 am
Alan,

None of this stuff is illegal on it's face. Wrong maybe, but not illegal. It will always be a fact that the family of powerful people get breaks (Ivanka's Chinese patents for example).
They were copyrights and not patents.  I'm not sure that Ms. Trump-Kushner has ever invented anything of value that would lead to a patent.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 04, 2019, 08:01:54 am
Here is a serious question for the supporters of the President.  I read today that two officials of the Office of Management and Budget are going to refuse to testify if they are subpoenaed.  Their former boss, Mick Mulvaney already stated that there was a quid pro quo regarding the aid to Ukraine though he tried to back off later that day.  Regardless of your beliefs about the inquiry, is it right that these officials refuse to testify?  If you received a Grand Jury summons to testify, would you disobey the request?

IMO, we are moving away from what the original framers of the Constitution had in mind by allowing the executive branch way too much power.  this is one of the key points in George Will's fine new book, "The Conservative Sensibility" which I am presently reading (a surprise to you all!!).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 04, 2019, 08:03:10 am
They were copyrights and not patents.  I'm not sure that Ms. Trump-Kushner has ever invented anything of value that would lead to a patent.

Intellectual property is not of value?  My billings this year would disagree.   ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 08:23:56 am
Slobodan,

1. I was somehow able to engage in a debate with Kent about a skirmish between US troops and Syria. Alan was able to engage in debate with me about the Ukrainian situation. It is as if you are a sniper, but one with only a bb gun. Annoying but not capable of changing things or moving the ball forward in the clash of ideas.

I don't understand your point about SCOTUS. There is no mechanism in the law or constitution that will bring a president in front of that body for a trial. The framers envisioned impeachment as the remedy. I think that they knew there were flaws with impeachment but that it was less flawed than dragging the judicial into the mix as a jury.

2. It was more than pillows and sheets that were sent to Ukraine by the previous administration, you are being disingenuous. It just excluded anything directly lethal.

I will agree that Trump did start providing lethal aid. However, Ukraine's top prosecutor did stop cooperating with Mueller a couple of weeks after this happened. I wonder if there was an "ask" there as well? It was also the Trump campaign that changed the GOP platform to lessen support for Ukraine before the election. You point out that the platform was changed by Trump's campaign to be more pro Russia so we need to accept that, why the flip flop on Ukraine?

I know Ukraine is messy, just like almost every other country/situation. But surely the US is hesitant to cede ground from a country working on becoming a Western style democracy to Russia? Would you allow East Germany to be invaded?


Andy, I think we are going in circles or you are not reading my replies.

1. How do you expect me to engage in the debate? You provided a list of five personal opinions or yours, and I said I disagree with each of them. Am I supposed to prove that there is no crime committed, for instance? Your opinion that there was, is just that, your opinion, and I have no intention of debating personal opinions. You think he is guilty, I think he is not. End of story. When the SCOTUS determines that Trump committed a crime, I'll accept that. Not your opinion (no offense). If Senate impeaches Trump and removes him from office, I'll accept that (though I do not have to agree, as Senate is political, but I will, as a law abiding citizen, respect that).

2. Ukraine. It has been pointed out that Obama sent sleeping bags (how ironic!) to the Ukrainian army. Trump sent actual arms. I am sorry for having to ask, but do you actually understand what is going on in Ukraine? I have the impression that you see the whole Ukraine as an innocent, pro-Western democracy that is just a victim of Russian aggression and territory grab. Right? I hate to disappoint you, but Ukraine is a deeply divided country between the Catholic West and (Christian) Orthodox East. Between ethnic Ukrainians in the West and ethnic Russians in the East. Between Ukrainian language and Russian language. That Ukraine has a long fascist history to this day and was allied with Nazy Germany. That a legitimately elected president was driven out by the same mostly pro-fascist mob in a classic coup d'etat. That the first order of business of the new rulers was to eliminate Russian as the second official language of Ukraine. No wonder that the Ukrainian East, ethnic Russians living there for centuries, didn't like it and rebelled. The solution, as I see it, is to provide a political autonomy to the East. And guess what? That is exactly what is happening right now, with a ceasefire in place and promises of the autonomy by the new president.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on November 04, 2019, 08:24:01 am
Looking at the discussion it seems to me there is not much trust in the US constitution here. ( or it must be the 2nd amendment)
Every action here is seen as a political act. Not a constitutional one.
The justice department is an independant force looking at facts that need to be proven, but it seems that a lot of people here do not trust the justice department to be independant.
It seems that facts have become irrelevant due to the enourmous amount of desinformation intentionally spread by various forces to pull up a fog.
People look for the message they want to hear and as they find one, they want to embrace it as the truth.
I would say that it is important to trust the justice department and the constitutional rules until proven wrong.
Also to trust longstanding newspapers that do fact checking before they publish and have proven to be trustworthy.
One of the reasons i visit this site is that the information about photography has proven to be valuable and trustworthy.
In this case I can check a lot of the info written here myself being a skilled photographer and scientist. That is why my trust has grown.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2019, 08:37:51 am
.. Ukraine's top prosecutor did stop cooperating with Mueller...

Send Biden to fire that SOB!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 08:40:04 am
What was that sting I just felt?

Oh, here's a BB. Must be Slobodan!

Send Biden to fire that SOB!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2019, 08:43:16 am
..l Every action here is seen as a political act. Not a constitutional one...

What exactly is the constitutional issue here?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 04, 2019, 08:44:24 am
Intellectual property is not of value?  My billings this year would disagree.   ;)
That is not what I said. ;)  Of course copyrights are of value but they are not patents.  The US has also given copyrights a real 'Mickey Mouse' treatment!!!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2019, 08:49:04 am
What was that sting I just felt?

Oh, here's a BB. Must be Slobodan!

Sorry, Andy, your arguments (or rather “arguments”) would need to reach a certain minimal intellectual level for me to debate them seriously. In the meantime, your posts provide a welcome comedic relief.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 04, 2019, 08:49:07 am
What exactly is the constitutional issue here?
It's statements like this one that highlight the issue that I have had with such comments in the past.  I'm back to ignoring your posts as they do little to advance any type of reasonable discussion.  As a parting word, you might want to pick up a copy of 'The Federalist' which you can get for free from Project Gutenberg and read what both Madison and Hamilton had to say about these issues.  As someone who is a naturalized citizen and had to pass a test that most native Americans would fail, you show a surprising lack of understanding.

Back to radio silence on your posts.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 08:51:43 am
Alan G.

Hello. Thanks, of course you are correct.

They were copyrights and not patents.  I'm not sure that Ms. Trump-Kushner has ever invented anything of value that would lead to a patent.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2019, 08:55:37 am
... Back to radio silence on your posts.

Instead of answering a simple question, you resort to a lengthy righteous indignation?

Once again, for those who are better constitutional scholars than I am (which isn't difficult at all): what exactly is the constitutional issue here?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 08:56:39 am
More BBs. It appears you are reluctant to actually engage in substantial debate. Why?


Sorry, Andy, your arguments (or rather “arguments”) would need to reach a certain minimal intellectual level for me to debate them seriously. In the meantime, your posts provide a welcome comedic relief.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2019, 09:10:27 am
More BBs. It appears you are reluctant to actually engage in substantial debate. Why?

Since you mentioned my name, I responded with three lengthier posts (around 700+ words, hardly a sniping) where I responded to you and tried to explain my stance. What exactly would count, for you, as "engaging in substantial debate"?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 09:35:27 am
Slobodan,

I do not think you have engaged in debate. You yourself said you would not engage in debate. It is just a swirling stew of avoidance. Some tactics you used were Ad Hominem, Straw Man/Red Herring, and pointing out how great and smart you are.

Put that giant, magnificent brain to work and get busy crushing my arguments. I deserve it, show me what a loser I am. Put me in my place. Alan and Kent stepped up.

(https://muskelaufbaupraparate.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Star4Laughs-The-12-Days-Of-Christmas-Movies-A-Christmas.jpg)

Since you mentioned my name, I responded with three lengthier posts (around 700+ words, hardly a sniping) where I responded to you and tried to explain my stance. What exactly would count, for you, as "engaging in substantial debate"?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2019, 09:57:06 am
... show me what a loser I am. Put me in my place...

You don't need me for that. Mother Nature already took care of it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 04, 2019, 10:34:19 am
You don't need me for that. Mother Nature already took care of it.


Lovely.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 10:52:56 am
Alan,

None of this stuff is illegal on it's face. Wrong maybe, but not illegal. It will always be a fact that the family of powerful people get breaks (Ivanka's Chinese patents for example). It will always be the case that fathers help their sons get ahead (you can probably figure out the proper example to insert here).

Again, it is motivation. Did Trump ask China to look into Ivanka? Does he have a history of being concerned about corruption other than when it benefits him? Why was a crucial part of the "ask" a public announcement of the investigation by Ukraine? Can you imagine what that would do to Biden's campaign if that announcement came out of "nowhere"? Why did they release the money 2 days after things became public?

 
Democrats and anti-Trumpers want to have it both ways.  For three years they've been accusing the Triump family and the President's kids of taking advantage of their father and getting rich.  They've attacked the president regarding emoluments for still have a nexus to the Trump ORganization.  So now, VP Biden is caught doing similar things, apparently helping his son get rich off of his Vice President position.  So now you argue, what's the big deal? 

You can't have it both ways.  If you're accusing Trump of enriching his family because of his governmental position, then you can't argue that it's OK for the Biden's to do the same thing.  That's why once the hearings get started, Biden's toast.  Because the Republicans are going to ask questions if it's OK for the Bidens to have done these things. The Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot and will kill the very candidate who has the best chance of beating Trump in 2020. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 11:00:58 am
Here is a serious question for the supporters of the President.  I read today that two officials of the Office of Management and Budget are going to refuse to testify if they are subpoenaed.  Their former boss, Mick Mulvaney already stated that there was a quid pro quo regarding the aid to Ukraine though he tried to back off later that day.  Regardless of your beliefs about the inquiry, is it right that these officials refuse to testify?  If you received a Grand Jury summons to testify, would you disobey the request?

IMO, we are moving away from what the original framers of the Constitution had in mind by allowing the executive branch way too much power.  this is one of the key points in George Will's fine new book, "The Conservative Sensibility" which I am presently reading (a surprise to you all!!).
Congressional hearings are not a Grand Jury.  That's a straw man.  There's a constitutional separation of powers between Congress and the President's Executive Branch.  You know that.  The Congress does not have unlimited subpoena power over members of the Executive Branch any more than the President can subpoena congress.  Whether a person has to testify depends on the constitution and the reason for the subpoena.  Often the Federal Courts have to make that determination. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 11:03:17 am
Alan,

You are changing my argument into something that is easier for you to attack.

There are plenty of cases, where under the right circumstances, it is acceptable for officials to go after corruption. Biden, Clinton, Bush, Carter, or whoever, it doesn't matter, if there was a probable crime then go for it investigate.

It is not acceptable to do it by forcing a foreign power to collude for political gain. If we don't have free and fair elections, what do we have?

Democrats and anti-Trumpers want to have it both ways.  For three years they've been accusing the Triump family and the President's kids of taking advantage of their father and getting rich.  They've attacked the president regarding emoluments for still have a nexus to the Trump ORganization.  So now, VP Biden is caught doing similar things, apparently helping his son get rich off of his Vice President position.  So now you argue, what's the big deal? 

You can't have it both ways.  If you're accusing Trump of enriching his family because of his governmental position, then you can't argue that it's OK for the Biden's to do the same thing.  That's why once the hearings get started, Biden's toast.  Because the Republicans are going to ask questions if it's OK for the Bidens to have done these things. The Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot and will kill the very candidate who has the best chance of beating Trump in 2020.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2019, 11:03:48 am
... Every action here is seen as a political act. Not a constitutional one...

Since there are no takers for my previous question ("what exactly is the constitutional issue here?"), I'll offer my opinion:

There is no constitutional issue here, short of providing for the possibility of impeachment and providing a procedural framework for it.

It is, by design, a political act.

The constitution doesn't not define what "high crimes and misdemeanors, etc." are. No need for a crime either. If a president gives someone the evil eye, they can impeach him for that.

So, defining what happen re Ukraine as a bribery is a political act. Claiming it endangered national security is a political act. Everything regarding impeachment is a political act, not judicial, nor constitutional (except for what I mentioned above).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 11:06:24 am
Alan,

I wish Nixon was still around to learn this, he would be pissed that he got it wrong about having to cooperate.

Congressional hearings are not a Grand Jury.  That's a straw man.  There's a constitutional separation of powers between Congress and the President's Executive Branch.  You know that.  The Congress does not have unlimited subpoena power over members of the Executive Branch any more than the President can subpoena congress.  Whether a person has to testify depends on the constitution and the reason for the subpoena.  Often the Federal Courts have to make that determination.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 11:08:44 am
Andy, Slobodan is a master of the brief sting.  Unlike I who goes on and on spelling things out like everyone doesn't understand and needs to be spoon fed.  He covers important territory and theory in as few words as possible.  You have to fill in the rest.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 11:16:57 am
Alan,

While I vehemently disagree with your politics, I think I would like you in person.

I agree with your assessments, people are interesting. :-)

Andy, Slobodan is a master of the brief sting.  Unlike I who goes on and on spelling things out like everyone doesn't understand and needs to be spoon fed.  He covers important territory and theory in as few words as possible.  You have to fill in the rest.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 04, 2019, 11:17:39 am
Congressional hearings are not a Grand Jury.  That's a straw man.  There's a constitutional separation of powers between Congress and the President's Executive Branch.  You know that.  The Congress does not have unlimited subpoena power over members of the Executive Branch any more than the President can subpoena congress.  Whether a person has to testify depends on the constitution and the reason for the subpoena.  Often the Federal Courts have to make that determination.
Your reading of the Constitution is in error.  Impeachment inquiries just as with the Benghazi hearings that the Republicans conducted are akin to Grand Jury gathering of testimony.  The Courts are already ruling against the President and just an hour ago, the Appeals Court up held the New York request for President Trump's tax returns.  Of course all this stuff will go to the Supreme Court and the President will suffer a number of legal defeats as he is clearly obstructing Congress. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 11:22:11 am
Since there are no takers for my previous question ("what exactly is the constitutional issue here?"), I'll offer my opinion:

There is no constitutional issue here, short of providing for the possibility of impeachment and providing a procedural framework for it.

It is, by design, a political act.

The constitution doesn't not define what "high crimes and misdemeanors, etc." are. No need for a crime either. If a president gives someone the evil eye, they can impeach him for that.

So, defining what happen re Ukraine as a bribery is a political act. Claiming it endangered national security is a political act. Everything regarding impeachment is a political act, not judicial, nor constitutional (except for what I mentioned above).

I wouldn't go that far.  There are limits in the constitution that refer to actual crimes.  The exact words in the Consitution are as follows:

SECTION 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

There has to be some nexus to an actual crime.  Treason and Bribery are real crimes.  While the House can certainly impeach for political reasons, and interpret high crimes and misdemeanors however they want, Americans won;t stand for it.  After all, a little less than half the country voted for the president.  They know a crime or not and they know a political act or not. 

Americans want to vote their presidents in or out of office during an election.    Otherwise, we'd have impeachments every time Congress was held by the opposite party.  That would be terrible for government and the country.  The bickering is preventing real work from getting done.  The public realizes this.  That's why they won;t stand for political impeachments.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 11:22:29 am
Alan G,

To me the interesting question is what happens when he starts losing at the SC? I think that it is existential to his presidency and that there is little chance that, rather than see what he can get away with, he will do the right thing.

Your reading of the Constitution is in error.  Impeachment inquiries just as with the Benghazi hearings that the Republicans conducted are akin to Grand Jury gathering of testimony.  The Courts are already ruling against the President and just an hour ago, the Appeals Court up held the New York request for President Trump's tax returns.  Of course all this stuff will go to the Supreme Court and the President will suffer a number of legal defeats as he is clearly obstructing Congress.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 11:24:01 am
Alan,

While I vehemently disagree with your politics, I think I would like you in person.

I agree with your assessments, people are interesting. :-)


Well, thank you.  I think you'd be an interesting person to meet too.  Whatever you do, don;t become bitter from these political threads.  No one ever changes anyone's minds in any case.  But these are better than fighting with your wife. :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on November 04, 2019, 11:26:18 am
Congressional hearings are not a Grand Jury.  That's a straw man.  There's a constitutional separation of powers between Congress and the President's Executive Branch.  You know that.  The Congress does not have unlimited subpoena power over members of the Executive Branch any more than the President can subpoena congress.  Whether a person has to testify depends on the constitution and the reason for the subpoena.  Often the Federal Courts have to make that determination.

Jeez, Alan. The President (the Administration -- the Justice Department) not only can subpoena members of Congress, it does so, and not only does it do that, it can indict them, issue arrest warrants, and convict them of crimes and put them in prison, as a number of Congressmen have learned. In this particular case, apparently no members of Congress have committed or are witnesses to any indictable crimes that we know of, so none have been subpoenaed. But if evidence of a crime should come to light, they could be.

The Congress now is subpoenaing people that it claims are witnesses to high crimes and misdemeanors, which Congress is specifically given authority to do. By the Constitution. And Congress also has the right to define high crimes and misdemeanors, a term deliberately left somewhat vague because the Founding Fathers understood that there are cases of misfeasance or nonfeasance that are not necessarily crimes, but would justify removal from office. Read a little history; it's all right there.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 11:28:07 am
Your reading of the Constitution is in error.  Impeachment inquiries just as with the Benghazi hearings that the Republicans conducted are akin to Grand Jury gathering of testimony.  The Courts are already ruling against the President and just an hour ago, the Appeals Court up held the New York request for President Trump's tax returns.  Of course all this stuff will go to the Supreme Court and the President will suffer a number of legal defeats as he is clearly obstructing Congress. 
You may be right that he will lose in court.  However, you don't even have that right to go to court in a grand Jury or have a defense counsel attending.  So the comparison to Grand Juries is not correct.  The president still has a right to object and defend himself to a much greater degree than in a grand jury.  I'll let our lawyers expand on this if they wish.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 11:29:18 am
Alan,

I agree with a lot of what you wrote here. If there is not enough basis for impeachment then there will be a voter backlash. Everyone in DC knows this (Clinton impeachment).

I disagree with the crime required part:

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency' — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

I also strongly disagree with your "vote the president out" recommendation. The problem is that Trump is being investigated for interfering with an election. How do we know if the next election is free and fair if we don't have confidence that our president is not interfering?


I wouldn't go that far.  There are limits in the constitution that refer to actual crimes.  The exact words in the Consitution are as follows:

SECTION 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

There has to be some nexus to an actual crime.  Treason and Bribery are real crimes.  While the House can certainly impeach for political reasons, and interpret high crimes and misdemeanors however they want, Americans won;t stand for it.  After all, a little less than half the country voted for the president.  They know a crime or not and they know a political act or not. 

Americans want to vote their presidents in or out of office during an election.    Otherwise, we'd have impeachments every time Congress was held by the opposite party.  That would be terrible for government and the country.  The bickering is preventing real work from getting done.  The public realizes this.  That's why they won;t stand for political impeachments.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 11:31:02 am
Alan G,

To me the interesting question is what happens when he starts losing at the SC? I think that it is existential to his presidency and that there is little chance that, rather than see what he can get away with, he will do the right thing.

You don't know Trump.  Do you really think he quits?  He's been involved in something like 800-900 civil law cases, most of which he's won or settled.  He's faced down bankruptcies and divorces numerous times and came through them successfully. He breathes on conflict. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 11:32:41 am
Alan,

This is only the case in the Senate. The house proceedings are generally akin to a GJ. The houses can make their own rules however and in this impeachment have given Trump rights not available to Nixon or Clinton. Despite his love of playing the victim, Trump has it better than past impeachees.

 
You may be right that he will lose in court.  However, you don't even have that right to go to court in a grand Jury or have a defense counsel attending.  So the comparison to Grand Juries is not correct.  The president still has a right to object and defend himself to a much greater degree than in a grand jury.  I'll let our lawyers expand on this if they wish.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 11:35:09 am
Alan,

That is exactly what I am saying. We are rolling towards a constitutional crisis at 65 mph and Trump is not letting off the accelerator. He is not going to put the interest of the country first, only himself. If he loses at the SC he will just ignore it. Hope I am wrong.

You don't know Trump.  Do you really think he quits?  He's been involved in something like 800-900 civil law cases, most of which he's won or settled.  He's faced down bankruptcies and divorces numerous times and came through them successfully. He breathes on conflict.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2019, 11:35:28 am
I wouldn't go that far.  There are limits in the constitution that refer to actual crimes.  The exact words in the Consitution are as follows:

SECTION 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

There has to be some nexus to an actual crime.  Treason and Bribery are real crimes.  While the House can certainly impeach for political reasons, and interpret high crimes and misdemeanors however they want, Americans won;t stand for it...

Alan, whether Americans would stand for it is irrelevant for the claim I made. Their reaction would come after the fact, thus is irrelevant for the fact. While treason and bribery might be real crimes, what constitutes it is open to political interpretation in case of impeachment. While collusion is not a crime (in Russian case), for instance, most Democrats wanted to impeach him for that too.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 11:36:19 am
Alan,

This is only the case in the Senate. The house proceedings are generally akin to a GJ. The houses can make their own rules however and in this impeachment have given Trump rights not available to Nixon or Clinton. Despite his love of playing the victim, Trump has it better than past impeachees.

 
My understanding is that republicans on the committee representing the president can call and subpoena their own witness to defend the president.  If true, that can't be done in a GJ.  In any case, Republican representing the president can cross-examine witness the Democrats call.  That's something that doesn't happen in a GJ.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 11:38:02 am
Alan, whether Americans would stand for it is irrelevant for the claim I made. Their reaction would come after the fact, thus is irrelevant for the fact. While treason and bribery might be real crimes, what constitutes it is open to political interpretation in case of impeachment. While collusion is not a crime (in Russian case), for instance, most Democrats wanted to impeach him for that too.
I don't disagree it all comes down to politics and who has the votes.  My main point is that Americans won;t stand for it if it's only politics. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 11:38:39 am
Alan,

Correct. And these are things that were not available to Nixon or Clinton. The house is being very nice to Trump.

My understanding is that republicans on the committee representing the president can call and subpoena their own witness to defend the president.  If true, that can't be done in a GJ.  In any case, Republican representing the president can cross-examine witness the Democrats call.  That's something that doesn't happen in a GJ.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 11:41:44 am
Alan,

That is exactly what I am saying. We are rolling towards a constitutional crisis at 65 mph and Trump is not letting off the accelerator. He is not going to put the interest of the country first, only himself. If he loses at the SC he will just ignore it. Hope I am wrong.

Why is of interest to the country to submit to a political lynching? He represents his voters and I for one don't want him  to quit and roll over to Democrats who are using politics to impeach him looking for three years for something, anything, to get him.   

There's no constitutional crisis.  Everything is going according to the book (the Constitution.) Please explain how there is one?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 11:45:31 am
Alan,

Correct. And these are things that were not available to Nixon or Clinton. The house is being very nice to Trump.


It's not "nice".  It's political. The whole thing is political.  The Democrats have already convicted him.  They cheered in Congress when the vote was taken.  Everything they do is calculated to how the public will perceive it.  It's all a game. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2019, 11:48:21 am
Why is of interest to the country to submit to a political lynching? He represents his voters and I for one don't want him  to quit and roll over to Democrats who are using politics to impeach him looking for three years for something, anything, to get him.   

There's no constitutional crisis.  Everything is going according to the book (the Constitution.) Please explain how there is one?

+1
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 11:49:52 am
Free and fair elections are the most important thing we have. Impeachment was added for situations just like this.

I did not say we are in a CC, I said we are rolling toward one. If Trump ignores a court ruling he doesn't like, we are there.

You seem to be cheering the demise of the constitution.

 
Why is of interest to the country to submit to a political lynching? He represents his voters and I for one don't want him  to quit and roll over to Democrats who are using politics to impeach him looking for three years for something, anything, to get him.   

There's no constitutional crisis.  Everything is going according to the book (the Constitution.) Please explain how there is one?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 11:54:13 am
Victim. I'm just a poor, innocent victim.

I don't buy it. Impeachment is in the constitution for a reason. And I would say it is much more likely there to prevent a president from colluding with a foreign government to interfere in a federal election than to punish a president for lying about a BJ.

 
It's not "nice".  It's political. The whole thing is political.  The Democrats have already convicted him.  They cheered in Congress when the vote was taken.  Everything they do is calculated to how the public will perceive it.  It's all a game.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 04, 2019, 11:55:00 am
That is not what I said. ;)  Of course copyrights are of value but they are not patents.  The US has also given copyrights a real 'Mickey Mouse' treatment!!!

Nice one.   ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 04, 2019, 12:00:08 pm
It's all a game.

How depressing.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2019, 12:21:55 pm
... It is not acceptable to do it by forcing a foreign power to collude for political gain. If we don't have free and fair elections, what do we have?

Say, hypothetically, that Ukraine did start an investigation. Exactly how would that make elections not free and fair? Voters would simply learn that that one candidate might be corrupt (or not) and would make up their own mind about it. Wouldn't that make the election actually more free and fair?

The real danger to free and fair elections would be colluding with a foreign power to hack into voting machines and change the outcome.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 12:49:42 pm
Slobodan,

Decided to play?

Your arguments are disingenuous. You really think it isn't a disadvantage for a candidate to come under investigation? Silly.

One of the strongest tells here is that the "ask" was for a public announcement of the investigation. Why do you think that is?

Propaganda is just as dangerous as a voting machine hack. Democracy is nourished with truth. People are not good at resisting sophisticated propaganda. History is ripe with terrible examples.

Say, hypothetically, that Ukraine did start an investigation. Exactly how would that make elections not free and fair? Voters would simply learn that that one candidate might be corrupt (or not) and would make up their own mind about it. Wouldn't that make the election actually more free and fair?

The real danger to free and fair elections would be colluding with a foreign power to hack into voting machines and change the outcome.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2019, 01:11:25 pm
... Propaganda is just as dangerous as a voting machine hack...

We disagree on that one.

Whether it is a disadvantage or not remains to be seen. Half of the population would cheer it, the other half jeer it. Democracy rests not on some supreme power feeding only truth to the masses, but on the masses' ability to discern what is what. If they can't, they deserve what they got.

On a side note, I do not really see what the Ukraine investigation would achieve. Biden admitted what happened publicly, so the American voters already have all they need to know. No need for investigating him on that. As gaffe-prone as he is, I doubt that he is that stupid to leave a written document somewhere in Ukraine saying: "fire that SOB for investigating the company my son is on the board with."

What an Ukrainian investigation might be about is to find internally what led to dropping the case against Burisma (well, even that is clear, Biden's pressure) and more importantly, if the reason for firing the original prosecutor was indeed corruption, why the next one did not continue or reopen the case?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 02:08:15 pm
Free and fair elections are the most important thing we have. Impeachment was added for situations just like this.

I did not say we are in a CC, I said we are rolling toward one. If Trump ignores a court ruling he doesn't like, we are there.

You seem to be cheering the demise of the constitution.

 
He's never ignored a court ruling.   You are making things up about him.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 02:11:54 pm
As a thought experiment, what happens if propaganda gets so good that no one can resist. Is this good for a democracy? Does democracy even have meaning then?

 
We disagree on that one.

Whether it is a disadvantage or not remains to be seen. Half of the population would cheer it, the other half jeer it. Democracy rests not on some supreme power feeding only truth to the masses, but on the masses' ability to discern what is what. If they can't, they deserve what they got.

On a side note, I do not really see what the Ukraine investigation would achieve. Biden admitted what happened publicly, so the American voters already have all they need to know. No need for investigating him on that. As gaffe-prone as he is, I doubt that he is that stupid to leave a written document somewhere in Ukraine saying: "fire that SOB for investigating the company my son is on the board with."

What an Ukrainian investigation might be about is to find internally what led to dropping the case against Burisma (well, even that is clear, Biden's pressure) and more importantly, if the reason for firing the original prosecutor was indeed corruption, why the next one did not continue or reopen the case?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 02:15:06 pm
Alan,

You are correct, that is why I said "if" and that is why I did not say we were in a CC, only that I feared we would be.

What are you going to do if it the speculation becomes true? Back Trump or the constitution?

He's never ignored a court ruling.   You are making things up about him.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2019, 02:19:19 pm
... What are you going to do if it the speculation becomes true? Back Trump or the constitution?

The constitution.

But I won't forget to vote against Democrats in the next election. Or the Republicans who voted for his impeachment.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 02:30:19 pm
Alan,

You are correct, that is why I said "if" and that is why I did not say we were in a CC, only that I feared we would be.

What are you going to do if it the speculation becomes true? Back Trump or the constitution?

When did you stop beating your wife?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 04, 2019, 03:06:08 pm
When did you stop beating your wife?

You are deliberately choosing to misread/misrepresent what he wrote. It wasn't even a subtle point. Do you think nobody notices what you're doing.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 04, 2019, 03:23:03 pm
When did you stop beating your wife?

This reply must be from the same posting library as the one below:

Quote
October 29, 2019, 02:39:10 pm
I think we beat this to death.  I'm signing off to get on with life.  Carry on.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 04, 2019, 03:31:05 pm
You may be right that he will lose in court.  However, you don't even have that right to go to court in a grand Jury or have a defense counsel attending.  So the comparison to Grand Juries is not correct.  The president still has a right to object and defend himself to a much greater degree than in a grand jury.  I'll let our lawyers expand on this if they wish.
the trial takes place in the Senate, not the House.  Grand Juries can only indict, they do not sit for trials (I've been on one).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 04, 2019, 03:40:10 pm
The transcripts for the depositions are now being released   As they come out you all can download them here:  https://intelligence.house.gov/  Talk about transparency!!!!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 03:46:07 pm
Not yet. All she has to do is quit watching Fox News. :D

When did you stop beating your wife?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 03:50:49 pm
Alan G,

That isn't how the game is played. Now it will be; "They are trying this case in the court of public opinion. Those dirty Dems should keep all this damning information private."

Trump always has to be the victim.


The transcripts for the depositions are now being released   As they come out you all can download them here:  https://intelligence.house.gov/  Talk about transparency!!!!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 03:52:11 pm
Not yet. All she has to do is quit watching Fox News. :D

Apparently you're only one of the few anti-Trumpers around here who have a sense of humor. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 03:53:47 pm
the trial takes place in the Senate, not the House.  Grand Juries can only indict, they do not sit for trials (I've been on one).
Non Sequitur.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 03:55:42 pm
The transcripts for the depositions are now being released   As they come out you all can download them here:  https://intelligence.house.gov/  Talk about transparency!!!!
Thnaks for agreeing with me that impeachment in the House of Representatives is not the same as a Grand Jury.  Testimony in Grand Juries has to be kept secret. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 04:01:07 pm
Alan G,

That isn't how the game is played. Now it will be; "They are trying this case in the court of public opinion. Those dirty Dems should keep all this damning information private."

Trump always has to be the victim.


Apparently the Democrats are so concerned they'll lose the election in 2020, they have to resort to impeachment to get rid of Trump.  You'd think they'd trust the electorate to make the decision if he's so bad.  That's what makes the thing seem so political.  They don;t trust the voters. They want a couple of hundred politicians from the opposite party to "coup" him out of office. I guess their experience in 2016 makes them gun shy.  So they've resorted to impeachment now going on three years to beat him.  What a bunch of desperate cowards. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 04, 2019, 04:14:25 pm
Apparently the Democrats are so concerned they'll lose the election in 2020, they have to resort to impeachment to get rid of Trump.  You'd think they'd trust the electorate to make the decision if he's so bad.  That's what makes the thing seem so political.  They don;t trust the voters. They want a couple of hundred politicians from the opposite party to "coup" him out of office. I guess their experience in 2016 makes them gun shy.  So they've resorted to impeachment now going on three years to beat him.  What a bunch of desperate cowards.
You don't even know if he will be impeached.  It may be at the end of the day that the House censures the President for obstruction of justice and malfeasance of office as pertains to the Ukraine withholding of  aid.  They will continue the investigations as the various subpoenas are upheld by the courts and various officials are forced to testify or go to jail.  There will be an ample enough record built up by this process for even Elizabeth Warren to run a credible campaign about all the rot in the White House.  You underestimate Speaker Pelosi who is very astute about all this.  The Republican Senators will be campaigned against big time and it's not inconceivable that the Republicans could lose four or more Senate seats next year.  Impeachment is not the end game here.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2019, 04:15:37 pm
Not yet. All she has to do is quit watching Fox News. :D

Good one!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 04:20:16 pm
Alan,

Again, this gets to the heart of our democracy. We can't trust that free and fair elections are being held.

Up until a couple of months ago there was no formal impeachment inquiry. The idea was to do exactly as you propose, let the people decide. This scandal makes it clear that free and fair elections are at risk.

Apparently the Democrats are so concerned they'll lose the election in 2020, they have to resort to impeachment to get rid of Trump.  You'd think they'd trust the electorate to make the decision if he's so bad.  That's what makes the thing seem so political.  They don;t trust the voters. They want a couple of hundred politicians from the opposite party to "coup" him out of office. I guess their experience in 2016 makes them gun shy.  So they've resorted to impeachment now going on three years to beat him.  What a bunch of desperate cowards.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 04:37:46 pm
You don't even know if he will be impeached.  It may be at the end of the day that the House censures the President for obstruction of justice and malfeasance of office as pertains to the Ukraine withholding of  aid.  They will continue the investigations as the various subpoenas are upheld by the courts and various officials are forced to testify or go to jail.  There will be an ample enough record built up by this process for even Elizabeth Warren to run a credible campaign about all the rot in the White House.  You underestimate Speaker Pelosi who is very astute about all this.  The Republican Senators will be campaigned against big time and it's not inconceivable that the Republicans could lose four or more Senate seats next year.  Impeachment is not the end game here.

So you acknowledge its all a Democrat plan to game the system for the elections.  Keep smearing Trump and see if they can win more seats and the presidency as they gained in  the 2018 election.  I agree that's what they're up too.  They're trying to make the vote about TRump as they did in 2018.  After all, the economy and the country is doing pretty good.  What else could they run on?  Biden helping his kid?  Warren false swearing her race? Sanders turning the country Marxist? Buttigieg checking with his husband what he should do? 

The Democrats know the Senate will not convict.  This is all about piling on as they have for the last three years.  The question is whether the voters will be smart enough to figure this all out since the anti_Trump media will keep protecting the Democrats. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 04:43:36 pm
Alan,

You can sling shit with the best of them. Whataboutism works and is a favorite Russian propaganda technique. But the real question, for America, is did Trump (and others) conspire to interfere in the election.

That is what this is about.


So you acknowledge its all a Democrat plan to game the system for the elections.  Keep smearing Trump and see if they can win more seats and the presidency as they gained in  the 2018 election.  I agree that's what they're up too.  They're trying to make the vote about TRump as they did in 2018.  After all, the economy and the country is doing pretty good.  What else could they run on?  Biden helping his kid?  Warren false swearing her race? Sanders turning the country Marxist? Buttigieg checking with his husband what he should do? 

The Democrats know the Senate will not convict.  This is all about piling on as they have for the last three years.  The question is whether the voters will be smart enough to figure this all out since the anti_Trump media will keep protecting the Democrats.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 04:49:41 pm
Alan,

You can sling shit with the best of them. Whataboutism works and is a favorite Russian propaganda technique. But the real question, for America, is did Trump (and others) conspire to interfere in the election.

That is what this is about.


Actually I think there is some Russian blood in me.  Maybe that's my problem?  :)

We must be getting to you already after one day.  Now you're using curse words. And smearing me calling me a Russian apparently because you have no honest and logical response to my point.  That Democrats are gaming the system to smear Trump for the election. 

Getting back to your question, if the Senate finds Trump not guilty, than you'd have to acknowledge he did not conspire to interfere in the election. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 04:51:07 pm
Be careful before you respond. I'm setting you up. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 04:59:34 pm
No. I would have to acknowledge that the Senate did not find him guilty. There is always a chance he did it and went free, or he didn't and was found guilty. To think otherwise is silly.

 
Be careful before you respond. I'm setting you up.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 05:02:47 pm
Alan,

This is just silly. You make this stuff up, putting words in my mouth. Come on, it is no fun to argue if you can't keep it coherent. This stuff is important, it deserves rigor.


Actually I think there is some Russian blood in me.  Maybe that's my problem?  :)

We must be getting to you already after one day.  Now you're using curse words. And smearing me calling me a Russian apparently because you have no honest and logical response to my point.  That Democrats are gaming the system to smear Trump for the election. 

Getting back to your question, if the Senate finds Trump not guilty, than you'd have to acknowledge he did not conspire to interfere in the election.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 04, 2019, 05:18:43 pm

Democracy rests not on some supreme power feeding only truth to the masses, but on the masses' ability to discern what is what. If they can't, they deserve what they got.


Which is precisely why all the shocking lies and disinformation we're seeing in the last few years is so dangerous to democracy.  It's simply intentional muddying of the waters so that discerning "what is what" is much more difficult.  In other words, "Truth Decay" is not accidental, it's intentional.

And that's why it's standard practice for despots, tyrants and dictators.  It works.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 05:21:28 pm
No. I would have to acknowledge that the Senate did not find him guilty. There is always a chance he did it and went free, or he didn't and was found guilty. To think otherwise is silly.

 
The same is true of the Democrat House.  They can find him guilty for political reasons. And the Republican Senate can find him not guilty also for political reasons.  After all, if impeachment is a political act, then everyone can act politically.  Frankly, I don't think that's what the public wants.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 05:22:37 pm
Which is precisely why all the shocking lies and disinformation we're seeing in the last few years is so dangerous to democracy.  It's simply intentional muddying of the waters so that discerning "what is what" is much more difficult.  In other words, "Truth Decay" is not accidental, it's intentional.

And that's why it's standard practice for despots, tyrants and dictators.  It works.



Which is Trump?  A despot, a tyrant or a dictator?  After all, you are trying to smear him.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 05:43:17 pm
He would like to be all of those things.

Ever spend much time around a narcissist? I have.

Which is Trump?  A despot, a tyrant or a dictator?  After all, you are trying to smear him.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 05:51:35 pm
Hallelujah, Peter. That is the truth, people don't realize that democracy worldwide is under an existential threat from disinformation/propaganda.

Which is precisely why all the shocking lies and disinformation we're seeing in the last few years is so dangerous to democracy.  It's simply intentional muddying of the waters so that discerning "what is what" is much more difficult.  In other words, "Truth Decay" is not accidental, it's intentional.

And that's why it's standard practice for despots, tyrants and dictators.  It works.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 05:59:12 pm
Hallelujah, Peter. That is the truth, people don't realize that democracy worldwide is under an existential threat from disinformation/propaganda.

That's true.  Liberal media gives us a constant diet of fake news. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2019, 06:03:37 pm
Which is precisely why all the shocking lies and disinformation we're seeing in the last few years ...

There are no lies and no disinformation outside fake news media. You just have to learn the jargon.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 06:06:45 pm
Alan,

Again, this gets to the heart of our democracy. We can't trust that free and fair elections are being held.

Up until a couple of months ago there was no formal impeachment inquiry. The idea was to do exactly as you propose, let the people decide. This scandal makes it clear that free and fair elections are at risk.



That's the same argument used against Trump for two years.  That he won the election because he conspired (colluded) with the Russians, all proven untrue.  So now you're trying to sell another conspiracy theory.  You know the Martians will be landing any day now. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 06:27:56 pm
Alan,

In my world an argument is only won with the truth. If you lie and stretch and obscure it is just more disinformation. It is a hollow, imaginary victory. Why not argue honorably and enjoy the victories when they come? You are like the marathon runner that takes a shortcut and then pretends victory. It can't feel good.

 

That's the same argument used against Trump for two years.  That he won the election because he conspired (colluded) with the Russians, all proven untrue.  So now you're trying to sell another conspiracy theory.  You know the Martians will be landing any day now.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2019, 06:39:58 pm
... In my world an argument is only won with the truth...

That all sounds cool and lofty, but what exactly is the truth is an increasingly complex issue. Rashomon comes to mind.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 04, 2019, 06:45:54 pm
That all sounds cool and lofty, but what exactly is the truth is an increasingly complex issue. Rashomon comes to mind.
The red herrings and non sequiturs aren't helping.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2019, 06:49:58 pm
The red herrings and non sequiturs aren't helping.

Nor parroting buzz words.

Feel free to argue what makes what I said red herrings or non sequiturs.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 06:52:46 pm
Well Slobodan, that is a classic propaganda technique. Flood someone with so much disinformation that it is too confusing , complicated, and tiring to delve the truth. The idea is to make it as if there is no truth.

Alan uses this flood of disinformation to similar effect. And thus he tries to get away with untruths. For instance the Mueller report clearly says it does not exhonerate Trump, but Alan happily parrots the Fox news line. I hope it is unwittingly.

That all sounds cool and lofty, but what exactly is the truth is an increasingly complex issue. Rashomon comes to mind.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2019, 07:00:52 pm
... For instance the Mueller report clearly says it does not exhonerate Trump...

Which I tried to explain earlier is a pretty meaningless statement on the Mueller's part, as the job of prosecutor is not to exonerate or prove innocence, but to prove guilt. Not being able to prove guilt is an equivalent of exoneration, no matter what Mueller said. Again, it is all pure logic, nothing to do with Fox or Alan.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 07:13:24 pm
Well Slobodan, that is a classic propaganda technique. Flood someone with so much disinformation that it is too confusing , complicated, and tiring to delve the truth. The idea is to make it as if there is no truth.

Alan uses this flood of disinformation to similar effect. And thus he tries to get away with untruths. For instance the Mueller report clearly says it does not exhonerate Trump, but Alan happily parrots the Fox news line. I hope it is unwittingly.

You are being disingenuous or you got your facts mixed up.  You pulled a switcheroo on me.  I was referring to the collusion with the Russians, that there was nt guilt found.  Mueller's comments about not exonerating Trump had to do with obstruction of justice, not collusion. 

I know you've just started here.  And I've answered this point to others.  Why do liberals and anti-Trumpers always feel that conservatives and TRump supporters always get their news and talking points from Fox?  As if we don't know how to think for ourselves?   And where do you get your talking points from?  MSNBC and CNN?

How about if I make you a deal? I won;t accuse you of mimicking MSNBC and CNN if you won;t accuse me of mimicking Fox?  I think you're bright enough to support your views about what you believe without media prejudice.  Please give me and others here the same respect. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 04, 2019, 07:23:59 pm
Please give me and others here the same respect.

Respect has to be earned ...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 08:45:30 pm
You are being disingenuous or you got your facts mixed up.  You pulled a switcheroo on me.  I was referring to the collusion with the Russians, that there was nt guilt found.  Mueller's comments about not exonerating Trump had to do with obstruction of justice, not collusion. 

There was no switcheroo. Your facts are wrong. Muller's comments were about the conspiracy. He was confident in the criminality of the obstruction, he didn't need a hedge for that.

I know you've just started here.  And I've answered this point to others.  Why do liberals and anti-Trumpers always feel that conservatives and TRump supporters always get their news and talking points from Fox?  As if we don't know how to think for ourselves?   And where do you get your talking points from?  MSNBC and CNN?

Trumpers get their news from Fox or other similar propaganda outlets almost inevitably. It is a cult, a diversion from reality, they make you angry, afraid, the victim and only the great Trump can save you. None of the news I take in accuses other outlets of being "fake news", they don't have to.

How many hours a day of Fox do you watch? Or do you listen to Rush? I don't get TV and have only watched/listened about 10-20 hours of anything other than the PBS over the last year. I get my talking points from my values, honor, honesty and compassion. No TV station is going to dictate those to me.

How about if I make you a deal? I won;t accuse you of mimicking MSNBC and CNN if you won;t accuse me of mimicking Fox?  I think you're bright enough to support your views about what you believe without media prejudice.  Please give me and others here the same respect.

You can accuse me of watching those channels, but as I explained above, you would be wrong. I think very few people come to the "values" that Trump represents without a corrupting influence like Fox/Rush/Breitbart. Maybe you are the exception, but I doubt it.

Now that I think about it, I'm sure I have spent just as much time with Fox/Rush as MSNBC/CNN over the last year.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 04, 2019, 08:55:24 pm
There are no lies and no disinformation outside fake news media. You just have to learn the jargon.

Having watched and listened to Trump for the last three years, I would label that comment as preposterous.

Having watched and listened to Trump for the last three years, I would label that comment as preposterous.

With the indulgence of the court, I'll amend my post to say "Beginning with WMD, and having watched and listened to Republicans for the last few years", I would label that comment as indefensible."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 04, 2019, 09:09:13 pm
Anthony Scaramucci predicts that the other Republicans will force Trump to leave office by March 2020.

Quote
Anthony Scaramucci predicts Republican lawmakers will pressure President Trump to leave office by March 2020.
“When you talk to elected Republicans privately they can’t stand the president. They know the president is a lawless person and basically a criminal."

Scaramucci, a political insider who was part of Trump’s finance committee in 2016 and joined the administration for a brief 11-day run as communications director in 2017, says the president’s approval rating keeps falling as the impeachment inquiry uncovers more scandals within the White House. Scaramucci said Republicans can’t ignore the new polls from Fox News and NBC/Wall Street Journal which show a growing number of Americans, 49%, want Trump removed from office. “I predict that’s now going to have to go to 60 and when it’s 60, Republicans are going to have to cut and run.”

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/president-trump-will-be-out-of-office-by-march-2020-says-anthony-scaramucci-210434593.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 04, 2019, 09:09:22 pm
Wow!  True colors finally shown. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 04, 2019, 09:11:23 pm
Anthony Scaramucci predicts that the other Republicans will force Trump to leave office by March 2020.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/president-trump-will-be-out-of-office-by-march-2020-says-anthony-scaramucci-210434593.html

Really, you trust the Mooch?  ???  It amazes me that during his short tenure, he was ridiculed by the media but is now a source of all things Trump by the same media. 

News flash, another so called Trump insider predicted he would resign before an impeachment inquiry started, and here we are. 

The unfortunate matter of the situation is the Dems have no one who can both win the primary and beat Trump.  Biden is the only one polling with a good chance at winning, but he is being destroyed in the primary.  And Warren is totally crazy, cant possibly win in the general, but is rising in the primary.  The Dems have a big mess on there hands. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 04, 2019, 09:48:30 pm
Scaramucci may be aware of some rumblings in the republican circles which don't make it into the official news.

The right democratic candidate is another matter. But if Trump leaves the office in the next six months, there may be also some republican replacement.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 09:52:12 pm
There was no switcheroo. Your facts are wrong. Muller's comments were about the conspiracy. He was confident in the criminality of the obstruction, he didn't need a hedge for that.

Trumpers get their news from Fox or other similar propaganda outlets almost inevitably. It is a cult, a diversion from reality, they make you angry, afraid, the victim and only the great Trump can save you. None of the news I take in accuses other outlets of being "fake news", they don't have to.

How many hours a day of Fox do you watch? Or do you listen to Rush? I don't get TV and have only watched/listened about 10-20 hours of anything other than the PBS over the last year. I get my talking points from my values, honor, honesty and compassion. No TV station is going to dictate those to me.

You can accuse me of watching those channels, but as I explained above, you would be wrong. I think very few people come to the "values" that Trump represents without a corrupting influence like Fox/Rush/Breitbart. Maybe you are the exception, but I doubt it.

Now that I think about it, I'm sure I have spent just as much time with Fox/Rush as MSNBC/CNN over the last year.

OK. You pre-judged me without knowing who I really am.  That's unfortunate.  Now I know who you are. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 09:55:47 pm
Scaramucci may be aware of some rumblings in the republican circles which don't make it into the official news.

The right democratic candidate is another matter. But if Trump leaves the office in the next six months, there may be also some republican replacement.   
Trump's not leaving and the Senate Republicans have to support him.  If they don;t they'll lose both the presidency and the Senate.  No Trump voter will vote for a Republican if they abandon him. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 09:56:36 pm
They'll stay home election eve.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2019, 10:01:45 pm
... Trumpers get their news from Fox or other similar propaganda outlets almost inevitably. It is a cult, a diversion from reality, they make you angry, afraid, the victim and only the great Trump can save you...

After this, there is really no point in engaging in a debate with you.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 04, 2019, 10:02:06 pm
They'll stay home election eve.
That wouldn't be very smart.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on November 04, 2019, 10:02:59 pm
Scaramucci may be aware of some rumblings in the republican circles which don't make it into the official news.
The right democratic candidate is another matter. But if Trump leaves the office in the next six months, there may be also some republican replacement.   

I doubt Scaramucci could find his ass with both hands and a flashlight, much less accurately assess "rumblings."

Here is something that has occurred to me. What if the impeachment proceedings, whatever your attitude toward them, make it appear that Trump will be a sure loser in 2020, even with a weak Democratic candidate. I think that's possible, because, let's face it, Trump is both a psycho and a criminal and I think that's about to be proven. (I say that somewhat tongue in cheek, to provoke, but I also happen to think that it's true -- but I'm not looking at a response to that.) If it looks like Trump is going down, and maybe going down big, why wouldn't the Senate Republicans make a simple calculation -- they find a relatively upstanding candidate (not Pence, who has all the charisma of a tennis shoe) and then go ahead and convict Trump, to clear the way for a conservative candidate who'd almost certainly beat the weak-ass Democrats and preserve the White House and Senate as Republican (and conservative) preserves? Or, better yet, send a delegation to Trump to tell him that he's going down, so he can magnanimously announce that it's time to stop the partisan warfare, and to prove his sincerity, he either resigns or announces that he won't be a candidate in 2020. If he did that, the Senate would acquit, for sure, but the Republicans would get a sane candidate, and Trump could go back to his golf courses and probably being a Fox TV star, which I''m pretty sure he'd like more than he likes being President. Could happen, you think?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 04, 2019, 10:13:23 pm
That was my point, and I think, that's a definite and a very realistic possibility.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 10:20:52 pm
Did I say something wrong?

Sorry, I guess the cult talk is verboten for some reason?

After this, there is really no point in engaging in a debate with you.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 10:24:15 pm
Who are you? Tell me where I am wrong. You started out accusing me of getting talking points from CNN/MSNBC.

Are you the victim now?

OK. You pre-judged me without knowing who I really am.  That's unfortunate.  Now I know who you are.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2019, 10:25:16 pm
... Could happen, you think?

Just after the election, Dems were desperately hoping that the electors would rebel and vote based on their conscience. Didn't happen. Then came Mueller. Hoping for two whole years there will be a smoking gun. Didn't happen. Now they are hoping the impeachment will bring him down. That 20 out of 57 Republican senators are going to vote against Trump. Two Democratic members of the House already voted against impeachment, so chances are that not all Senate Dems or the two independents would vote for it. So, again, ain't gonna happen. But please keep hoping. It keeps you young ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 04, 2019, 10:28:43 pm
After this, there is really no point in engaging in a debate with you.


Awwwww...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 10:42:13 pm
That wouldn't be very smart.
It wouldn't be very smart if Republican Senators throw Trump under the bus. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 10:47:08 pm
I doubt Scaramucci could find his ass with both hands and a flashlight, much less accurately assess "rumblings."

Here is something that has occurred to me. What if the impeachment proceedings, whatever your attitude toward them, make it appear that Trump will be a sure loser in 2020, even with a weak Democratic candidate. I think that's possible, because, let's face it, Trump is both a psycho and a criminal and I think that's about to be proven. (I say that somewhat tongue in cheek, to provoke, but I also happen to think that it's true -- but I'm not looking at a response to that.) If it looks like Trump is going down, and maybe going down big, why wouldn't the Senate Republicans make a simple calculation -- they find a relatively upstanding candidate (not Pence, who has all the charisma of a tennis shoe) and then go ahead and convict Trump, to clear the way for a conservative candidate who'd almost certainly beat the weak-ass Democrats and preserve the White House and Senate as Republican (and conservative) preserves? Or, better yet, send a delegation to Trump to tell him that he's going down, so he can magnanimously announce that it's time to stop the partisan warfare, and to prove his sincerity, he either resigns or announces that he won't be a candidate in 2020. If he did that, the Senate would acquit, for sure, but the Republicans would get a sane candidate, and Trump could go back to his golf courses and probably being a Fox TV star, which I''m pretty sure he'd like more than he likes being President. Could happen, you think?

Trump isn't a Republican or cares about the Republican party.  He'll take them down with him.  He doesn;t surrender. He takes prisoners.  Haven't you learned anything about Trump in three years?  When he faced bankruptcy, he told the banks to give him even more money or they'd go down with him.  So the banks gave him more money and kept their fingers crossed.  Politicians are no different than bankers.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 04, 2019, 10:52:46 pm
Trump isn't a Republican or cares about the Republican party.  He'll take them down with him.  He doesn;t surrender. He takes prisoners.  Haven't you learned anything about Trump in three years?  When he faced bankruptcy, he told the banks to give him even more money or they'd go down with him.  So the banks gave him more money and kept their fingers crossed.  Politicians are no different than bankers.

I think the most disturbing part about him is that people of good conscience like you KNOW he's a con artist, a liar, and an asshole, yet you continue to support him because he's YOUR con artist, liar, and asshole.  That's not right.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 04, 2019, 10:55:16 pm
It wouldn't be very smart if Republican Senators throw Trump under the bus.
It's not so much throwing Trump under the bus as salvaging the situation. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 10:55:29 pm
I think the most disturbing part about him is that people of good conscience like you KNOW he's a con artist, a liar, and an asshole, yet you continue to support him because he's YOUR con artist, liar, and asshole.  That's not right.
Yes.  He may be a bastard president.  But he's our bastard president.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 10:56:50 pm
It's not so much throwing Trump under the bus as salvaging the situation. 
See my reply #1066.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 11:15:34 pm
Yes James, they revel in it. It is so thrilling to finally not be the victim. To have someone stand up for them and their wrongly oppressed brethren.

They are so angry at what has happened to their country. Not ours, theirs. It makes them happy if we don't like it. For we are not real Americans.

I know, sounds friggin crazy. But watch Hannity, Pirro, Carlson, Levin, or ingraham. You will see all those themes/narratives over and over again. And you will see it repeated by their viewers. I fear for our country and others in similar situations.


Yes.  He may be a bastard president.  But he's our bastard president.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 04, 2019, 11:23:18 pm
Yes.  He may be a bastard president.  But he's our bastard president.

That's a very sad rationalization. Some sixty years ago, a similar sanctification was made about another psycho and it didn't end well.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 11:36:30 pm
That's a very sad rationalization. Some sixty years ago, a similar sanctification was made about another psycho and it didn't end well.
You're over assuming my point which I made blunt for impact. Calling him a psycho is just a lot of hyperbole about a guy you don't like. Yes Trump is tough, and looks after number one and his country.    But that's what we need in a president.  The US president is President of America not the world.  His first job is to protect the country not make political points with other two-timing leaders of other countries.   He has to deal with the likes of Xi and Kim, al Baghdadi, and the rest of some of humanity's most unsavory people. It's not a job for the queasy.  He has to know how to give it back not like our previous president who was feckless and wanted the world to love him. and got taken advantage of.  Presidents are not running rectories.  They have to be tough in a tough world.  He's not naive.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2019, 11:42:12 pm
It's not so much throwing Trump under the bus as salvaging the situation. 

What is there to salvage? Economy is great, employment historically low, stock market historically high, illegal immigration down, wages up, ISIS decimated, gas prices low (sorry CA), water and air cleaner than ever, etc. What exactly is there to salvage?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 11:44:59 pm
What is there to salvage? Economy is great, employment historically low, stock market historically high, illegal immigration down, wages up, ISIS decimated, gas prices low (sorry CA), water and air cleaner than ever, etc. What exactly is there to salvage?
+1  The Republicans have to start boosting the good news about America.  The problem is impeachment is sucking all the oxygen out of the room.  This won't end until after the trial in the Senate.  Then everyone can get back to the election and discuss other stuff like the economy.

Maybe.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 04, 2019, 11:46:53 pm
America. They could salvage America.

What is there to salvage? Economy is great, employment historically low, stock market historically high, illegal immigration down, wages up, ISIS decimated, gas prices low (sorry CA), water and air cleaner than ever, etc. What exactly is there to salvage?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 04, 2019, 11:47:40 pm
What is there to salvage? Economy is great, employment historically low, stock market historically high, illegal immigration down, wages up, ISIS decimated, gas prices low (sorry CA), water and air cleaner than ever, etc. What exactly is there to salvage?

Salvaging the impending impeachment situation and sinking Republican chances in the next election.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2019, 11:50:47 pm
Salvaging the impending impeachment situation and sinking Republican chances in the next election.
Les, you didn't read my post. 1088.  The way to salvage it is to circle the wagons and defend Trump against Democrat perfidy. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2019, 11:52:05 pm
....  The problem is impeachment is sucking all the oxygen out of the room....

And how quickly we forgot how the Clintons suicided yet another threat to them and their friends ;)

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 04, 2019, 11:54:39 pm
You're over assuming my point which I made blunt for impact. Calling him a psycho is just a lot of hyperbole about a guy you don't like. Yes Trump is tough, and looks after number one and his country.    But that's what we need in a president.  The US president is President of America not the world.  His first job is to protect the country not make political points with other two-timing leaders of other countries.   He has to deal with the likes of Xi and Kim, al Baghdadi, and the rest of some of humanity's most unsavory people. It's not a job for the queasy.  He has to know how to give it back not like our previous president who was feckless and wanted the world to love him. and got taken advantage of.  Presidents are not running rectories.  They have to be tough in a tough world.  He's not naive.

Actually, sometimes he can be quite cute and amusing. The problem is that he is ill suited to be a president. It's one thing to make quick decisions as unleashing 60 Tomahawks and then one night, as you say throwing the Kurds under the bus, and another thing to govern wisely with a long term view and building alliances instead of creating chaos and divisions.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 05, 2019, 12:01:57 am
Actually, sometimes he can be quite cute and amusing. The problem is that he is ill suited to be a president. It's one thing to make quick decisions as unleashing 60 Tomahawks and then one night, as you say throwing the Kurds under the bus, and another thing to govern wisely with a long term view and building alliances instead of creating chaos and divisions.

Well, than Americans can vote him out of office in the 2020 election if they don;t like what he's doing or his policies.  We don;t fire Presidents midstream in their term in the US.  We're not a parliamentary government.  In any case, the country is doing great under his leadership. You may not like his style. But substance is what counts.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 05, 2019, 12:05:39 am
Just awful. To accuse someone of murder so casually.

 
And how quickly we forgot how the Clintons suicided yet another threat to them and their friends ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 05, 2019, 12:07:26 am
Well, than Americans can vote him out of office in the 2020 election if they don;t like what he's doing or his policies.  We don;t fire Presidents midstream in their term in the US.  We're not a parliamentary government.  In any case, the country is doing great under his leadership. You may not like his style. But substance is what counts.

Here is my clear and final position: I won't vote for Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 05, 2019, 12:18:36 am
Here is my clear and final position: I won't vote for Trump.

Come to Chicago, where the dead vote up to 11 times. Why not live Canadians?  ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 05, 2019, 12:22:10 am
Come to Chicago, where the dead vote up to 11 times. Why not live Canadians?  ;)

Even better idea is to come to Trump's new home state. Just relax and ignore all the fuss about the impeachment and upcoming elections.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 05, 2019, 12:57:50 am
Just awful. To accuse someone of murder so casually.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 05, 2019, 05:19:28 am
Amazingly clear lake. Apparently, the water visibility there can exceed 100 ft. Good for ship wreck diving, but that lake is quite cold. There must be lot of zebra mussels and consequently not many fish.

Quote
“There’s an old Chinese saying, ‘When there is crystal-clear water, there is no fish,’ ” said Yu-Chun Kao, a postdoctoral scientist at Michigan State University.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-lake-michigan-water-clarity-20180126-story.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 05, 2019, 06:44:41 am
Well, than Americans can vote him out of office in the 2020 election if they don;t like what he's doing or his policies.

By that time Iran may have their Nuclear weapons. There is no time to waste.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 05, 2019, 08:43:08 am
Here is my clear and final position: I won't vote for Trump.
Well,  I won't vote for Trudeau.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 05, 2019, 08:45:48 am
By that time Iran may have their Nuclear weapons. There is no time to waste.
you can't vote so you'll just have to keep your fingers crossed. 😎
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 05, 2019, 09:05:15 am
Drudge report shunned for presenting diversified views of impeachment/Trump.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-fans-so-mad-at-matt-drudge-theyre-trying-to-make-a-conservative-alternative-to-his-site?source=articles&via=rss

Conservative propagandists must be all a thither.

"How are we going to "mainline" our narrative into the veins of the true believers if they get a different point of view?"

"We spend all this time covering the dangers of "Fake News" if the followers veer off of our insular network of news. Now they are not even safe if they stay put. We don't want to confuse them."

You think Matt will get this treatment now?

(https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Screen-Shot-2018-08-01-at-8.38.41-AM-e1533127506334.png?w=1600&h=899&strip=all&quality=75)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 05, 2019, 09:44:13 am
Drudge report shunned...

Who is or what is Drudge?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 05, 2019, 09:49:50 am
I see you have already forgotten. Shunning is complete.  ;D

Who is or what is Drudge?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 05, 2019, 10:59:54 am
Another day, another howler, https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/468977-trump-us-ready-to-help-in-cleaning-out-the-monsters-who-killed (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/468977-trump-us-ready-to-help-in-cleaning-out-the-monsters-who-killed).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 05, 2019, 12:32:20 pm
And how quickly we forgot how the Clintons suicided yet another threat to them and their friends ;)

Listen to Amy Robach, ABC News anchor, on Epstein story and how it was suppressed for years.

Quote
It was unbelievable what we had [on] Clinton

She also said she is 100% convinced he did not commit suicide.

https://www.facebook.com/UnbiasedAmerica/videos/2587659368019327/UzpfSTc2NjU5NzIyMjoxMDE1ODIxNzEzMDQyNzIyMw/

Or:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lfwkTsJGYA&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3D-p2DhMcwf7w3Kd3Hiy5SrI3qfMRcVHxggNj5naXIoCcmLbqdsg2y2Dw
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 05, 2019, 01:12:11 pm
The Clintons, again?

But just to stoke the fires a bit more, As I recall, the economy did ok during Clinton's terms. So using the Trump standard, "He was a bastard, but he was our bastard." What's the problem?

;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 05, 2019, 01:14:33 pm
What's the problem?

It's a distraction.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 05, 2019, 02:32:32 pm
I see someone posted about Jeffery Epstein's death being perhaps a homicide.  It's interesting that the news of his passing appeared first on the infamous website, 4chan.  Questions about who might have been responsible if it was a suicide have been the subject of conjecture for some time.  there is one well known associate of Mr. Epstein who had perhaps the most to lose, maybe he is the one who had the hit ordered.  I guess one will have to go to Qanon to really find out the truth.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 05, 2019, 04:04:50 pm
So, those transcripts that were released from the house investigation are going to make the gas lighting from the MAGA crowd look even sillier and more pathetic. Sondland testimony appears to really be something.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 05, 2019, 04:08:02 pm
Poor, pathetic Lindsey:

Lindsey GrahamSC on 9/25:

"If you're looking for a circumstance where Donald Trump was threatening the Ukraine with cutting off aid unless they investigated his political opponent, you'd be very disappointed. That does not exist."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 05, 2019, 04:54:24 pm
Well, than Americans can vote him out of office in the 2020 election if they don;t like what he's doing or his policies.  We don;t fire Presidents midstream in their term in the US.  We're not a parliamentary government.  In any case, the country is doing great under his leadership. You may not like his style. But substance is what counts.

The Americans voted Trump "out" in 2016 by a large margin. The idiotic electoral college system voted him "in."

Country doing great? Please. The economic boom that Trump inherited started in 2010. So now we have the environment being screwed, migrants being put in concentration camps, American citizens being deported, allies being abandoned, the deficit blossoming, incompetent schmucks heading most branches of government, a trade war threatening the world economy, almost the entire GOP becoming sycophantic toadies, a perjuring rapist appointed to the supreme count, science being ignored, white supremacists being supported, daily--nay, hourly--lies from the White House, the military disrespected ……..

And you say the country is doing great?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 05, 2019, 05:11:10 pm
The Americans voted Trump "out" in 2016 by a large margin. The idiotic electoral college system voted him "in."

Country doing great? Please. The economic boom that Trump inherited started in 2010. So now we have the environment being screwed, migrants being put in concentration camps, American citizens being deported, allies being abandoned, the deficit blossoming, incompetent schmucks heading most branches of government, a trade war threatening the world economy, almost the entire GOP becoming sycophantic toadies, a perjuring rapist appointed to the supreme count, science being ignored, white supremacists being supported, daily--nay, hourly--lies from the White House, the military disrespected ……..

And you say the country is doing great?

Well, we know how you feel.  Now don't forget to vote.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 05, 2019, 05:12:01 pm
The Americans voted Trump "out" in 2016 by a large margin. The idiotic electoral college system voted him "in."

Country doing great? Please. The economic boom that Trump inherited started in 2010. So now we have the environment being screwed, migrants being put in concentration camps, American citizens being deported, allies being abandoned, the deficit blossoming, incompetent schmucks heading most branches of government, a trade war threatening the world economy, almost the entire GOP becoming sycophantic toadies, a perjuring rapist appointed to the supreme count, science being ignored, white supremacists being supported, daily--nay, hourly--lies from the White House, the military disrespected ……..

And you say the country is doing great?

Well, Peter, when you put it like that... I am finally converted!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 05, 2019, 05:21:21 pm
Thank you, Mr. President!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 05, 2019, 05:32:19 pm
Slobodan,

Nothing here, in any way, points definitively to Clinton. But you did. There are probably more people who would have a reason to kill Epstein than residents in the town I live in, and it isn't that small. I wouldn't be surprised if there were just as many Republicans as Democrats.

It is an incident made for conspiracy theories, on both sides.

It is a travesty that this guy skated for so long. Anyone involved should be held to account no matter their affiliation or how powerful they are.

Are you really against suppression of the press and stories of criminal behavior, or is it just when you think a Democrat is involved? Cause you seem to be fine with suppression of evidence in a current case we are discussing in this thread.

 
Listen to Amy Robach, ABC News anchor, on Epstein story and how it was suppressed for years.

She also said she is 100% convinced he did not commit suicide.

https://www.facebook.com/UnbiasedAmerica/videos/2587659368019327/UzpfSTc2NjU5NzIyMjoxMDE1ODIxNzEzMDQyNzIyMw/

Or:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lfwkTsJGYA&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3D-p2DhMcwf7w3Kd3Hiy5SrI3qfMRcVHxggNj5naXIoCcmLbqdsg2y2Dw
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 05, 2019, 05:40:49 pm
Did you come in the mid 90's during the big spike?

Thank you, Mr. President!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 05, 2019, 09:28:35 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjiGhE0QYl8

Trump's side guys are starting to share the truth... they must be realizing that those on the wrong side may end up in jail.

Now that even hard core Republican witnesses clearly admit the quid pro quo, are you forum Trump lovers going to claim that a quid pro quo isn’t a violation of the constitution OR that Trump can violate the constitution when he pleases?

The smart one may of course drop their apparently unconditional support as well of course.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 05, 2019, 09:55:38 pm
Thank you, Mr. President!

In a general sense, I'm having a lot of trouble with the idea that denying refugees sanctuary is something to be proud of.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 05, 2019, 10:38:28 pm
His mom had very good manners. She taught Slobodan to always close the door behind him.

In a general sense, I'm having a lot of trouble with the idea that denying refugees sanctuary is something to be proud of.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 05, 2019, 10:42:08 pm
In a general sense, I'm having a lot of trouble with the idea that denying refugees sanctuary is something to be proud of.
The question is who is a political refugee and who is an immigrant?  Wanting to earn money by coming to America is not considered a refugee but rather an economic refugee or economic immigrant.  These people are allowed in legally through a process where one million people come to America.  But sneaking across the border does not make them an legal political refugee.  The courts have to determine if they're an political refugee.  THis seems to be a reasonable way of handling it.  Otherwise, we could have millions of foreigners entering the country every year from around the world for any reason whatsoever.  After all, a lot of people would like to come to America and get its benefits that it offers.  The people have determined that one million is a reasonable amount for now.

PS  I may be using the wrong terms.  But I think you get my point. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 05, 2019, 10:42:53 pm
His mom had very good manners. She taught Slobodan to always close the door behind him.

That's a personal attack.  Just make your point without the smear. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 05, 2019, 11:35:41 pm
His mom had very good manners. She taught Slobodan to always close the door behind him.

Leave my late mother alone, please.

For what it’s worth, I have not come here as a refugee.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 05, 2019, 11:39:01 pm
In a general sense, I'm having a lot of trouble with the idea that denying refugees sanctuary is something to be proud of.

If that prevents more Jihadi Janes reaching the Congress, I am very proud of it. As for the rest, Alan already explained that probably 80-90% of “refugees” are not real refugees at all.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 05, 2019, 11:46:28 pm
In a general sense, I'm having a lot of trouble with the idea that denying refugees sanctuary is something to be proud of.

Speaking of sanctuaries:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/04/montgomery-county-backpedals-sanctuary-policy/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 12:02:16 am
...Now that even hard core Republican witnesses clearly admit the quid pro quo...

Anything but “clearly.” First, he changed his story.. “refreshed” his memory. He didn’t admit anything, other than what he thought. His opinions might be interesting, but they are just that, opinions, not proofs. Even then, what he actually said he conveyed to his Ukrainian counterpart is that the aid might be (note the conditional) linked to corruption issues. Exactly the same phrase Biden used for his demands: “you won’t get aid unless you tackle corruption.” Except Biden was quite specific, not just corruption in general, but firing a prosecutor who investigated the company his son was a bore member of.  The rest of the ambassador’s testimony are simply his conjectures what was meant by “corruption.”
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 12:11:45 am
Anything but “clearly.” First, he changed his story.. “refreshed” his memory. He didn’t admit anything, other than what he thought. His opinions might be interesting, but they are just that, opinions, not proofs. Even then, what he actually said he conveyed to his Ukrainian counterpart is that the aid might be (note the conditional) linked to corruption issues. Exactly the same phrase Biden used for his demands: “you won’t get aid unless you tackle corruption.” Except Biden was quite specific, not just corruption in general, but firing a prosecutor who investigated the company his son was a bore member of.  The rest of the ambassador’s testimony are simply his conjectures what was meant by “corruption.”
Well, once the Democrats finish impeaching Trump, they'll go ahead an impeach Biden too.  Maybe they'll share a cell together?  Then Pence could pardon both of them after he becomes president.  All constitutional, of course.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 06, 2019, 12:15:35 am
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,"

Donald Trump, Sioux City Iowa, January 23, 2016

Anything but “clearly.” First, he changed his story.. “refreshed” his memory. He didn’t admit anything, other than what he thought. His opinions might be interesting, but they are just that, opinions, not proofs. Even then, what he actually said he conveyed to his Ukrainian counterpart is that the aid might be (note the conditional) linked to corruption issues. Exactly the same phrase Biden used for his demands: “you won’t get aid unless you tackle corruption.” Except Biden was quite specific, not just corruption in general, but firing a prosecutor who investigated the company his son was a bore member of.  The rest of the ambassador’s testimony are simply his conjectures what was meant by “corruption.”
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 06, 2019, 12:37:22 am
Anything but “clearly.” First, he changed his story.. “refreshed” his memory. He didn’t admit anything, other than what he thought. His opinions might be interesting, but they are just that, opinions, not proofs. Even then, what he actually said he conveyed to his Ukrainian counterpart is that the aid might be (note the conditional) linked to corruption issues. Exactly the same phrase Biden used for his demands: “you won’t get aid unless you tackle corruption.” Except Biden was quite specific, not just corruption in general, but firing a prosecutor who investigated the company his son was a bore member of.  The rest of the ambassador’s testimony are simply his conjectures what was meant by “corruption.”

Your explanation isn't factual at 2 levels:
1. He completely clearly admitted the Quid Pro Quo and the fact that he lied before about it changes nothing. You may have heard about this thing called time that can't be reversed. What you say after overrules what you said before in the physical world we live in
2. The request to fire the procuror in Ukraine was a joined action from Biden, the world bank and the european union and if Biden did something wrong, he should go to jail for it... but if he had the Republicans would have gone after him a long time ago, not that I care

It's going to be fun watching your arguments in the coming days and weeks, because the extend to which you need to twist the facts to maintain your views on things becomes astonishing Slobodan.

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to just give up on supporting Trump?

I know we've grown in a fanboy mentality and we something thing we need to associate ourselves with brands but really, what has Trump done for you that deserves him your unconditional support? I have just bought a Sony a7rIV as an attempt to demonstrate to you that change can happen! Do I need to add an a9II to convince you? ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 06, 2019, 12:47:38 am
Oh well then, that changes everything.

You are totally not a hypocrite now.  ::)

For what it’s worth, I have not come here as a refugee.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 01:13:18 am
2. The request to fire the procuror in Ukraine was a joined action from Biden, the world bank and the european union...

Can you support that with any citation? That the World Bank and EU specified the person who needs to be fired?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 01:32:04 am
.
... You are totally not a hypocrite now.  ::)

What makes me a hypocrite?

Are you saying that a legal immigrant can not be against illegal immigration, open borders, and fake refugees?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 01:39:19 am
... 1. He completely clearly admitted the Quid Pro Quo...

That is logically impossible. One can admit only things one did. You can not admit for somebody else. Unless you are suggesting the QPQ was the ambassador’s idea? In which case he could indeed admit to it. Everything else is his opinion, interpretation, or conjecture of what was happening.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on November 06, 2019, 02:41:12 am
Jihadi Janes

Says the guy who gets upset when his mom is mentioned.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 06, 2019, 02:42:58 am
That is logically impossible. One can admit only things one did. You can not admit for somebody else. Unless you are suggesting the QPQ was the ambassador’s idea? In which case he could indeed admit to it. Everything else is his opinion, interpretation, or conjecture of what was happening.

He admitted that his previous report was not accurate when he denied that a deal was being made linking the unlocking of the US military aid to Ukraine against a public annoucement about an investigation of the Biden case.

This means that a deal was being made and this deal is called a Quid Pro Quo.

So he did clearly admit that a Quid Pro quo occurred and that he was part of the discussions related to this quid pro quo.

There is absolutely nothing illogical about this, at least according to the logic shared by most people on earth.

If you don't see this as relevant, this means that Trump will have to admit himself he did a Quid Pro Quo for you to acknowledge that there is material for impreachment? How likely is this going to happen?

Do you apply the same logic to all criminal in the US? They are all innocent unless them admit themselves to their guilt?

But wait... Trump did admit in front of cameras that he had requested help from Biden, even if he denied the Quid Pro Quo. That itself was a violation of the constitution right there.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 06, 2019, 02:55:50 am
Can you support that with any citation? That the World Bank and EU specified the person who needs to be fired?

It's all over internet, this is just the first link I found: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-gas-tycoon-and-the-vice-presidents-son-the-story-of-hunter-bidens-foray-in-ukraine/2019/09/28/1aadff70-dfd9-11e9-8fd3-d943b4ed57e0_story.html

But again, this is completely irrelevant to the current Trump impreahcement by-partisan hearings.

Even if Biden did something illegal, which seems highly unlikely considering the context and worldwide consensus on this matter, this is in no way a reason for Trump to by-pass all legal processes and to send his private attorney to pressure a foreign power, and strategic ally of the US, to dig dirt against a political rival against the unlocking of military aid that had been approved and that was key to protect Ukraine against Russia.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 06, 2019, 03:50:07 am
It's all over internet, this is just the first link I found: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-gas-tycoon-and-the-vice-presidents-son-the-story-of-hunter-bidens-foray-in-ukraine/2019/09/28/1aadff70-dfd9-11e9-8fd3-d943b4ed57e0_story.html

But again, this is completely irrelevant to the current Trump impreahcement by-partisan hearings.

Even if Biden did something illegal, which seems highly unlikely considering the context and worldwide consensus on this matter, this is in no way a reason for Trump to by-pass all legal processes and to send his private attorney to pressure a foreign power, and strategic ally of the US, to dig dirt against a political rival against the unlocking of military aid that had been approved and that was key to protect Ukraine against Russia.

Withholding military aid that was approved by Congress also made it a security violation for the USA.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 06, 2019, 04:40:15 am
Withholding military aid that was approved by Congress also made it a security violation for the USA.

Indeed. But it seems that National security is only a concern for Trump's supporters when Democrats are involved... ;)

Whatever Trump does is ok.

This reminds me of the behavior adopted by sect members. This apparently conscious willingness to give up one's own ability to judge in favor of a blind belief in something or someone.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 06, 2019, 04:49:02 am
Have you seen this? From 2:00~

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9yY2E2qFRw

The way he describes democrats is just amazingly funny. I am becoming a fan!

Now, how stupid does he think his base his for him to believe they buy into this crap? This is populism at its lowest ever.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 07:14:16 am
The Democrat Obama administration investigated the Republican Trump election people based on the possibility there was collusion with the Russians.  This was done before and after an election to the opposite party, a major political event. Similarly the Republican Trump administration asked for investigation of Democrat ex-VP Biden and his son on the possibility they violated US law.  This was being done before an election to the opposite party, a major political event.

Administrations can walk and chew gum at the same time.  Just because there is political fallout does not make the investigation any less legal.  That's what Democrats have been claiming about the Trump collusion investigation.  That there appeared to be some nexus of a crime.  So that made the investigation legal regardless of the advantage to Democrats.      Same with the Bidens.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 07:19:32 am
Quid pro quo's with other countries are perfectly legal and done all the time to get them to do things.  For example, Trump could hold back any economic support to Mexico until they commit to really investigating and finding the killers of 9 American Mormons.  That's a quid pro quo.  Perfectly legal. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 06, 2019, 07:45:52 am
Quid pro quo's with other countries are perfectly legal and done all the time to get them to do things.  For example, Trump could hold back any economic support to Mexico until they commit to really investigating and finding the killers of 9 American Mormons.  That's a quid pro quo.  Perfectly legal.

You are part of a very small group of people thinking that way. Most people around you understand that what Trump did is a crystal clear violation of the constitution of the US, the same constitution Trump has sworn to protect when he made an oath as a president.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 06, 2019, 07:54:46 am
You are part of a very small group of people thinking that way. Most people around you understand that what Trump did is a crystal clear violation of the constitution of the US, the same constitution Trump has sworn to protect when he made an oath as a president.

Cheers,
Bernard

Please point to the specific statute. 

I have yet to see any specific law noted that he violated, especially considering aid was not withheld nor was the investigation initiated. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 06, 2019, 07:58:32 am
The Democrat Obama administration investigated the Republican Trump election people based on the possibility there was collusion with the Russians.  This was done before and after an election to the opposite party, a major political event. Similarly the Republican Trump administration asked for investigation of Democrat ex-VP Biden and his son on the possibility they violated US law.  This was being done before an election to the opposite party, a major political event.

This should be easy to clear and since you are honesty made man I am sure you will oblige to the facts and wouldn't want to stay stuck in some fantasy land, right?

- What Trump is being accused of is very specific and is dated July 2019 when he was president of the US. What he did or didn't do before is not relevant,
- This is in no way related to what Democrats did or didn't do before Trump was elected, you can make your life simpler and forget about that,
- Joe Biden is considered by many as one of the main potential opponent to Trump during the next election campaign for presidency. There is therefore zero doubt that he can be looked at as a major political rival
- What Trump did this summer, is that he clearly traded the release of committed defends funds (around 300 millions US$) against a public announcement by the Ukraine gov that the Biden (a political rival of Trump) would be investigated for corruption, which they were not at that point in time, and never were before, and still aren't
- This deal was proposed during a phone call that would have stayed secret had a Whistle blower not raised a flag, as the law of the US mandated him to
- This call followed many other transactions, managed outside the regular legal framework with the complicity of Trump's private counsel, during which pressure on Ukraine had already been applied in various ways to get them to investigate Biden
- This is a clear violation of the constitution and constitutes a text book example of what impeachment was designed for

Administrations can walk and chew gum at the same time.  Just because there is political fallout does not make the investigation any less legal.  That's what Democrats have been claiming about the Trump collusion investigation.  That there appeared to be some nexus of a crime.  So that made the investigation legal regardless of the advantage to Democrats.      Same with the Bidens.

I am not following you here, this isn't very clear. Sorry.

But the bottom line is that what trump did stands on its own and is in now way related to political actions from the Democrats. All they did was to apply the law and the impeachment process defined by Republicans with clear involvement from republicans all along.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 06, 2019, 08:00:35 am
Please point to the specific statute. 

I have yet to see any specific law noted that he violated, especially considering aid was not withheld nor was the investigation initiated.

Joe,

Aid was being withheld at the time, this is the issue. But I am sure you understand that very well. A crime doesn't have to succeed to be a crime.

Trying to kill someone is a crime even if you don't succeed.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 08:20:34 am
The fact is VP Joe Biden apparently used his position to get his son a job for $600,000 in a Ukrainian oil company that has been charged with corrupt practices even though he never worked in the oil field.  Biden used his VP position to also get his son a job in a Chinese company.  These things should be investigated.  What illegal quid pro quos were agreed too to get his son the jobs?  What emolument laws have been violated? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 06, 2019, 08:23:20 am
The fact is VP Joe Biden apparently used his position to get his son a job for $600,000 in a Ukrainian oil company that has been charged with corrupt practices even though he never worked in the oil field.  Biden used his VP position to also get his son a job in a Chinese company.  These things should be investigated.  What illegal quid pro quos were agreed too to get his son the jobs?  What emolument laws have been violated?

This is totally unrelated to the deeds of Trump.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 08:24:23 am
This is totally unrelated to the deeds of Trump.

Cheers,
Bernard

????
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 08:28:12 am
Apparently it's only proper for Democrats to investigate Republicans for violating US laws.  Republicans are not allowed to investigate Democrats for breaking similar US laws.  The Republicans don't know how to fight dirty like the Democrats.  What a bunch of sad sacks.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 06, 2019, 08:31:43 am
The fact is VP Joe Biden apparently used his position to get his son a job for $600,000 in a Ukrainian oil company that has been charged with corrupt practices even though he never worked in the oil field.  Biden used his VP position to also get his son a job in a Chinese company.  These things should be investigated.  What illegal quid pro quos were agreed too to get his son the jobs?  What emolument laws have been violated?
There is no truth to what you have written other than maybe FOX news or some Internet source.  Hunter Biden was also appointed to the Amtrak Board of Directors by President GW Bush so maybe he is also complicit here.  The fact is that relatives of politicians always are picked for a variety of jobs that they might not otherwise be qualified for.  I used to own Wells Fargo stock and Elaine Chao, Mrs. Mitch MicConnell, was on the Board for a number of years.  She had absolutely no background in the banking industry, something one might think would be necessary for an outside director.  Needless to say I always voted against her each proxy season.  Maybe we should be investigating this as well.

If you cannot document statements, don't bother posting them.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 08:32:25 am
Says the guy who gets upset when his mom is mentioned.

Because it is personal.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 06, 2019, 08:32:46 am
Apparently it's only proper for Democrats to investigate Republicans for violating US laws.  Republicans are not allowed to investigate Democrats for breaking similar US laws.  The Republicans don't know how to fight dirty like the Democrats.  What a bunch of sad sacks.
Benghazi????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 08:35:15 am
.. This means that a deal was being made and this deal is called a Quid Pro Quo...

What deal? The aid was delivered and no investigation of the Bidens happened.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 08:39:19 am
There is no truth to what you have written other than maybe FOX news or some Internet source.  Hunter Biden was also appointed to the Amtrak Board of Directors by President GW Bush so maybe he is also complicit here.  The fact is that relatives of politicians always are picked for a variety of jobs that they might not otherwise be qualified for.  I used to own Wells Fargo stock and Elaine Chao, Mrs. Mitch MicConnell, was on the Board for a number of years.  She had absolutely no background in the banking industry, something one might think would be necessary for an outside director.  Needless to say I always voted against her each proxy season.  Maybe we should be investigating this as well.

If you cannot document statements, don't bother posting them.
You accuse the president of violating emolument clauses because foreign leaders check in to his hotels and pay for rooms there.  Like he should sell his property because he's president and fire his children as well because they make money off of his hotels while he's president.   You want to impeach him just for these things.  Major news stories for three years still going on.  Yet, when Democrats do similar stuff, well nothing to see.  Just move on.  It doesn't matter that Biden used his position to get his son a job in a corrupt corporation in Ukraine.  What's good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 08:42:56 am
Benghazi????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Well, every republican should be saying that Joe Biden used his Vice Presidential position to get his son a job in the Ukraine and should be investigated.  Where are they?  Maybe they are saying it.  It's just that the anti trump media is not reporting their statements. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 08:44:57 am
What deal? The aid was delivered and no investigation of the Bidens happened.
But they should have been investigated.  They're crooks.  Trump should have followed through. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 06, 2019, 08:47:17 am
You accuse the president of violating emolument clauses because foreign leaders check in to his hotels and pay for rooms there.  Like he should sell his property because he's president and fire his children as well because they make money off of his hotels while he's president.   You want to impeach him just for these things.  Major news stories for three years still going on.  Yet, when Democrats do similar stuff, well nothing to see.  Just move on.  It doesn't matter that Biden used his position to get his son a job in a corrupt corporation in Ukraine.  What's good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander.
I didn't accuse the President of violating the emolument clause at all.  There are some ongoing court cases about that but I'm personally not involved.  I don't have the power to imipeach the President on anything.  In fact, I'm pretty much in agreement with Conservative WaPo columnist Marc Thiessen that a better approach is to censure President Trump:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/05/why-dont-democrats-drop-impeachment-just-censure-trump/ .  this will be a very awkward moment for Republicans in both the House and Senate as they would be forced to take a vote that the President clearly was engaged in wrong doing.

Please stop saying things that are patently untrue. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on November 06, 2019, 08:56:18 am
But they should have been investigated.  They're crooks.  Trump should have followed through.

This is banana-talk.

I thought you were so proud of the US constitution...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 08:56:44 am
I didn't accuse the President of violating the emolument clause at all. There are some ongoing court cases about that but I'm personally not involved.  I don't have the power to imipeach the President on anything. In fact, I'm pretty much in agreement with Conservative WaPo columnist Marc Thiessen that a better approach is to censure President Trump:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/05/why-dont-democrats-drop-impeachment-just-censure-trump/ .  this will be a very awkward moment for Republicans in both the House and Senate as they would be forced to take a vote that the President clearly was engaged in wrong doing.

Please stop saying things that are patently untrue. 

I know.  Your hands are clean.  So how about asking your Democrat friends why they are complaining about Trump and emoluments and his kids?  I don't buy your sudden fake innocence.  You've supported these Democrat charges all along.   To argue now that you're "not personally involved" or you "can't personally impeach the president" is just a weird argument.    Is that the best you can do? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 09:00:07 am
This is banana-talk.

I thought you were so proud of the US constitution...

Apparently Democrats are doing "banana" talk.  They've been calling for Trump's impeachment for helping his kids get rich due to his position as president.  Maybe you've forgotten.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 09:04:29 am
It's all over internet, this is just the first link I found: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-gas-tycoon-and-the-vice-presidents-son-the-story-of-hunter-bidens-foray-in-ukraine/2019/09/28/1aadff70-dfd9-11e9-8fd3-d943b4ed57e0_story.html...

I asked you to support with a citation your claim that the World Bank and EU wanted one specific person fired. Instead, you sent me to read a lengthy news item. Fine, I read it. The only thing I could find there is the exact repetition of your claim (or were you repeating their claim?), without providing any proof. And who stated such a claim in the article? Not the WaPo reporter, but, wait... the Biden campaign itself!? Wow!

Quote
“Joe Biden proudly fought for reform in Ukraine and his achievement of a goal the U.S., EU, IMF, and entire Ukrainian anti-corruption community all strongly supported was a profound victory for good government there,” Andrew Bates, a spokesman for the Biden campaign, said in a statement. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 06, 2019, 09:10:03 am
Joe,

Aid was being withheld at the time, this is the issue. But I am sure you understand that very well. A crime doesn't have to succeed to be a crime.

Trying to kill someone is a crime even if you don't succeed.

Cheers,
Bernard

Aid was delayed, at most, and the investigation was not started.  Have fun trying to convict and get Warren elected. 

FYI, your example is a false equivalence and a red herring.  There are attempted murder statutes in every state, which you can point to.  But here? 

So once again, please point to the statute he violated. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 09:17:16 am
Unfortunately, what goes around will come around.  Maybe this is just Democrats getting even for what happened to Clinton and his impeachment.  But there's going to be a time when republicans run the House again with a Democrat president.  Then we're going to go through the same thing again, and we shouldn't.  It's bad for the country to make political fights into impeachment wars. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 06, 2019, 09:17:57 am
What makes me a hypocrite?

I don't know, maybe your upbringing. Or your life experiences. Or it could be Fox news. The other interesting bit to explore would be genetics, I think that may play a part. We could explore this if you like.

Are you saying that a legal immigrant can not be against illegal immigration, open borders, and fake refugees?

This would be a much better argument if your chart was entitled "Fake Refugees".
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 09:20:42 am
Please point to the specific statute. 

I have yet to see any specific law noted that he violated...

+1

They keep squealing about “violating the constitution,” without actually stating which part. Even a collusion with a foreign power is not a crime, although it might be politically unpleasant. And they couldn’t even prove that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 06, 2019, 09:21:42 am
No, they asked for a public announcement of an investigation. It is much less clear if they actually wanted it to occur.

Similarly the Republican Trump administration asked for investigation of Democrat ex-VP Biden and his son on the possibility they violated US law.  This was being done before an election to the opposite party, a major political event.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 09:22:45 am
I don't know, maybe your upbringing. Or your life experiences. Or it could be Fox news. The other interesting bit to explore would be genetics, I think that may play a part. We could explore this if you like.

This would be a much better argument if your chart was entitled "Fake Refugees".
Wow.  It didn't take you long to get nasty and resort to personal attacks.  What's with you?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 09:28:33 am
No, they asked for a public announcement of an investigation. It is much less clear if they actually wanted it to occur.

I shocked, simply shocked to hear that a politician may have been playing politics.  Even if it was 100% political, we don't impeach presidents for doing political things.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 09:29:16 am
I don't know, maybe your upbringing. Or your life experiences. Or it could be Fox news. The other interesting bit to explore would be genetics, I think that may play a part. We could explore this if you like...

Once again, you are making this personal. My question (“what makes me a hypocrite”) has only one meaning in a civilized discussion, i.e., what = which part of what I said would make that statement hypocritical. Instead, you decided to turn it into a smarty-pants joke about my mother, upbringing, or genetics.

You are new to the forum. It would behoove you to understand its rules: no personal attacks.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 06, 2019, 09:32:59 am
Please point to the specific statute. 

I have yet to see any specific law noted that he violated . . .

The one most-frequently cited with respect to the transcript of the phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president that was released by the White House is 52 USC §30121 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121): "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit, accept, or receive [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."

However, no statutory violation is constitutionally required to support impeachment and removal from office.

Quote
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
— Article II, §4

Obviously, at the time the constitution was drafted, there were no federal statutes.  Treason was explictly and very narrowly defined in the constitution itself (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii).  The term bribery, as used in the impeachment clause, was the common law crime of bribery, although Congress subsequently has enacted explicit federal bribery statutes, e.g., 18 USC §201 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201).

High crimes and misdemeanors is also a common law term, one of the oldest (used in impeachments since the 14th Century), and might best be summarized as "abuse of power."  It refers to a corrupt act that is inconsistent with an office-holder's responsibilities.  It may or may not involve violation of a statute and every violation of a statute is not necessarily a high crime or misdemeanor.  It's all but certain that the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" will be a subject of debate in the House of Representatives over whether to impeach Trump and, should it do so, in the Senate over whether to remove him from office.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ah693973 on November 06, 2019, 09:46:41 am
What is the purpose of these arguments Slobodan and Alan?

Are you trying to convince others of Trump's goodness/worth? That would be much easier if you consistently put forth logical, fact based arguments. I think this crowd is smart enough to be swayed by logical fallacies.

It is as if we are in a Monty Python skit. "Oh there, I cut your arm off, I win." "No you didn't." But you are not being humorous (on purpose).

People vehemently, and passionately argue the world is not round, but that doesn't make them right. I find this kind of stubbornness in the face of truth fascinating.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on November 06, 2019, 09:47:47 am
I don't know, maybe your upbringing. Or your life experiences. Or it could be Fox news. The other interesting bit to explore would be genetics, I think that may play a part. We could explore this if you like.

This would be a much better argument if your chart was entitled "Fake Refugees".

Even absent your earlier comments about Slobodan's mother, this post is beyond anything which might be considered acceptable. Combined with them, it is wholly intolerable. Take a week to reflect on what might be considered within the bounds of permissible argument.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on November 06, 2019, 09:48:26 am
Because it is personal.

But not more offensive than your habitual racism.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 09:49:49 am
Chris, the above is all correct, of course, as I also noted in a previous post. I am not arguing that a specific statute needs to be criminally broken for impeachment. Just that impeachment, by design, is a political process where “high crimes and misdemeanors” are open to political, rather than judicial, interpretation.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on November 06, 2019, 09:51:29 am
But not more offensive than your habitual racism.

This is a personal attack which, as I have made clear, I will not tolerate. Begone for a week (at least).

Jeremy

[edit: to include the action I have taken]
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 09:53:27 am
But not more offensive than your habitual racism.

Oh, dear Lord!  :o
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on November 06, 2019, 10:01:52 am
I'll save you the trouble, Jeremy, I'm done here, and unlike Alan I actually mean what I say. If Josh wants another alt-right echo chamber then he can go for it -  it's not for me to stand in his way.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 10:05:34 am
I'll save you the trouble, Jeremy, I'm done here, and unlike Alan I actually mean what I say. If Josh wants another alt-right echo chamber then he can go for it -  it's not for me to stand in his way.

So far, those you call “alt-right” are outnumbered by the “alt-left” (to adopt your nomenclature). Hardly an echo chamber.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 10:15:02 am
The one most-frequently cited with respect to the transcript of the phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president that was released by the White House is 52 USC §30121 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121): "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit, accept, or receive [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."

However, no statutory violation is constitutionally required to support impeachment and removal from office.

Obviously, at the time the constitution was drafted, there were no federal statutes.  Treason was explictly and very narrowly defined in the constitution itself (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii).  The term bribery, as used in the impeachment clause, was the common law crime of bribery, although Congress subsequently has enacted explicit federal bribery statutes, e.g., 18 USC §201 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201).

High crimes and misdemeanors is also a common law term, one of the oldest (used in impeachments since the 14th Century), and might best be summarized as "abuse of power."  It refers to a corrupt act that is inconsistent with an office-holder's responsibilities.  It may or may not involve violation of a statute and every violation of a statute is not necessarily a high crime or misdemeanor.  It's all but certain that the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" will be a subject of debate in the House of Representatives over whether to impeach Trump and, should it do so, in the Senate over whether to remove him from office.
Chris, The argument that it's just a political act is a argument made recently for convenience by Democrats.  The fact is there isn't much of a crime.  So the Democrat's are lowering the bar.   They couldn't prove collusion; Mueller saw to that.  Obstruction fizzled away because again, Mueller wouldn't play ball when he testified in Congress.  And paying off bimbos and declaring it a violation of campaign finance law seemed too unseemly for impeachment and too much like what President Clinton did to go that route.  So now they lowered the bar willing to even sacrifice Joe Biden's run to get Trump.  It's become a gutter fight.

The founders did not want impeachment to be a political act to get rid of presidents.  They wanted elections to determine this short of an actual crime.  To argue that Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors have no nexus to a crime would mean we don't understand what these terms mean.  You can't just brush it off saying congress can use any meaning they want to impeach.  The people won't stand for it.  When impeachment and conviction votes follow the party lines by every member, then it's a political act.  Trying to dress it up by call a no-crime a crime, just is wrong.  It's especially unacceptable to the people who voted for Trump.  It's an attempt to negate their vote by extra-legal means, call it what you want. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 06, 2019, 10:20:05 am
I am not arguing that a specific statute needs to be criminally broken for impeachment. Just that impeachment, by design, is a political process where “high crimes and misdemeanors” are open to political, rather than judicial, interpretation.

Correct: there is almost no role for the federal courts in an impeachment except to adjudicate claims of privilege as defenses to Congressional demands for evidence and, when necessary, use their contempt power to enforce lawful Congressional subpoenas.

The members of the House of Representatives theoretically are required to adhere to common law and constitutional precedent in framing articles of impeachment, although there is no enforcement mechanism.  The Senate has rules that mandate the procedures for the trial of an impeachment.  The Chief Justice of the United States presides when the president is impeached (instead of the vice president, the Senate's usual presiding officer, who becomes president if the president is removed from office); he decides procedural arguments, but he can be overruled by a majority of the senators.  As Chief Justice William Rehnquist famously said during the impeachment trial of President Clinton, "[t]he Senate is not simply a jury, it is a court in this case."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 10:28:23 am
The People are the final court.  If Congress makes a mockery of the impeachment process by making it about politics, they will be rewarded with defeat in the next election as Republicans found out with Clinton. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 06, 2019, 10:48:14 am
The founders did not want impeachment to be a political act to get rid of presidents.  They wanted elections to determine this short of an actual crime.

If you're interested in learning what the authors of the constitution actually intended—impeachment was one of the more extensively-considered issues, by the way—I would encourage you to read James Madison's* notes (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp) on the debates of the constitutional convention.  They offer what amounts to an opportunity to eavesdrop on the representatives to the convention in real-time as they construct a system of government.  Madison's journal is arguably the single most important document in U.S. constitutional history: an indispensable source for any serious study of the U.S. federal system.

―――
*For those unfamiliar with Madison, he served as one of the Virginia delegates to the 1787 convention, was a principal drafter of the constitution that ultimately was adopted, and in 1808 was elected fourth president of the United States.  (Edited to correct Madison's place in the presidential sequence.)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 06, 2019, 11:18:17 am
Speaking of sanctuaries:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/04/montgomery-county-backpedals-sanctuary-policy/

The Daily Caller? Shown to be extremely right-wing biased and often factually wrong. If they wrote that the sky was blue I'd go outside to check. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 11:18:42 am
He wasn't impeached was he? 😏
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 11:21:24 am
If you're interested in learning what the authors of the constitution actually intended—impeachment was one of the more extensively-considered issues, by the way—I would encourage you to read James Madison's* notes (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp) on the debates of the constitutional convention.  They offer what amounts to an opportunity to eavesdrop on the representatives to the convention in real-time as they construct a system of government.  Madison's journal is arguably the single most important document in U.S. constitutional history: an indispensable source for any serious study of the U.S. federal system.

―――
*For those unfamiliar with Madison, he served as one of the Virginia delegates to the 1787 convention, was a principal drafter of the constitution that ultimately was adopted, and in 1808 was elected third president of the United States.
Chris I be interested in Reading with Madison had to say about impeachment. Do you know what dates he made his notes?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 11:29:07 am
The Daily Caller? Shown to be extremely right-wing biased and often factually wrong. If they wrote that the sky was blue I'd go outside to check. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/

So, just because something is reported in the press you dislike, it didn't happen!? The thing is, the left media doesn't want to report stories like this, as it hurts their narrative.

But I found the same story at ABC. Reputable enough for you?

https://wjla.com/news/local/montgomery-county-reverses-policy-banning-ice-jail
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump (Off-Topic: Impeachorabilia)
Post by: Chris Kern on November 06, 2019, 12:18:17 pm
Last weekend, I exhumed some memorabilia from my experience as a young news reporter covering the Watergate investigations and the impeachment of President Nixon.

The first attachment is the cover page from a two-volume set of source materials on the practice of impeachment compiled by the staff of the judiciary committee of the House of Representatives.  The second is the cover page from a book of transcripts of recorded presidential conversations which President Nixon submitted to the judiciary committee.  (These turned out to be heavily ... ahh ... curated by the White House staff.  Several critical transcripts—the ones that ultimately led to Nixon's resignation after senior Republicans such as Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona warned the president that he might well be removed from office—were made available by the White House after a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court a few months later which rejected Nixon's claim that they were protected by "executive privilege.")

Alas, these documents are now somewhat faded with age, like their owner.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 06, 2019, 12:30:55 pm
Chris I be interested in Reading with Madison had to say about impeachment. Do you know what dates he made his notes?

They were written concurrently with the 1787 debate over of the Constitution, and are among the oddly few thorough contemporary notes.  As Chris said, they are among the very best writings to learn about the drafters’ viewpoints (even though the Federalist Papers get all the glory ;). )
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on November 06, 2019, 12:36:12 pm
The People are the final court.  If Congress makes a mockery of the impeachment process by making it about politics, they will be rewarded with defeat in the next election as Republicans found out with Clinton.
Is that where the 2nd Amendment kicks in?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 12:45:07 pm
Is that where the 2nd Amendment kicks in?

Yeah, that's funny, but we actually have in mind people in the voting booth.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on November 06, 2019, 12:46:40 pm
<snip>
*For those unfamiliar with Madison, he served as one of the Virginia delegates to the 1787 convention, was a principal drafter of the constitution that ultimately was adopted, and in 1808 was elected third president of the United States.

Fourth. (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe...)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 12:48:30 pm
Is that where the 2nd Amendment kicks in?
You misread what I said.   It must be the language barrier.  I think you ought to read it three or four more times until you comprehend it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 12:50:02 pm
Fourth. (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe...)

That sounds like a street map in Chicago, around the Millennial* park ;)

* on a side note, how did the worst generation in history get its own park!? ;) Ooops, my bad, it is actually Millennium Park ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 06, 2019, 12:54:42 pm
Fourth. (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe...)

Yes.  Thanks.  Corrected.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 06, 2019, 04:33:54 pm
I know.  Your hands are clean.  So how about asking your Democrat friends why they are complaining about Trump and emoluments and his kids?  I don't buy your sudden fake innocence.  You've supported these Democrat charges all along.   To argue now that you're "not personally involved" or you "can't personally impeach the president" is just a weird argument.    Is that the best you can do?
Let me spell this out clearly for you so you might accuse me of things justifiably.  Is Trump benefiting financially from being President?  I don't know the full answer but look at his golf outings to Trump properties and his regular trips to Mar-A-Lago.  I'm sure that the Secret Service and other agencies that service the President get billed for all this.  We don't know whether they get billed at cost or cost +.  I could care less about the Trump Hotel here in DC.  Sure there are people staying there who think they are currying favor with the President.  That's chump change for me.  What is curious was the decision not to move the FBI building after all the years and RFPs for a new location that would bring them all under one roof.  The current property is in prime downtown DC location and ideally suited for a large hotel.  Did the fact that it is only a couple blocks from the Trump Hotel influence this decision, one doesn't know.

I don't care what his kids do (other than the phony piousness of Jared and Ivanka who had to search for a Rabbi who would let them attend the Inaugural ball on a Friday night; hypocrisy is not a crime.  It is curious however that after this, China issued a number of copyrights and trademarks to Ivanka but of course that may just be coincidence).  I do believe that there is something more to the Trump/Giuliani nexus than we currently know.  Further investigations are warranted.  The American people did not elect Giuliani to any position in this government.  He has not been confirmed by the Senate, nor has he taken any oath to the Constitution that foreign service officers and diplomats must do.  Yet...................he is somehow involved in this Ukraine mess.  Maybe one of the two associates who is planning to testify will unlock some of this.  I do think that Trump has not drained the swamp as he promised (that was something I was really looking forward to).  His cabinet appointees have been lack luster and in some cases have lied to Congress and falsified business expenses at a cost to we taxpayers.  I dislike the President because he has not released his tax forms as have others, because he is directing all those in his administration not to cooperate with Congress, because he is spending too much time at campaign rallies and playing golf and not running the country, because he did not eliminate the carried interest provision in the tax law that further enriches private equity companies, and because he repeatedly lies about almost everything.   You get the gist here and I could go on with a lot of other examples.

Finally, lest you or others on this thread accuse me of socialistic tendencies be advised that AOC is not my Congresswoman.  I also do not support Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren who are all either too old or too misguided in terms of policy issues.  I have made a contribution to a Democratic campaign and it's obvious that it is not the aforementioned three.  I am not a big fan of Impeachment but I am a huge supporter of knowing the truth which I think is something every American should want.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 04:51:59 pm
Then you should be just as anxious to know what Biden and his son were up to as well.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 05:06:35 pm
Then you should be just as anxious to know what Biden and his son were up to as well.

One point: if it is true what Bided said that he learned about son's involvement only from the media, something is seriously wrong with our intelligence services.

On a less serious note, if only he asked the Russians about his son's whereabouts, he would have been much better informed ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 06, 2019, 05:22:42 pm
Then you should be just as anxious to know what Biden and his son were up to as well.
They are irrelevant to the present situation.  We already know.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 06, 2019, 05:23:18 pm
One point: if it is true what Bided said that he learned about son's involvement only form the media, something is seriously wrong with our intelligence services.

On a less serious note, if only he asked the Russians about his son's whereabouts, he would have been much better informed ;)

Not to mention, he is one seriously apathetic father. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 05:42:10 pm
They are irrelevant to the present situation.  We already know.
But if Biden's son got a $600,000 no show job so some Ukrainian corporation could buy access and protection through the Vice President, then that would be illegal and requiring an investigation, something that Trump called for.  You do agree that the Vice President is not above the law, don't you?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 06:33:58 pm
Quid pro so  ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 06, 2019, 08:18:23 pm
But if Biden's son got a $600,000 no show job so some Ukrainian corporation could buy access and protection through the Vice President, then that would be illegal and requiring an investigation, something that Trump called for.  You do agree that the Vice President is not above the law, don't you?

Wait.. what? 

So now the allegation is that the Joe Biden and this Ukrainian company cooked up a deal where they hired Hunter Biden as a consultant in exchange for Joe Biden engineering the removal of a Ukrainian domestic official in order to protect the Ukrainian company?   And this conclusion is based wholly on the facts that a) Hunter Biden was a well-paid consultant for the company; and b) the international community wanted the official in question removed due to a widespread perception that he was *ineffective* in combatting corruption? 

Have I got that right? And the further tie in is that it was actually Ukraine that hacked DNC servers? And they still have a missing server that includes Hillary's emails, and this was all a set up to make Trump look bad from the get-go, and frame Russia and Trump for colluding during the last election?

This is (almost literally) insane.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 06, 2019, 08:21:12 pm
Quid pro so  ;D

That's kinda clever.

But it's right in line with how this stuff typically goes with Trump.

1) Never happened.. Fake news.
2) Ok, so it happened, but you've got the whole story wrong.   
3) OK, you're right, but when the president does it, it's not illegal, or at least, we don't care of it is..  What are ya gonna do about it?

(It's this last part that drives most ethical people nuts.)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 08:42:49 pm
... and b) the international community wanted the official in question removed due to a widespread perception that he was *ineffective* in combatting corruption? ...

Again, can you provide a single source for that claim?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 08:44:53 pm
... (It's this last part that drives most ethical people nuts.)

Who cares about ethical people? They don’t go into politics anyway.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 09:01:22 pm
Wait.. what? 

So now the allegation is that the Joe Biden and this Ukrainian company cooked up a deal where they hired Hunter Biden as a consultant in exchange for Joe Biden engineering the removal of a Ukrainian domestic official in order to protect the Ukrainian company?   And this conclusion is based wholly on the facts that a) Hunter Biden was a well-paid consultant for the company; and b) the international community wanted the official in question removed due to a widespread perception that he was *ineffective* in combatting corruption? 

Have I got that right? And the further tie in is that it was actually Ukraine that hacked DNC servers? And they still have a missing server that includes Hillary's emails, and this was all a set up to make Trump look bad from the get-go, and frame Russia and Trump for colluding during the last election?

This is (almost literally) insane.


So why did VP Biden's son get a $600,000 no show job in a Ukrainian oil company never having worked a day in his life in the oil industry?

You're right.   It is insane.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 06, 2019, 09:30:19 pm
Again, can you provide a single source for that claim?

Here's a contemporary piece of reporting from Ireland (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-hails-sacking-of-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190) from before Trump was even elected.   Is this satisfactory?   

While we're providing certifications, you asked last week for any evidence that Republicans were any part  of the closed House hearings.  Some of those transcripts (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-democrats-release-volker-and-sondland-transcripts) were release over the last day or two, showing questioning from the appropriate Republicans (i.e. the ones that are part of the relevant committees).  Can we dispense with that doubt as well, now?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 06, 2019, 09:42:25 pm
So why did VP Biden's son get a $600,000 no show job in a Ukrainian oil company never having worked a day in his life in the oil industry?

Because he's connected.  Do you think that's unusual or illegal?  And are you under the impression that a 600K contract is unusual for serious lobbying efforts?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 06, 2019, 10:01:17 pm
As written millions of times already, whatever Biden may have done or not done is completely irrelevant to the on-going discussion about Trump’s impreachment.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 10:07:20 pm
... Here's a contemporary piece of reporting from Ireland[/url] from before Trump was even elected.   Is this satisfactory?

Thanks for the link, James. It is somewhat satisfactory. It is after the fact, what I wanted to see are requests before he was fired by the US.

Here is what bothers me. The prosecutor claimed he was sacked for investigating Burisma. The Biden team says it  is nonsense, as Burisma wasn’t under investigation at the time and that the prosecutor is fired precisely because he wasn’t active enough in investigating major players, among which is surely Burisma. In other words, Biden wanted Burisma investigated, in spite of the fact it would hurt his son’s cushy position. Quite commendable. If true, of course. So, here is what bothers me: if the Biden’s version is true, why was the investigation into Burisma dropped and never reopened under the new prosecutor? Isn’t that what all is supposed to be about? More active, not less active, investigation into corruption?

My interpretation is that no sane new prosecutor would dare to go against a company where a US Vice President’s son is sitting on the board. Especially not after witnessing the power the father just demonstrated in getting rid of the previous prosecutor.

Biden had two options before firing the prosecutor: 1) ask his son to step down 2) recuse himself. He did neither.

So what was the ultimate results of the whole Biden’s anti-corruption crusade? Prosecutor fired, but the main actor in the corruption game, Burisma, walked out scot-free. Much a do about nothing. Were there any other dramatic anti-corruption consequences after the firing? Or it was business as usual in the good old Ukraine?   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 10:14:14 pm
As written millions of times already, whatever Biden may have done or not done is completely irrelevant to the on-going discussion about Trump’s impreachment.

Trump is under impeachment for wanting to know more what happened in Ukraine with the Bidens. How is then what happened in Ukraine irrelevant!? It is the very nexus of the impeachment.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 06, 2019, 10:19:55 pm
Trump is under impeachment for wanting to know more what happened in Ukraine with the Bidens. How is then what happened in Ukraine irrelevant!? It is the very nexus of the impeachment.

I don't see how. Regardless of whether Biden is Al Capone or Mother Theresa, it is irrelevant to the current discussion. What's under discussion are the methods that Trump tried to use to bury a political opponent.

If Biden is Al Capone, that's a separate issue. Feel free to go after him.

You're just trying to obscure things.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 10:26:19 pm
Because he's connected.  Do you think that's unusual or illegal?  And are you under the impression that a 600K contract is unusual for serious lobbying efforts?

He is connected? A guy with serious alcohol problems, screwing his dead brother’s wife, with no other accomplishments in life, no experience or connections in Ukraine or oil industry. What connections? Who is he going to seriously lobby? Except his daddy, of course.

No, it is not unusual or illegal, but everybody understands why it is done. Nobody is blaming the son in this saga. He is just a garden variety douche. The real culprit is Biden for not recusing himself.

And 600K is an unusually high amount for such a role. However, for Burisma, it was the best investment they ever made.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 10:37:55 pm
Because he's connected.  Do you think that's unusual or illegal?  And are you under the impression that a 600K contract is unusual for serious lobbying efforts?
He wasn't paid as a lobbyist but as a member of the board of directors.  It was his nexus to his father VP Biden that got him the job.  What promises were made.  Biden's son also got a deal from a CHinese guy who was later arrested by the Chinese government for corruption. Biden's son was given a 2.8 carat diamond as payment.  He said he gave it away.  VP Joe Biden was present and mer with officials from the Ukraine and CHinese corporation along with his son,   Who promised what?  Certainly worthy of an investigation.  After all, you accused Trump of collusion for two years without any proof.  Certainly Democrats should get the same treatment.  That would only be fair.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 10:39:38 pm
... the methods that Trump tried to use to bury a political opponent....

There is a difference between a fishing expedition of trying to find unknown dirt on a political opponent and trying to investigate an existing and public event. The former is what DNC and Hillary did by hiring a foreign agent to dig unknown dirt on Trump.

To give you an example: if Trump asked Ukraine to send their secret agents to investigate his potential political opponent Mary Buttplug for potential dirt, a guy I presume never had anything to do with Ukraine, that would be one thing. Wanting to know what already happened and why it ended up the way it did, is quite another thing.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 10:49:04 pm
Trump is under impeachment for wanting to know more what happened in Ukraine with the Bidens. How is then what happened in Ukraine irrelevant!? It is the very nexus of the impeachment.
Which is why the impeachment will bury Biden's candidacy.  Once the discussion in the House impeachment focuses on what Trump did in trying to investigate Biden, Republicans are going to raise the issue how Biden and his son were involved with a corrupt corporation and deserved to be investigated.  "Sometin' phoney's goin' on here."  will declare southern Senator  Lindsey Graham.  He will declare that Biden is not above the law.  The Democrats are executing their own guy who's able to beat Trump in the general election.  After the Senate declares Trump innocent, he'll have to face Pocahontas, a weaker candidate,  defending herself why she made a mistake all her life calling herself an American Indian and advancing her career because of it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 10:50:43 pm
Game.  Set.  Match.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 06, 2019, 10:54:02 pm
Thanks for the link, James. It is somewhat satisfactory. It is after the fact, what I wanted to see are requests before he was fired by the US.

Here's an AlJazeera story detailing the frustrations with the Ukranian government and Shoken prior to Shokin's removal. (https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/12/ukraine-government-corruption-151206133110489.html) Biden/the US isn't even mentioned.

Here is what bothers me. The prosecutor claimed he was sacked for investigating Burisma. The Biden team says it  is nonsense, as Burisma wasn’t under investigation at the time and that the prosecutor is fired precisely because he wasn’t active enough in investigating major players, among which is surely Burisma. In other words, Biden wanted Burisma investigated, in spite of the fact it would hurt his son’s cushy position. Quite commendable. If true, of course. So, here is what bothers me: if the Biden’s version is true, why was the investigation into Burisma dropped and never reopened under the new prosecutor? Isn’t that what all is supposed to be about? More active, not less active, investigation into corruption?

According to Bloomberg (Cant find the original, but here is Reuters' summary (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-timeline/timeline-key-dates-in-the-us-political-controversy-over-ukraine-idUSKBN1W82HK)) the Burisma investigation was already tabled by the time Shokin was fired, and my further understanding is that it was Burisma's founder that was the primary original target anyway, not the company itself.  Perhaps the investigation was simply could by then? (This is with the caveat that I have no idea how ingrained the company itself was with any sort of larger governmental or institutional corruption - maybe there IS no such thing as a wholly innocent corporation in Ukraine - I have no idea)

My interpretation is that no sane new prosecutor would dare to go against a company where a US Vice President’s son is sitting on the board. Especially not after witnessing the power the father just demonstrated in getting rid of the previous prosecutor.

OK - assume that's true.  But if the last guy was canned for being corrupt himself as evidenced by NOT prosecuting problematic activity, at that firing came not ONLY at the behest of the Obama administration (via Biden), but also via the greater EU community, that puts the new prosecutor into a rough position.   If you don't start prosecuting suspicion activity, the EU guys get all over you again, but if you do, you theoretically annoy Joe Biden.  It's an interesting study in diplomacy and power, but so far as I know, no one is alleging that Biden leaned on the guy AFTER Shokin to go easy on Hunter's employer - all of the allegations seem to be that (Joe) Biden wanted Shokin fired because he was going after Hunter, but there just doesn't seem to be much, if any, support for that.

Biden had two options before firing the prosecutor: 1) ask his son to step down 2) recuse himself. He did neither.

So what was the ultimate results of the whole Biden’s anti-corruption crusade? Prosecutor fired, but the main actor in the corruption game, Burisma, walked out scot-free. Much a do about nothing. Were there any other dramatic anti-corruption consequences after the firing? Or it was business as usual in the good old Ukraine?

See above - I don't think Burisma (the company) was ever THE high-value player in the general anti-corruption concerns about Shokin.  As per the AlJezeera article, there were apparently a metric ton of bad goings-on that Shokin was allegedly ignoring, hence the concern from the EU community in the first place.  In other words, the focus on Burisma and Hunter Biden seems to be blown out of proportion today, because as far as I can tell from contemporary reporting, it was just one of many issues with Shokin and Ukrainian corruption.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 06, 2019, 10:57:41 pm
Which is why the impeachment will bury Biden's candidacy...

It shows.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 06, 2019, 11:06:57 pm
After the Senate declares Trump innocent, he'll have to face Pocahontas, a weaker candidate,  defending herself why she made a mistake all her life calling herself an American Indian and advancing her career because of it.

Let's assume this is true.  Help me understand why Elizabeth Warren exaggerating her family heritage is problematic, while Donald Trump's background, which changes for expediency (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/03/trump-claims-father-born-germany-false-fred-trump) whenever he's complaining about the UN, is just ducky?   I mean, seriously Alan, I should never, ever, have to hear a single complaint from a Republican about how any Democratic candidate is lying about something.  It's absurd.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 11:08:27 pm
It shows.
Of course. It appears Biden's corrupt.  The average person can't follow the Barisma story, the different prosecutors, the whole sordid mess.  It's all very confusing.  And sordid.  But it's not confusing when you learn Biden's son got paid $50K a month, why, because he was Biden's son.  Who here makes $50K a month because of their father?  Well, Trump's kids do too.  And you know how corrupt they are.  Seems like Hunter Biden is from the same mold.  And that raises the issue about Trump.  How can you impeach a president for going after a corrupt politician.  Didn't Trump say he was going to clean up the swamp?  Well, it appears that Biden was one of the swamp creatures.

Maybe this is why Trump didn't hide the phone call.  Maybe he planned the whole thing.  To get rid of Biden.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 06, 2019, 11:19:48 pm
It shows.

I suspect I'm more in tune with Dem voters than you are, and it's my feeling that Biden was waning before any of this due to ongoing lackluster debate performances, par-for-the-course Biden gaffes, and the fact that the primary/nomination system caters to the more, er.. "invested" (read: extremist) wings of the parties - the ones who are passionate & the ideologues (which is why the fringe candidates look great to the early voters, but the moderates show better in wider polls).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 11:20:29 pm
Let's assume this is true.  Help me understand why Elizabeth Warren exaggerating her family heritage is problematic, while Donald Trump's background, which changes for expediency (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/03/trump-claims-father-born-germany-false-fred-trump) whenever he's complaining about the UN, is just ducky?   I mean, seriously Alan, I should never, ever, have to hear a single complaint from a Republican about how any Democratic candidate is lying about something.  It's absurd.
Because everyone knows who Trump is.  A loud-mouth, NYC real-estate tycoon who sold  himself, yes lied about, and worked his butt off to make good.  A  bull in a China shop.  But, he didn't change his race to get ahead. Rather he employed minorities. He wasn't a politician until becoming president.  She's the one who claims she only does good.  She's the one looking for minority votes.  Yet, she used minority status that she didn't have to advance her career.  Oh sure, Obama will come out and support her like he did the Canadian PM' faux pas regarding black face.  But how many minorities will see through the facade and stay home rather than vote for her?    How many people will see her too far to the left and get nervous about where she wants to take the country.  No, Biden was a better match against TRump.  A Mr. Nice Guy, centrist liberal, who union and other workers can identify with.  These men and women, these deplorables,  can't ID with Pocahontas flailing her arms around lecturing everyone like a college professor from Harvard.  Oh wait, she is a college professor from Harvard. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 06, 2019, 11:22:01 pm
Of course. It appears Biden's corrupt.  The average person can't follow the Barisma story, the different prosecutors, the whole sordid mess.  It's all very confusing.  And sordid. 

The fact that the "average" low information voter can't be bothered to learn the subtleties of what they're voting on doesn't mean that their simplistic view of what happened is correct.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 06, 2019, 11:27:01 pm
...can't ID with Pocahontas flailing her arms around lecturing everyone like a college professor from Harvard.  Oh wait, she is a college professor from Harvard.

Right.  Because it makes perfect sense to have a guy who BK'd six companies run the nation "like a business," because you can't sit down and have a beer" with a college professor.

Jeebus, we're boned.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 11:37:57 pm
The fact that the "average" low information voter can't be bothered to learn the subtleties of what they're voting on doesn't mean that their simplistic view of what happened is correct.
James, Frankly, the Barisma story isn't clear to me.  I'm pretty confused about what happened and I'm a pretty astute fellow.  Of course, it's being spun differently depending on which party is telling the story.  But no one has to explain to low information voters that Biden's son got paid $50K a month working for a corrupt corporation and that Joe Biden got the prosecutor fired who was investigating that corporation.  Why wasn't Biden investigated they will ask?  Well, Trump tried to get that done although he made a rather weak attempt at it.    They might ask why he didn't try harder?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2019, 11:41:32 pm
Right.  Because it makes perfect sense to have a guy who BK'd six companies run the nation "like a business," because you can't sit down and have a beer" with a college professor.

Jeebus, we're boned.


All I'm saying is that Biden is a more likeable fellow, a guy regular people can identify with.  He makes gaffes like Trump does.  He's got an eye for the ladies.  He's charming.  A liberal centrist, you can see him working things out with Republicans to get legislation passed and not wanting to bring down the whole American experience on our heads like Warren.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 06, 2019, 11:56:14 pm
James, Frankly, the Barisma story isn't clear to me.  I'm pretty confused about what happened and I'm a pretty astute fellow.  Of course, it's being spun differently depending on which party is telling the story.  But no one has to explain to low information voters that Biden's son got paid $50K a month working for a corrupt corporation and that Joe Biden got the prosecutor fired who was investigating that corporation. Why wasn't Biden investigated they will ask?  Well, Trump tried to get that done although he made a rather weak attempt at it.    They might ask why he didn't try harder?

But Alan - this is my point... despite being plugged into politics, and caring about these kind of things, the part you wrote that I bolded simply isn't factually correct.  If you go back and look at the articles I posted for Slobodan that were written at the time, by journalists that had nothing to do with Biden or the US, it's crystal clear that getting rid of Shokin wasn't driven by Burisma or Hunter Biden, and everyone not affiliated with Trump acknowledges that.   Yet you keep insisting that it just HAS to be true because Hunter Biden got a sweetheart deal.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2019, 12:05:22 am
But Alan - this is my point... despite being plugged into politics, and caring about these kind of things, the part you wrote that I bolded simply isn't factually correct.  If you go back and look at the articles I posted for Slobodan that were written at the time, by journalists that had nothing to do with Biden or the US, it's crystal clear that getting rid of Shokin wasn't driven by Burisma or Hunter Biden, and everyone not affiliated with Trump acknowledges that.   Yet you keep insisting that it just HAS to be true because Hunter Biden got a sweetheart deal.   

Well, it appeared that Trump colluded with the Russians.  Yet, it took a two year investigation to prove he didn't.  Why should we believe that Biden didn't do something corrupt as well?  After all, who gets paid $50K a month for nothing?  It seems that Democrats know how to dish it out but don't know how to take it. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 07, 2019, 12:20:47 am
Why should we believe that Biden didn't do something corrupt as well?  After all, who gets paid $50K a month for nothing?  It seems that Democrats know how to dish it out but don't know how to take it.

Ay, chihuahua.  I feel like we've been over this before.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 07, 2019, 03:59:48 am
I don't see how. Regardless of whether Biden is Al Capone or Mother Theresa, it is irrelevant to the current discussion. What's under discussion are the methods that Trump tried to use to bury a political opponent.

If Biden is Al Capone, that's a separate issue. Feel free to go after him.

You're just trying to obscure things.

Exactly.

I feel more and more sorry for Slobodan and Allan to have to self inflict this continuous stream of lies and disinformation just to support the Trump brand against all facts and logic.

Desperation never looks good but this is one sad showing.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 07, 2019, 06:52:02 am
Because everyone knows who Trump is.  A loud-mouth, NYC real-estate tycoon who sold  himself, yes lied about, and worked his butt off to make good.  A  bull in a China shop.  But, he didn't change his race to get ahead. Rather he employed minorities. He wasn't a politician until becoming president.  She's the one who claims she only does good.  She's the one looking for minority votes.  Yet, she used minority status that she didn't have to advance her career.  Oh sure, Obama will come out and support her like he did the Canadian PM' faux pas regarding black face.  But how many minorities will see through the facade and stay home rather than vote for her?    How many people will see her too far to the left and get nervous about where she wants to take the country.  No, Biden was a better match against TRump.  A Mr. Nice Guy, centrist liberal, who union and other workers can identify with.  These men and women, these deplorables,  can't ID with Pocahontas flailing her arms around lecturing everyone like a college professor from Harvard.  Oh wait, she is a college professor from Harvard.

A recent New York Times poll, in conjunction with I believe Marist, found that if the vote was right now with Trump and Warren on the ballot, Trump wins in every single swing state by an amount larger than the margin of error. 

That's right, a liberal news source found that regardless of this current impeachment circus, Warren looses big time to Trump.  The NYTs even stated that with Warren on the ticket, Trumps electoral college advantage would be higher this time than it was in 2016. 

For what it is worth, the poll also shows Bernie loosing to Trump in every swing state but one, and Biden beats Trump in every swing state, but not by an amount higher then the margin of error to any of them. 

So, if Warren wins, Trump is re-elected.  If Bernie wins, Trump is re-elected.  If Biden wins, perhaps Trump looses, however given Biden's current issue with raising money, I still doubt he can pull it off. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 07, 2019, 07:35:50 am
So why did VP Biden's son get a $600,000 no show job in a Ukrainian oil company never having worked a day in his life in the oil industry?

You're right.   It is insane.
Why did Elaine Chao (Mrs. Mitch McConnell) get a job on the Wells Fargo Bank board, receiving a health yearly stipend and stock despite having no expertise in the banking industry.  She is still getting paid for this:  https://morningconsult.com/opinions/as-ethics-probes-build-will-elaine-chao-answer-for-wells-fargo-fraud-scandal/  Amazingly she was on the Board when the bank was doing a lot of nasty stuff to consumers and the Board totally was lost at sea.  Her compensation for all this 'fine' work makes Hunter Biden look like a piker.  Do you think her position had something to do with her husband???

I was a Wells Fargo shareholder until last year and voted against Ms. Chao in every proxy season.  She was inept.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2019, 08:41:00 am
Ay, chihuahua.  I feel like we've been over this before.
Now you know how Trump supporters feel when the president gets accused of crimes based on rumor and political hijinks. :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2019, 08:50:51 am
Why did Elaine Chao (Mrs. Mitch McConnell) get a job on the Wells Fargo Bank board, receiving a health yearly stipend and stock despite having no expertise in the banking industry.  She is still getting paid for this:  https://morningconsult.com/opinions/as-ethics-probes-build-will-elaine-chao-answer-for-wells-fargo-fraud-scandal/  Amazingly she was on the Board when the bank was doing a lot of nasty stuff to consumers and the Board totally was lost at sea.  Her compensation for all this 'fine' work makes Hunter Biden look like a piker.  Do you think her position had something to do with her husband???

I was a Wells Fargo shareholder until last year and voted against Ms. Chao in every proxy season.  She was inept.

I didn't know Senator McConnell was running for president. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 07, 2019, 09:20:53 am
... I feel more and more sorry for Slobodan and Allan to have to self inflict this continuous stream of lies and disinformation...

1. No need to feel sorry for me, Bernard, it is condescending.

2. Are you accusing me of lying?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 07, 2019, 09:56:41 am
Well, it appeared that Trump colluded with the Russians.  Yet, it took a two year investigation to prove he didn't.  Why should we believe that Biden didn't do something corrupt as well?  After all, who gets paid $50K a month for nothing?  It seems that Democrats know how to dish it out but don't know how to take it.

This is an odd question, "Why should we believe that Biden didn't do something corrupt as well?"  Why should you believe he did.

In answer to your other question, unfortunately lots of people get paid money for doing nothing useful. He wouldn't be the first nor the most egregious.

If Trump thought that Biden had done something illegal/unethical/suspect, all he had to do was make use of the many 3- and 4-letter security-related bodies that he has at his disposal to find some evidence and then proceed from there. You have on several occasions tried to portray Trump as a poor helpless victim, but he is the President, what is stopping him from issuing those orders to those agencies? You can't be a tycoon, independent, not afraid of critics, willing to say it like it is, AND at the same time be a helpless victim of the media and Democrats. Your characterization of him is not credible.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2019, 10:10:45 am
This is an odd question, "Why should we believe that Biden didn't do something corrupt as well?"  Why should you believe he did.

In answer to your other question, unfortunately lots of people get paid money for doing nothing useful. He wouldn't be the first nor the most egregious.

If Trump thought that Biden had done something illegal/unethical/suspect, all he had to do was make use of the many 3- and 4-letter security-related bodies that he has at his disposal to find some evidence and then proceed from there. You have on several occasions tried to portray Trump as a poor helpless victim, but he is the President, what is stopping him from issuing those orders to those agencies? You can't be a tycoon, independent, not afraid of critics, willing to say it like it is, AND at the same time be a helpless victim of the media and Democrats. Your characterization of him is not credible.


Because VP Biden was physically present in the room holding his son Hunter's hand winking at the corrupt officials who ran the corrupt corporation when they met them.  Then Hunter Biden gets a $50K a month job from these same people.  Very coincidental, wouldn't you think.  Then the prosecutor is fired who was investigating the corporation that his son worked for.  And the VP was warned by other US officials that having his son working for them is just too much.  In fact, a week or so ago, Hunter finally quit his overseas jobs to protect his father.  It's all just too convenient. 


It's interesting that for three years you went after Trump and his kids for taking advantage of his position as president.  Emoluments, hotels room rentals, and all that.  But when the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly you have blinders on.  "Nothing here; just keep moving."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2019, 10:14:34 am
This is an odd question, "Why should we believe that Biden didn't do something corrupt as well?"  Why should you believe he did.

In answer to your other question, unfortunately lots of people get paid money for doing nothing useful. He wouldn't be the first nor the most egregious.

If Trump thought that Biden had done something illegal/unethical/suspect, all he had to do was make use of the many 3- and 4-letter security-related bodies that he has at his disposal to find some evidence and then proceed from there. You have on several occasions tried to portray Trump as a poor helpless victim, but he is the President, what is stopping him from issuing those orders to those agencies? You can't be a tycoon, independent, not afraid of critics, willing to say it like it is, AND at the same time be a helpless victim of the media and Democrats. Your characterization of him is not credible.




America can't investigate in Ukraine.  That's up to their government.  That's why Trump asked them to follow up.  It's no different than what's happened in Mexico with the killing of nine Americans.  What are we supposed to do?  Send in the US marines? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 07, 2019, 10:21:15 am
Because VP Biden was physically present in the room holding his son Hunter's hand winking at the corrupt officials who ran the corrupt corporation when they met them.

He was? 

Then Hunter Biden gets a $50K a month job from these same people.  Very coincidental, wouldn't you think. 

Not at all - Hunter Biden was placed on the board of a company because of who his father is.  That's not illegal, or even unusual.

Then the prosecutor is fired who was investigating the corporation that his son worked for.

Are you deliberately missing the fact that the prosecutor was removed for NOT investigating corruption?   And that Joe Biden was just one of many who were pressuring the Ukrainian government to make a change?   Please - go back and look at the articles I posted from when Shokin was still in office.  They are articles written by International journalists, with nary a mention of the United States, Joe Biden, or even Burisma for the most part. The only people pushing this narrative are people trying to justify Trump's unethical actions. 

And the VP was warned by other US officials that having his son working for them is just too much.  In fact, a week or so ago, Hunter finally quit his overseas jobs to protect his father.  It's all just too convenient. 

Yep - it's a bad look.   These things usually are.  You don't seem to care when Trump does it, and he does it directly, obviously, and proudly.  Biden, by all impartial observation, doesn't do it at all, yet you insist that the corruption is obvious.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 07, 2019, 10:26:59 am

America can't investigate in Ukraine.  That's up to their government.  That's why Trump asked them to follow up.  It's no different than what's happened in Mexico with the killing of nine Americans.  What are we supposed to do?  Send in the US marines?

Not true.  Trump was specifically and explicitly pressuring them to make a public statement that Hunter Biden was under investigation, despite the fact that the alleged underlying issues had already been investigated, and dismissed.  That serves no purpose except to harm a political opponent. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2019, 10:29:38 am
He was? 

Not at all - Hunter Biden was placed on the board of a company because of who his father is.  That's not illegal, or even unusual.

Are you deliberately missing the fact that the prosecutor was removed for NOT investigating corruption?   And that Joe Biden was just one of many who were pressuring the Ukrainian government to make a change?   Please - go back and look at the articles I posted from when Shokin was still in office.  They are articles written by International journalists, with nary a mention of the United States, Joe Biden, or even Burisma for the most part. The only people pushing this narrative are people trying to justify Trump's unethical actions. 

Yep - it's a bad look.   These things usually are.  You don't seem to care when Trump does it, and he does it directly, obviously, and proudly.  Biden, by all impartial observation, doesn't do it at all, yet you insist that the corruption is obvious.   


You don't have to convince me.  I'm a Republican and can't vote in the Democrat primaries.  You have to convince other Democrats who do vote in the primaries that Biden is not just another creature from the Washington swamps who used his position as VP to enrich his son. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 07, 2019, 10:30:06 am
Not true.  Trump was specifically and explicitly pressuring them to make a public statement that Hunter Biden was under investigation, despite the fact that the alleged underlying issues had already been investigated, and dismissed.  That serves no purpose except to harm a political opponent.

Could you please direct me to where this is stated. 

I only recall Trump asking for an investigation of overall corruption to be started.  No where did I see a request for a public statement.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 07, 2019, 10:54:07 am
Could you please direct me to where this is stated. 

I only recall Trump asking for an investigation of overall corruption to be started.  No where did I see a request for a public statement.

Sondland's testimony, (https://www.npr.org/2019/11/05/776170895/read-the-deposition-by-gordon-sondland-u-s-ambassador-to-the-european-union) corroborated by Volker.  (Sorry for the formatting - that's direct from the Sondland transcript.)

Specifically,

""1r. Giuliani emphasized that the
President wanted a public statement from Pres'ident Zelensky

5

committing Ukraine

J

to look into anti-corruption issues.
Mr. Gi u1i ani speci f i cally ment j oned the 201.6 elect'ion,

6
7
8

9

server, and Buri sma as two anti corruption
investigatory topics of importance for the President. Let me
be clear..."

William Taylior said the same... (https://www.npr.org/2019/10/22/772444556/highlights-top-u-s-diplomat-in-ukraine-delivers-explosive-statement-to-congress)

Quote
"In fact, Ambassador Sondland said, 'everything' was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance," Taylor wrote.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 07, 2019, 11:05:30 am
If Trump thought that Biden had done something illegal/unethical/suspect, all he had to do was make use of the many 3- and 4-letter security-related bodies that he has at his disposal to find some evidence and then proceed from there.

Using federal investigative agencies to target political opponents would arguably constitute an impeachable offense, based on a Nixon precedent:

Quote
He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

—Article II (excerpt) (https://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment), adopted 28-10 by the Committee on Judiciary of the House of Representatives, July 27, 1974

It's virtually certain that White House counsel Pat Cipollone and Attorney General William Barr are familiar with this precedent, and would have pushed back against any attempt by President Trump to use federal agencies in this manner.  Perhaps that is why Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, took the lead in the attempt to get the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 07, 2019, 11:06:00 am
Sondland's testimony, (https://www.npr.org/2019/11/05/776170895/read-the-deposition-by-gordon-sondland-u-s-ambassador-to-the-european-union) corroborated by Volker.  (Sorry for the formatting - that's direct from the Sondland transcript.)

Specifically,

""1r. Giuliani emphasized that the
President wanted a public statement from Pres'ident Zelensky

5

committing Ukraine

J

to look into anti-corruption issues.
Mr. Gi u1i ani speci f i cally ment j oned the 201.6 elect'ion,

6
7
8

9

server, and Buri sma as two anti corruption
investigatory topics of importance for the President. Let me
be clear..."

William Taylior said the same... (https://www.npr.org/2019/10/22/772444556/highlights-top-u-s-diplomat-in-ukraine-delivers-explosive-statement-to-congress)

So just to be clear, you are siting the same Sondland who admitted to never talking directly with Trump in the same exact testimony?  ???

This is hearsay (the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.). 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 07, 2019, 11:10:52 am
So just to be clear, you are siting the same Sondland who admitted to never talking directly with Trump in the same exact testimony? 

Just to be clear, I'm citing Sondland, Taylor, Volker and Sondland's "revised" testimony where he "remembered" conversations previously forgotten, that everyone else apparently remembered well.   

This is hearsay.

Well, ok.   'Cept oddly enough, a lot of different people are "hearing" the same "say." 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 07, 2019, 11:15:24 am
Just to be clear, I'm citing Sondland, Taylor, Volker and Sondland's "revised" testimony where he "remembered" conversations previously forgotten, that everyone else apparently remembered well.   

Well, ok.   'Cept oddly enough, a lot of different people are "hearing" the same "say."

But no one who directly communicated with Trump about the event(s) in question.  It's pretty weak testimony. 

I'll will say that Trump is handling his defense pretty horribly, but that does not mean the Dems have the goods. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2019, 11:17:05 am
Just to be clear, I'm citing Sondland, Taylor, Volker and Sondland's "revised" testimony where he "remembered" conversations previously forgotten, that everyone else apparently remembered well.   

Well, ok.   'Cept oddly enough, a lot of different people are "hearing" the same "say." 
The problem is none of this helps Biden.  The more discussion you have on the matter, the more confusing it gets to the average voter and Biden looks like he did something wrong with his son.  Right now we're mainly hearing from the Democrats who are focusing on Trump.  But once the hearings get going, the Republican congressmen will be cross examining witnesses making Biden look even worse.  It a no-win situation for Biden.  He must be pulling out his plugs.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 07, 2019, 11:21:50 am
Just to be clear, I'm citing Sondland, Taylor, Volker and Sondland's "revised" testimony where he "remembered" conversations previously forgotten, that everyone else apparently remembered well.   

Well, ok.   'Cept oddly enough, a lot of different people are "hearing" the same "say."

At the end of the day, Giuliani is going to take the fall for this whole mess and Trump will come out clean as a whistle, along with Biden going down with the ship. 

It's Trump M.O., find someone to blame.  Not that I think that is a particularly moral thing to do, but I pretty sure this is how this will work out.  And Giuliani has partly himself to blame; he is no longer the shrewd lawyer he use to be.  (I still cant believe this is the same Giuliani who took down the mob.) 

Then it will be Trump vs. Warren, and we all know how that will work out.  It will be another pick the lesser evil situation, and Trump is certainly the lesser evil in that choice. 

It came out the other day, many prominent Democratic donors told Schumer they will refuse to donate to any senate campaigns unless that senator specifically and publicly denounces Warren. 

It really appears both sides have a giant mess on their hands. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2019, 11:36:31 am
At the end of the day, Giuliani is going to take the fall for this whole mess and Trump will come out clean as a whistle, along with Biden going down with the ship. 

It's Trump M.O., find someone to blame.  Not that I think that is a particularly moral thing to do, but I pretty sure this is how this will work out.  And Giuliani has partly himself to blame; he is no longer the shrewd lawyer he use to be.  (I still cant believe this is the same Giuliani who took down the mob.) 

Then it will be Trump vs. Warren, and we all know how that will work out.  It will be another pick the lesser evil situation, and Trump is certainly the lesser evil in that choice. 

It came out the other day, many prominent Democratic donors told Schumer they will refuse to donate to any senate campaigns unless that senator specifically and publicly denounces Warren. 

It really appears both sides have a giant mess on their hands. 
I can't see Schumer denouncing Warren.  He'll support the Democratic candidate just as many Republicans supported Trump during the 2016 election.

If Biden goes down, the Democrats will only have themselves to blame.   They hate Trump so much, they're willing to sacrifice their most viable candidate to try to get him.  Notwithstanding what people say, it may be Trump who's playing chess while the Dems are playing checkers.  He took on the Republican and Democratic parties including the Clinton machine in 2016.  And won.  So he's had practice.  It's going to be an interesting year. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 07, 2019, 11:39:46 am
Then it will be Trump vs. Warren, and we all know how that will work out.  It will be another pick the lesser evil situation, and Trump is certainly the lesser evil in that choice. 

Based on the latest trends, it may well be Trump vs Buttigieg and that race could turn out quite interesting.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 07, 2019, 11:40:50 am
Based on the latest trends, it may well be Trump vs Buttigieg and that race could turn out quite interesting.

Buttigieg has been my top (or close to top - I liked Harris as well) choice from the start.  It's great to see him start making some impact.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2019, 11:42:40 am
Based on the latest trends, it may well be Trump vs Buttigieg and that race could turn out quite interesting.

I don't think Americans are yet ready for a first lady who's the president's husband. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 07, 2019, 11:47:35 am
Based on the latest trends, it may well be Trump vs Buttigieg and that race could turn out quite interesting.

It would be interesting, but who are you listening to that it could be Buttigieg?  Because only Buttigieg has come out and said he is in the lead or close to it.  National polling has him in 7th right now.  Of course that could change, but just goes further to prove the point that all of the Dems are weak candidates. 

In a presidential race, when people keep on switching around on who the front runner is, it is obvious all of them are weak.  Same thing happened in 2012 with the Republicans.  A strong candidate asserts himself in the beginning and creates momentum, like Trump and Obama. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 07, 2019, 11:48:55 am
He was? 

Not at all - Hunter Biden was placed on the board of a company because of who his father is.  That's not illegal, or even unusual.

Are you deliberately missing the fact that the prosecutor was removed for NOT investigating corruption?

Indeed, and it would be amazing if we hadn't already grown accustomed to such distortions of the truth by the Trumpettes ...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 07, 2019, 11:53:43 am
Not true.  Trump was specifically and explicitly pressuring them to make a public statement that Hunter Biden was under investigation, despite the fact that the alleged underlying issues had already been investigated, and dismissed.  That serves no purpose except to harm a political opponent.

Yes, and the damage is done either way, wheter it's true or not. Such an obvious tactic.

Even amateur 'Ambassador' Sondland is no longer trying to deny knowledge of that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDxoaLcpVl0
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 07, 2019, 11:56:49 am
I can't see Schumer denouncing Warren.  He'll support the Democratic candidate just as many Republicans supported Trump during the 2016 election.

If Biden goes down, the Democrats will only have themselves to blame.   They hate Trump so much, they're willing to sacrifice their most viable candidate to try to get him.

In your dreams. Biden was a very poor candidate, and now Trump has done the Democrats a favor by casting doubt on Biden's behavior.[/quote]
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 07, 2019, 12:05:17 pm
Buttigieg has been my top (or close to top - I liked Harris as well) choice from the start.  It's great to see him start making some impact.

Actually he's an interesting candidate (has nuanced positions on difficult subjects and can present a coherent train of thoughts on a matter), but that's probably why he will not become the nominated candidate. It's more likely that as the campaigns progress and the number of candidates becomes smaller, the more extreme positions of Warren and Sanders will become more mainstream ones and more acceptable to a larger base.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 07, 2019, 12:08:13 pm
I don't think Americans are yet ready for a first lady who's the president's husband.

Not ready for lots of things. That too.

Living in denial, and getting even seems to be more important to a segment of voters.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 07, 2019, 12:09:52 pm
A funny fact:

The Democratic party has tried to impeach every Republican president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Now, the usual domestic terrorist organizations (a.k.a. fact checkers) labeled this claim "mostly false." Their explanation:

Quote
What's True
Articles of impeachment were introduced against five of the six Republican presidents who have served since President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

So, 5 out of 6, or 83% correct, justifies "mostly false" instead of "mostly true"!?  ;D The only one they didn't try to impeach is Gerald Ford, an unelected president anyway, and mostly because he served only 2.5 years, not enough time to fabricate the reason for impeachment, I guess.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dems-impeach-gop-presidents/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 07, 2019, 12:12:51 pm
I don't think Americans are yet ready for a first lady who's the president's husband. 

Imagine bumper stickers:

Mary Buttplug for President!

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 07, 2019, 12:12:56 pm
Not ready for lots of things. That too.

Living in denial, and getting even seems to be more important to a segment of voters.

I would say living in denial that Warren could actually be voted in as president is an equally big flaw of the left.  As I said before, even the NYTs admitted this week Warren is unelectable. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 07, 2019, 12:13:58 pm
A funny fact:

The Democratic party has tried to impeach every Republican president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Now, the usual domestic terrorist organizations (a.k.a. fact checkers) labeled this claim "mostly false." Their explanation:

So, 5 out of 6, or 83% correct, justifies "mostly false" instead of "mostly true"!?  ;D The only one they didn't try to impeach is Gerald Ford, an unelected president anyway, and mostly because he served only 2.5 years, not enough time to fabricate the reason for impeachment, I guess.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dems-impeach-gop-presidents/

Make me think about the AOC image of her crying in front of an empty parking lot.

It was deemed false because ... it was actually an empty road.  LOL
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 07, 2019, 01:11:09 pm
I don't think Americans are yet ready for a first lady who's the president's husband.

I would have thought the same thing until they elected the current title holder.  If a guy who pushed the birther thing for that long and can still hold the religious right's support after grabbing pussy can get elected, all bets are off, I'd say.

But on the more general theme, if liberty, freedom, privacy and the pursuit of happiness are so important to Americans, why would anyone think it's any of their business who others have sex with. It's a puzzling thing. It's possible that people don't truly understand what freedom means.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 07, 2019, 01:12:25 pm
Imagine bumper stickers:

Mary Buttplug for President!

A bit adolescent but not unexpected.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 07, 2019, 01:31:13 pm
It would be interesting, but who are you listening to that it could be Buttigieg?  Because only Buttigieg has come out and said he is in the lead or close to it.  National polling has him in 7th right now.  Of course that could change, but just goes further to prove the point that all of the Dems are weak candidates. 

In a presidential race, when people keep on switching around on who the front runner is, it is obvious all of them are weak.  Same thing happened in 2012 with the Republicans.  A strong candidate asserts himself in the beginning and creates momentum, like Trump and Obama.

Iowa Democratic Presidental Caucus - Nov 5, 2019 polls:
Warren - 21.8, Buttigieg - 17.5, Sanders - 15.8

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 07, 2019, 01:35:35 pm
Iowa Democratic Presidental Caucus - Nov 5, 2019 polls:
Warren - 21.8, Buttigieg - 17.5, Sanders - 15.8

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html

Okay, so in Iowa he is doing decent.  But in other states not so much.  National polling shows him at 7th currently. 

When he starts creeping higher into the top 3 in national polling, let me know. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 07, 2019, 01:58:22 pm
I didn't know Senator McConnell was running for president.
Don't you want to root out corruption in all parts of the US Government.  You've already gone after Adam Schiff.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2019, 02:30:39 pm
Iowa Democratic Presidental Caucus - Nov 5, 2019 polls:
Warren - 21.8, Buttigieg - 17.5, Sanders - 15.8

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html
Where's Biden?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 07, 2019, 02:35:14 pm
Where's Biden?

Click on the supplied link. It's easy - just position the cursor over the link I showed, and click the left button on the mouse.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 07, 2019, 02:38:51 pm
I don't think Americans are yet ready for a first lady who's the president's husband.

After Trump, Americans are ready for anything. More importantly, how does Vladimir Putin view the candidates?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2019, 03:01:58 pm
After Trump, Americans are ready for anything. More importantly, how does Vladimir Putin view the candidates?
something else to thank Trump for. 😃
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 07, 2019, 04:50:48 pm
A bit adolescent but not unexpected.

Thank you for demonstrating substantial moderation.  My response would have been “appalling”.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 07, 2019, 05:49:30 pm
But no one who directly communicated with Trump about the event(s) in question.  It's pretty weak testimony. 

I'll will say that Trump is handling his defense pretty horribly, but that does not mean the Dems have the goods.

Considering that all the facts point to the obvious truth that he is guilty as hell, I would say that Trump is handling his defense remarkably well since you are others are seemingly convinced that he is innocent...

Or is it that you would support him whatever the facts simply because you consider this as a political fight while in reality it is one between Trump and the constitution?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2019, 05:54:57 pm
Considering that all the facts point to the obvious truth that he is guilty as hell, I would say that Trump is handling his defense remarkably well since you are others are seemingly convinced that he is innocent...

Or is it that you would support him whatever the facts simply because you consider this as a political fight while in reality it is one between Trump and the constitution?

Cheers,
Bernard


Why would anyone think this is a political fight?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 07, 2019, 05:59:40 pm
... never talking directly with Trump in the same exact testimony?  ???

This is hearsay... 

Well... there is one guy who did talk to Trump directly. And so far he is sticking to his original story: he didn't feel pressured nor quid pro quo - the president of Ukraine.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 07, 2019, 07:39:20 pm
Well... there is one guy who did talk to Trump directly. And so far he is sticking to his original story: he didn't feel pressured nor quid pro quo - the president of Ukraine.

That's true: publicly, during a September 25 joint television appearance with Trump in New York, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky denied he felt pressure, and he has not retracted what he said.

However—and I understand this probably won't be credible to those who consider traditional journalism to be "fake news"—Andrew Kramer of the New York Times, reporting from Kyiv, has what appears to me to be a well-sourced account documenting the pressure Zelensky felt and the debate among his aides about how to respond to it (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/world/europe/ukraine-trump-zelensky.html).

Quote
Only Mr. Trump could unlock the aid, he had been told by two United States senators, and time was running out. If the money, nearly $400 million, were not unblocked by the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, it could be lost in its entirety.

In a flurry of WhatsApp messages and meetings in Ukraine’s capital, Kiev, over several days, senior aides debated the point. Avoiding partisan politics in the United States had always been the first rule of Ukrainian foreign policy, but the military aid was vital to the war against Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, a conflict that has cost 13,000 lives since it began in 2014.

By then, however, Mr. Zelensky’s staffers were already conceding to what seemed to be the inevitable, and making plans for a public announcement about the investigations. It was a fateful decision for a fledgling president elected on an anticorruption platform that included putting an end to politically motivated investigations. . . .

A tug-of-war ensued between a senior aide to Mr. Zelensky, Andriy Yermak, and another of Mr. Trump’s envoys to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, over the wording of the proposed public statement. Mr. Volker went so far as to draft a statement for Mr. Zelensky that mentioned both investigations. . . .

Finally bending to the White House request, Mr. Zelensky’s staff planned for him to make an announcement in an interview on Sept. 13 with Fareed Zakaria, the host of a weekly news show on CNN.

Though plans were in motion to give the White House the public statement it had sought, events in Washington saved the Ukrainian government from any final decision and eliminated the need to make the statement.

Word of the freeze in military aid had leaked out, and Congress was in an uproar. Two days before the scheduled interview, the Trump administration released the assistance and Mr. Zelensky’s office quickly canceled the interview.

I suspect many of the details will be corroborated by other sources, including, perhaps, the two senators involved, now that other reporters undoubtedly are chasing this story.

I encourage those of you with subscriptions to the Times, or who haven't used up your monthly free access to the newspaper, to read Kramer's piece in its entirety.  It's the best piece of enterprise reporting I've read about the attempt to get Ukraine to conduct the investigations Trump and Giuliani were demanding.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 07, 2019, 07:57:31 pm
That's true: publicly, during a September 25 joint television appearance with Trump in New York, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky denied he felt pressure, and he has not retracted what he said.

However—and I understand this probably won't be credible to those who consider traditional journalism to be "fake news"—Andrew Kramer of the New York Times, reporting from Kyiv, has what appears to me to be a well-sourced account documenting the pressure Zelensky felt and the debate among his aides about how to respond to it (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/world/europe/ukraine-trump-zelensky.html).

I suspect many of the details will be corroborated by other sources, including, perhaps, the two senators involved, now that other reporters undoubtedly are chasing this story.[...]

And, there are other sources. The U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, had originally testified that there was no quid pro quo in Trump's dealings with Ukraine. Upon hearing that his State Department colleagues had testified otherwise, Sondland's recollection suddenly changed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LTwzClZ_zE (might as well approach it from the humoristic angle, given how sad the truth has become).

And a somewhat more thourough analysis of what to make of Sondland's changed recollection:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDxoaLcpVl0
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2019, 08:07:07 pm
 
That's true: publicly, during a September 25 joint television appearance with Trump in New York, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky denied he felt pressure, and he has not retracted what he said.

However—and I understand this probably won't be credible to those who consider traditional journalism to be "fake news"—Andrew Kramer of the New York Times, reporting from Kyiv, has what appears to me to be a well-sourced account documenting the pressure Zelensky felt and the debate among his aides about how to respond to it (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/world/europe/ukraine-trump-zelensky.html).

I suspect many of the details will be corroborated by other sources, including, perhaps, the two senators involved, now that other reporters undoubtedly are chasing this story.

I encourage those of you with subscriptions to the Times, or who haven't used up your monthly free access to the newspaper, to read Kramer's piece in its entirety.  It's the best piece of enterprise reporting I've read about the attempt to get Ukraine to conduct the investigations Trump and Giuliani were demanding.

Chris, How do you know it's well-sourced?  I read the article.  Maybe too quickly.  But there were no witnesses mentioned to any of the "facts" the article writer claimed happened. 

We do know that there was Trump pressure to have Ukraine do an investigations of Biden, his son, and other corruption as well.  There was also a belief that some of the claimed Russian involvement in our 2016 presidential election came from Ukraine and not Russia.  That was something Trump, who had been under attack for over two years as being part of that claimed collusion, would have wanted to get to the bottom of, something perfectly legal and expected considered the claims against him.  So this article does little more than confirm that Trump wanted to clean up corruption in the Ukraine, something that was American policy even under Obama's administration. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2019, 08:13:50 pm
So multi-billionaire, three term ex-Mayor of NYC. Michael Bloomberg,  throws his hat in the Democrat ring for nomination to president of the US.  It's getting more interesting.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-bloomberg-idUSKBN1XH2X0
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 07, 2019, 10:06:29 pm
Why would anyone think this is a political fight?

I don’t, you and Slobodan act as if it were one.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2019, 10:09:46 pm
I don’t, you and Slobodan act as if it were one.

Cheers,
Bernard

The Democrats don't care about truth.  They only care about power.  Theirs. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 07, 2019, 10:35:31 pm
The Democrats don't care about truth.  They only care about power.  Theirs.

Well, then Michael Bloomberg joining the race may be a good thing.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 07, 2019, 10:56:17 pm
The Democrats don't care about truth.  They only care about power.  Theirs.

As opposed to Republicans, who... what?  If you're about to argue that Republicans are somehow on the side of Truth in the Trump era, I'm not really sure I can ever take anything you say seriously ever again.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 07, 2019, 11:15:49 pm
I don’t, you and Slobodan act as if it were one.

Cheers,
Bernard

LOL, you obviously have no real knowledge of American politics then. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 07, 2019, 11:17:20 pm
Well, then Michael Bloomberg joining the race may be a good thing.

Possibly, maybe he can actually win. 

Lets see, when Bill Gates, a lifelong Dem, comes out and basically says he would not vote for Warren, I think the Dems are pretty much open to anything right now. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2019, 11:22:06 pm
Well, then Michael Bloomberg joining the race may be a good thing.
Well, Bloomberg's like Trump, ruthless, but with a smooth exterior.  After two terms of being mayor, the most allowed by law, he got the city counsel to change the law so he could run a third time - and won.  He was resented a lot for that though by a lot of New Yorkers.  He may be a bigger narcissist and egomaniac than Trump.  But isn't a loud mouth like him.  Also, his wealth makes Trump look like a pauper.  When he began his mayoralty, he was only worth $5 billion.  Twelve years later he was worth $45 billion.  Not bad for being mayor.  Like Trump, he let others handled his day-to-day business operations, claiming he never looked in.  Sure.     But he was kind like Trump and forfeited his mayor's salary or gave it to charity.  What a guy. 


I thought he was a very effective mayor.  My wife hated him but then almost all NYC teachers hated him because he wouldn't raise their salaries like they wanted and wouldn't make a new teacher's contract.  He also favored chartered schools which is anathema to the teachers union.   Of course, the teachers got their raises eventually, backdated, from the mayor who took over from him, De Blasio, who really knows how to kiss asses to get votes.  Of course, De Blasio didn;t make out too well in the Democrat presidential nomination process and recently dropped out.  We'll see how Bloomberg does.  Has has more class.  He'll probably take more votes away from Biden.  I suspect Trump will give him a neat, new nickname to introduce the world to him.   


I met Bloomberg two or three times, my wife and I were invited to his second inaugural.  I still don;t know why we were invited.  They must have confused us with real sycophants.  He also gave me some sort of an award or certificate, I forget for what.  I have some pictures some where.  I'll have to dig them out.  He's a short guy unlike the bigger Trump.  Here's a nickname Trump might pick.  Three-term Bloomie.  That will remind everyone of his autocratic demeanor.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2019, 11:24:05 pm
As opposed to Republicans, who... what?  If you're about to argue that Republicans are somehow on the side of Truth in the Trump era, I'm not really sure I can ever take anything you say seriously ever again.
They're all only concerned with power.  After all, that's why politicians become politicians.  Anyway, you should (not-edit) take anything I say too seriously.  Life is too short.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2019, 11:27:04 pm
Possibly, maybe he can actually win. 

Lets see, when Bill Gates, a lifelong Dem, comes out and basically says he would not vote for Warren, I think the Dems are pretty much open to anything right now. 
  I heard him say on TV that he'd be willing to pay $20 billion in taxes.  But since she wants all of his $100 billion, well, she just can't have it. He's putting his foot down.  I mean, after all, there's a limit.  How would he be able to afford any more Perry Como sweaters? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 08, 2019, 12:24:19 am
I just learned that Bloomberg is 77 years old, about the same age as Bernie and Biden.  Maybe we can elect all three of them.  Then, they could take turns.  Two days on, 4 days off to rest up. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 08, 2019, 12:31:07 am
Mayor Bloomberg with Mayor Pete as a running mate?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 08, 2019, 01:00:23 am
Mayor Bloomberg with Mayor Pete as a running mate?
I wouldn't use the word "mate".  People might get ideas. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 08, 2019, 01:33:45 am
Indeed, could be a touchy situation.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 08, 2019, 09:57:00 am
Well, it seems like Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself in congress. 

A couple days after the whistle blower met with Schiff's staff, but a month before the report became public, Yovanovitch was emailed by a Democratic congressional staffer about meeting to discuss "time sensitive issues."  When asked in congress under oath she claimed she never responded to the email. 

It was just found out she did respond and said she looked forward to the meeting.  Nice. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 08, 2019, 10:31:06 am
Indeed, could be a touchy situation.

 ;D

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 08, 2019, 10:33:09 am
The Dems desperately need this be about the 2020 election, because if it was about 2016 corruption, they have nothing.  Schiff is shrewd enough to know this. 

The President and Republicans have been claiming for months this is all a coordinated effort to take down Trump.  Schiff lying several times about having contact with the whistleblower just adds to this defense, but the Dems have been good at mitigating it.  However, now that one of their key witnesses who is claiming it was about the 2020 election was just caught not only lying to congress but it has also come to light she most likely met with Dems before this even went public. 

If it was an innocent meeting, why lie about it ... to congress ... under oath? 

This will only add to the Republican claim that this whole thing is coordinated with fabricated testimony and evidence.  Schiff could be facing an impeachment investigation of his own soon. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 08, 2019, 10:53:35 am
So multi-billionaire, three term ex-Mayor of NYC. Michael Bloomberg,  throws his hat in the Democrat ring for nomination to president of the US.  It's getting more interesting.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-bloomberg-idUSKBN1XH2X0
Someone who is also older than me and perhaps you.  Thanks, but no thanks!!!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 08, 2019, 11:00:40 am
The Dems desperately need this be about the 2020 election, because if it was about 2016 corruption, they have nothing.  Schiff is shrewd enough to know this. 

The President and Republicans have been claiming for months this is all a coordinated effort to take down Trump.  Schiff lying several times about having contact with the whistleblower just adds to this defense, but the Dems have been good at mitigating it.  However, now that one of their key witnesses who is claiming it was about the 2020 election was just caught not only lying to congress but it has also come to light she most likely met with Dems before this even went public. 

If it was an innocent meeting, why lie about it ... to congress ... under oath? 

This will only add to the Republican claim that this whole thing is coordinated with fabricated testimony and evidence.  Schiff could be facing an impeachment investigation of his own soon.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you sure seem to have a double standard about what constitutes unacceptable behavior for Democrats and unacceptable behavior for the Trumpers.  I gave the example earlier, but I'll repeat - on one and you have a cheating spouse, but you're seemingly more concerned with the horror of the other spouse reading the cheater's text messages.

I don't get it.  You're making the "If it's innocent, why lie?" but totally ignoring that this administration is, literally, refusing legal, Constitutionally tried and tested oversight, and claiming that the executive is above the law.  Yet you persist in attacking the Democrats because a third party may have come to them with information.

What if a Schiff staffer had said, in response to an allegation of wrongdoing inside the administration,  "If it's what you say it is, I LOVE it.." then taken a meeting and lied about that.  Is that ok?  If not, why?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 08, 2019, 11:13:09 am
Well, it seems like Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself in congress. 

As one who has testified on a half dozen occasions to various Congressional committees (twice under oath as that was the tradition of the House Energy and Commerce Oversight subcommittee under John Dingell) I never told a lie!!! ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 08, 2019, 11:19:45 am
Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you sure seem to have a double standard about what constitutes unacceptable behavior for Democrats and unacceptable behavior for the Trumpers.  I gave the example earlier, but I'll repeat - on one and you have a cheating spouse, but you're seemingly more concerned with the horror of the other spouse reading the cheater's text messages.

I don't get it.  You're making the "If it's innocent, why lie?" but totally ignoring that this administration is, literally, refusing legal, Constitutionally tried and tested oversight, and claiming that the executive is above the law.  Yet you persist in attacking the Democrats because a third party may have come to them with information.

What if a Schiff staffer had said, in response to an allegation of wrongdoing inside the administration,  "If it's what you say it is, I LOVE it.." then taken a meeting and lied about that.  Is that ok?  If not, why?

At no where did I say I excuse Trump's behavior. 

I am merely pointing out that one of the key witnesses that the Dems are hanging this on was just caught lying under oath.  It is a very big deal.

Furthermore, going to your oversight claim, the President has executive privilege to withhold things from congress.  This has been held up in the courts and until it is again argued at the Supreme Court, it is not illegal.  Granted, it may not sound good, politically, but it is not illegal, yet. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 08, 2019, 11:23:51 am
Furthermore, going to your oversight claim, the President has executive privilege to withhold things from congress.  This has been held up in the courts and until it is again argued at the Supreme Court, it is not illegal.  Granted, it may not sound good, politically, but it is not illegal, yet.

But he is not above the law.

It only makes it a bit harder to prove wrongdoing if the administration were not so incompetent.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 08, 2019, 11:24:08 am
Well, it seems like Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself in congress. 
I will take this seriously when there is a second source other than Tucker Carlson who is in the words of Ford Maddox Ford, "...an unreliable narrator..."  [note:  the term was coined by literary critic Wayne Booth and there are numerous literary examples.  My favorite and hence the use above is Ford's "The Good Soldier", a book well worth reading and is free on Project Guttenburg (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2775).]
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 08, 2019, 11:32:02 am
At no where did I say I excuse Trump's behavior. 

I am merely pointing out that one of the key witnesses that the Dems are hanging this on was just caught lying under oath.  It is a very big deal.

I agree.  I'm just noting that you seem less than convinced that equivalent behavior amongst Republicans is a "very big deal."  You basically blew off the fact that Sondland totally changed his testimony a few days back, which is undeniably a much bigger deal than Tucker Carlson claiming that Yavanovich maybe tipped off Democrats to what was, regardless of her reporting it or not, seriously questionable behavior.   

Furthermore, going to your oversight claim, the President has executive privilege to withhold things from congress.  This has been held up in the courts and until it is again argued at the Supreme Court, it is not illegal.  Granted, it may not sound good, politically, but it is not illegal, yet.

It was basically litigated in the Nixon era, but whatever.  Besides, my point is more that you are attaching the "if it doesn't matter, why lie" to Dems, but blowing off the "if it doesn't matter, why create a Constitutional crisis" issue that comes from ignoring the House's duly authorized subpoenas.   Yes, Executive priveledge exists, but blanket immunity for everyone, everywhere, at the whim of the President, doesn't.  And that's basically what's being claimed.  (As per some of the arguments that have come before the court already.)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 08, 2019, 11:48:26 am
I agree.  I'm just noting that you seem less than convinced that equivalent behavior amongst Republicans is a "very big deal."  You basically blew off the fact that Sondland totally changed his testimony a few days back, which is undeniably a much bigger deal than Tucker Carlson claiming that Yavanovich maybe tipped off Democrats to what was, regardless of her reporting it or not, seriously questionable behavior.   

It was basically litigated in the Nixon era, but whatever.  Besides, my point is more that you are attaching the "if it doesn't matter, why lie" to Dems, but blowing off the "if it doesn't matter, why create a Constitutional crisis" issue that comes from ignoring the House's duly authorized subpoenas.   Yes, Executive priveledge exists, but blanked immunity for everyone, everywhere, at the whim of the President, doesn't.  And that's basically what's being claimed.  (As per some of the arguments that have come before the court already.)

Considering the two years of angst and charges of treason Trump was put through by the Democrats with the phony Russia collusion charge, and other politically tinged charges, he should take every legal defense to protect himself.  Why should  he or we take lightly another charge by the Democrats whose only stated purpose all along is to reverse the 2016 election when Trump was constitutionally and duly elected president?  Enough already.  Vote him out of office next year.  Stop with phony baloney stuff already.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 08, 2019, 12:04:15 pm
Considering the two years of angst and charges of treason Trump was put through by the Democrats with the phony Russia collusion charge,[...]

Remind us, how many of his campaign staff are in prison right now?
And the Mueller report did not say that Trump was in the clear, just that a sitting president cannot be charged.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 08, 2019, 12:09:09 pm
As one who has testified on a half dozen occasions to various Congressional committees (twice under oath as that was the tradition of the House Energy and Commerce Oversight subcommittee under John Dingell) I never told a lie!!! ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSklX1Hs324

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 08, 2019, 12:14:53 pm
Remind us, how many of his campaign staff are in prison right now?
And the Mueller report did not say that Trump was in the clear, just that a sitting president cannot be charged.

1. Not a single one for reasons that would implicate Trump
2. Stop it already. It doesn't take two years to come to that conclusion, it was well known even before the inquiry.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 08, 2019, 12:15:07 pm
Remind us, how many of his campaign staff are in prison right now?
And the Mueller report did not say that Trump was in the clear, just that a sitting president cannot be charged.

To add to this, remember also that the Mueller investigation *wasn't about Trump* and *wasn't initiated by Democrats.* It was to investigate Russian interference in the election process (which was definitively found), and Trump and his people met the definition for obstruction of that investigation 6 times, and also were *aware of* Russian interference but it could not be proved that they *participated in* said interference.


Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 08, 2019, 12:16:55 pm
Furthermore, going to your oversight claim, the President has executive privilege to withhold things from congress.

It was basically litigated in the Nixon era, . . .

The Supreme Court's opinion in United States v. Nixon (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/418/683) involved a claim of privilege asserted with respect to documents subject to a subpoena issued in a criminal proceeding.  The unanimous decision rejected the president's claim of privilege in that context, and the Court's reasoning was explicitly based on the needs of the criminal justice system.

It's not clear whether the same balancing of equities between the need to comply with a validly-issued subpoena and the president's need to be able to receive advice in confidence would apply to a subpoena issued by a congressional committee in the course of an impeachment investigation or what additional issues, specific to impeachments, the courts would need to consider.  The decision in the Nixon case certainly is an important precedent, but it would not necessarily be controlling.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 08, 2019, 12:17:26 pm
...also were *aware of* Russian interference but it could not be proved that they *participated in* said interference.

Whatever interference there was, it was under Obama/Biden's watch.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 08, 2019, 12:19:45 pm
Whatever interference there was, it was under Obama/Biden's watch.

Yes, it happened while Trump was a candidate, as one might expect when one is interfering on behalf of said candidate.  Wouldn't need much help AFTER the election, after all.  (Well, until about now, but Moscow Mitch has got that covered.)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 08, 2019, 12:32:25 pm
If that interference was so serious, wouldn't it behooved Obama to interfere in the interference? For more than one reason (the public one would be national security, the real one to stop Trump from coming to power, if they thought Russian interference was so effective - but they didn't, because it wasn't - it was only after the lost election that they started crying for excuses).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 08, 2019, 12:48:12 pm
Buttigieg has been my top...

OMG!!!

Sorry, James, couldn't resist  ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 08, 2019, 12:50:52 pm
... And are you under the impression that a 600K contract is unusual...

To put things into perspective:

Quote
"The average annual compensation for non-executive directors at S&P 500 companies rose 2 percent to $304,856 last year, topping $300,000 for the first time and 43 percent higher than it was 10 years ago, according to a new report released by executive headhunters Spencer Stuart."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 08, 2019, 02:51:27 pm
If that interference was so serious, wouldn't it behooved Obama to interfere in the interference? For more than one reason (the public one would be national security, the real one to stop Trump from coming to power, if they thought Russian interference was so effective - but they didn't, because it wasn't - it was only after the lost election that they started crying for excuses).

It's a fair question, but your conclusions are suspect ;). Especially considering that we actually DID apparently bring it up with Russia directly, but clearly not with enough strength.

Anyway, there seems to be no definitive answer, but the suggestions range from McConnell wouldn't sign onto a joint condemnation, to they didn't want to appear to tilt the election toward HRC, to they didn't want to irritate Putin because they wanted his buy-off on the Iran nuclear deal. NPR has a pretty evenhanded look at the various reasons why (https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/587614043/fact-check-why-didnt-obama-stop-russia-s-election-interference-in-2016) things might have gone down the way they did.

My personal opinion?  Probably a lot of the Iran deal, combined with Obama's tendency to play foreign policy very softly and deliberately.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 08, 2019, 02:57:57 pm
To put things into perspective:

Yeah - so the difference between the Average Joe getting 25k/month from a random corp, and the Son of Joe getting 50k/month from an energy company with a predilection for splashy publicity doesn't really move the needle for me.   Plus, apparently one of Burisma's main talents is getting famous and connected people to do stuff with them. (https://www.npr.org/2019/10/04/766579412/what-to-know-about-the-ukrainian-company-at-the-heart-of-trumps-biden-allegation)

Quote
Zlochevsky's event has featured such speakers as Prince Albert II of Monaco; Romano Prodi, a former Italian prime minister; Joschka Fischer, a former German foreign minister; and other past and present luminaries from European and U.S. politics.

Zlochevsky also continues to buy favor with his support for the Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 08, 2019, 03:17:44 pm
Regarding Board of Directors compensation here in the US, I would say it is all over the map.  I have a fair number of individual stock holdings in my portfolio and carefully look at the BODs during proxy season so that I can cast an itelligent vote.  Companies such as Berkshire-Hathaway compensate BOD members quite low as that's in keeping with Buffett's philosophy.  Compensation includes more than the yearly monetary remuneration and can include stock and stock options as well.  I mentioned Elaine Chao's presence on the Wells Fargo board in an earlier post and that's the gift that keeps on giving as she received another payout earlier this years because of stock option.  Now maybe she donated this to charity to avoid any conflict of interest but that has not been disclosed.  We have a good friend who was a US Trade Representative in a past administration who served on Intel, Estee Lauder, and one other board that I cannot remember.  That person's yearly compensation excluding stock and stock options was $950K/year and this was back in 2014 when I looked at the data. 

In the US, a lot of people go on BODs for political reasons and quota filling.  Sometimes they have an understanding of the company and sometimes not.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 08, 2019, 03:48:48 pm
Regarding Board of Directors compensation here in the US, I would say it is all over the map.  I have a fair number of individual stock holdings in my portfolio and carefully look at the BODs during proxy season so that I can cast an itelligent vote.  Companies such as Berkshire-Hathaway compensate BOD members quite low as that's in keeping with Buffett's philosophy.  Compensation includes more than the yearly monetary remuneration and can include stock and stock options as well.  I mentioned Elaine Chao's presence on the Wells Fargo board in an earlier post and that's the gift that keeps on giving as she received another payout earlier this years because of stock option.  Now maybe she donated this to charity to avoid any conflict of interest but that has not been disclosed.  We have a good friend who was a US Trade Representative in a past administration who served on Intel, Estee Lauder, and one other board that I cannot remember.  That person's yearly compensation excluding stock and stock options was $950K/year and this was back in 2014 when I looked at the data. 

In the US, a lot of people go on BODs for political reasons and quota filling.  Sometimes they have an understanding of the company and sometimes not.
But the Democrats have complained for three years that Trump's kids are taking advantage of their daddy's political position to line their pockets.  So now you can;t make excuses when Democratic VP Biden's kid does the same thing.  Especially when Joe Biden met with some of these guys personally.  It's going to sink his candidacy as people realize that Biden is also part of the swamp. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on November 08, 2019, 03:50:05 pm
Regarding Board of Directors compensation here in the US, I would say it is all over the map.  I have a fair number of individual stock holdings in my portfolio and carefully look at the BODs during proxy season so that I can cast an itelligent vote.  Companies such as Berkshire-Hathaway compensate BOD members quite low as that's in keeping with Buffett's philosophy.  Compensation includes more than the yearly monetary remuneration and can include stock and stock options as well.  I mentioned Elaine Chao's presence on the Wells Fargo board in an earlier post and that's the gift that keeps on giving as she received another payout earlier this years because of stock option.  Now maybe she donated this to charity to avoid any conflict of interest but that has not been disclosed.  We have a good friend who was a US Trade Representative in a past administration who served on Intel, Estee Lauder, and one other board that I cannot remember.  That person's yearly compensation excluding stock and stock options was $950K/year and this was back in 2014 when I looked at the data. 

In the US, a lot of people go on BODs for political reasons and quota filling.  Sometimes they have an understanding of the company and sometimes not.

I live in a town with lots of board-of-directors types, who do very well from it. It's part of the way many people live off what I consider to be "rigged" money, rather than "work" money. The circle works like this: the board and the CEO, who is sometimes chairman of the board and sometimes not, pay each other extremely well, the intention being that any board member who is collecting big bucks for doing almost nothing is not going to vote against the CEO, who probably recruited them, and who may be collecting huge bucks with the board's approval (and actually doing quite a bit of work, but not always well.) There's virtually no way to break that circle, especially with big companies, when voting for the board is rarely a serious matter. Occasionally, a hedge fund or buy-out company may force a board change, but that's usually so the hedge fund or buy-out company can make already bigger bucks that they're already making, for doing not much except arranging large loans of money made easy by the Fed. I've now served on three boards, all non-profits, which are not the same kind of deal, although even there, the board is often rigged in favor of the President or CEO. (See Wounded Warrior.) What I have found is that boards are usually recruited by the CEO, perfunctoraly approved by the other board members, and so the CEO almost always has a majority of the board on his side, no matter how corrupt the operation may be or become. I have to say, I was absolutely astonished when the McDonald's board fired their CEO for having a consensual, but forbidden, relationship with an underling. What astonished me isn't that CEOs are occasionally fired for such a thing, but that the said CEO almost doubled the stock price in five years...and that the board must have known that the firing would produce an immediate drop in the stock price, which it did.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 08, 2019, 03:56:07 pm
I live in a town with lots of board-of-directors types, who do very well from it. It's part of the way many people live off what I consider to be "rigged" money, rather than "work" money. The circle works like this: the board and the CEO, who is sometimes chairman of the board and sometimes not, pay each other extremely well, the intention being that any board member who is collecting big bucks for doing almost nothing is not going to vote against the CEO, who probably recruited them, and who may be collecting huge bucks with the board's approval (and actually doing quite a bit of work, but not always well.) There's virtually no way to break that circle, especially with big companies, when voting for the board is rarely a serious matter. Occasionally, a hedge fund or buy-out company may force a board change, but that's usually so the hedge fund or buy-out company can make already bigger bucks that they're already making, for doing not much except arranging large loans of money made easy by the Fed. I've now served on three boards, all non-profits, which are not the same kind of deal, although even there, the board is often rigged in favor of the President or CEO. (See Wounded Warrior.) What I have found is that boards are usually recruited by the CEO, perfunctoraly approved by the other board members, and so the CEO almost always has a majority of the board on his side, no matter how corrupt the operation may be or become. I have to say, I was absolutely astonished when the McDonald's board fired their CEO for having a consensual, but forbidden, relationship with an underling. What astonished me isn't that CEOs are occasionally fired for such a thing, but that the said CEO almost doubled the stock price in five years...and that the board must have known that the firing would produce an immediate drop in the stock price, which it did.
So you're confirming that ex-VP Joe Biden's kid got paid $50,000 a month for being just a pawn on the board of the Ukraine corporation.  Now why couldn't my daddy be a political big-wig?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 08, 2019, 05:11:14 pm
I live in a town with lots of board-of-directors types, who do very well from it. It's part of the way many people live off what I consider to be "rigged" money, rather than "work" money. The circle works like this: the board and the CEO, who is sometimes chairman of the board and sometimes not, pay each other extremely well, the intention being that any board member who is collecting big bucks for doing almost nothing is not going to vote against the CEO, who probably recruited them, and who may be collecting huge bucks with the board's approval (and actually doing quite a bit of work, but not always well.) There's virtually no way to break that circle, especially with big companies, when voting for the board is rarely a serious matter. Occasionally, a hedge fund or buy-out company may force a board change, but that's usually so the hedge fund or buy-out company can make already bigger bucks that they're already making, for doing not much except arranging large loans of money made easy by the Fed.
Most of the shares in US corporations are owned by institutional investors.  Although some of these have proxy policies, they usually vote for management.  Hedge funds are another case and people like Nelson Peltz have forced their way onto BODs and made significant changes (Peltz was largely responsible for the duPont-Dow merger and more recently Procter & Gamble restructuring).  Larry Fink who is CEO of Black Rock, a firm that runs a bunch of ETFs and funds with an aggregate investment of $6.84T (yes, trillion) has been most outspoken about corporate management needing to reform.  I don't know if they have translated this down to proxy voting.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 08, 2019, 06:24:06 pm
So you're confirming that ex-VP Joe Biden's kid got paid $50,000 a month for being just a pawn on the board of the Ukraine corporation.

It's a bit of a leap to arrive at that conclusion from what John Camp wrote. :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on November 08, 2019, 06:37:13 pm
It's a bit of a leap to arrive at that conclusion from what John Camp wrote. :)

I'd take out that part.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 08, 2019, 07:42:48 pm
It's a bit of a leap to arrive at that conclusion from what John Camp wrote. :)
If I'm right, he's toast.  We'll know pretty soon.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 09, 2019, 04:07:49 pm
But the Democrats have complained for three years that Trump's kids are taking advantage of their daddy's political position to line their pockets.  So now you can;t make excuses when Democratic VP Biden's kid does the same thing.  Especially when Joe Biden met with some of these guys personally.  It's going to sink his candidacy as people realize that Biden is also part of the swamp. 

Here it comes:

"House Republicans add Hunter Biden, whistleblower to impeachment hearing witness wishlist"
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/469728-house-republicans-name-hunter-biden-whistleblower-on-impeachment-hearing (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/469728-house-republicans-name-hunter-biden-whistleblower-on-impeachment-hearing)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 09, 2019, 04:27:02 pm
Here it comes:

"House Republicans add Hunter Biden, whistleblower to impeachment hearing witness wishlist"
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/469728-house-republicans-name-hunter-biden-whistleblower-on-impeachment-hearing (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/469728-house-republicans-name-hunter-biden-whistleblower-on-impeachment-hearing)

Looking forward to what Hunter Biden has to say about, ... Trump's withholding military aid? Was Hunter Biden also listening in on Trump's perfect call? Didn't know that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on November 09, 2019, 05:20:44 pm
Here it comes:

"House Republicans add Hunter Biden, whistleblower to impeachment hearing witness wishlist"
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/469728-house-republicans-name-hunter-biden-whistleblower-on-impeachment-hearing (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/469728-house-republicans-name-hunter-biden-whistleblower-on-impeachment-hearing)

The key word in that headline is "wishlist."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 09, 2019, 07:12:02 pm
The key word in that headline is "wishlist."
Well the Democrats who control the House won;t let the Republicans call him.  They wouldn't wind to embarrass VP Biden. Of course, the trial will be held in the Republican controlled senate where he will be called to testify. Of course, he might not show up.  VP Joe Biden must be beside himself. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 09, 2019, 07:49:22 pm
Of course, the trial will be held in the Republican controlled senate where [Hunter Biden, former Vice President Biden's son] will be called to testify.

Probably not.  Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the Senate trial if the House of Representatives adopts articles of impeachment.  While an impeachment is not a judicial proceeding, the Senate rules imply that the usual legal standards for determining what evidence is to be heard apply in impeachment trials. 

Quote
. . . the Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate; or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote of the Members of the Senate. Upon all such questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on Impeachment Trials, VII (https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/senaterules.pdf)

There is no plausible legal theory under which the testimony of Hunter Biden (or his father, for that matter) would be relevant to a determination of whether President Trump abused the power of his office by asking the Ukrainian president to investigate the Bidens (père or fils).  While the senators theoretically might override a ruling by the chief justice, I think it's very unlikely that would ever happen.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 09, 2019, 08:50:21 pm
Probably not.  Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the Senate trial if the House of Representatives adopts articles of impeachment.  While an impeachment is not a judicial proceeding, the Senate rules imply that the usual legal standards for determining what evidence is to be heard apply in impeachment trials. 

There is no plausible legal theory under which the testimony of Hunter Biden (or his father, for that matter) would be relevant to a determination of whether President Trump abused the power of his office by asking the Ukrainian president to investigate the Bidens (père or fils).  While the senators theoretically might override a ruling by the chief justice, I think it's very unlikely that would ever happen.
What if Hunter Biden could testify to the corruption he was aware of in the Ukrainian corporation he worked for and what knowledge his father had of the situation?  That would go to the heart of why the president wanted the Ukrainian president to investigate corruption and justify any quid pro quo, the basis up the impeachment charge?  Of course, the Chief Justice could rule that it's not relative.  But the discussion in the news would remind everyone of Biden's involvement where his kid got a $50K a month job because his father was a political big shot.  Wasn't one of the claims that Trump wanted the Ukrainian president to make the decision to investigate very public?  Well, what better way to make it public than to bring it into a discussion regarding a president's impeachment trial?   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 09, 2019, 11:03:34 pm
As expected, Schiff ruled out the whistleblower from testifying and earlier ruled out Biden from testifying.  The Democrat Commissar has spoken. The Star Chamber Trial continues.  The anti-Trump media will continue to support the protection of Biden. 
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/09/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower-impeachment-inquiry/index.html 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 10, 2019, 12:22:08 am
Hilarious.

I am gone 2 days and Allan is still desperately trying to take our attention away from Trump’s deeds in favor of a fantasy story about Biden’s son...

Seriously?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 10, 2019, 06:07:17 am
As expected, Schiff ruled out the whistleblower from testifying and earlier ruled out Biden from testifying.

Indeed, as expected. Hunter Biden is not under investigation and he has played no part in replacing a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine. There is no point in hearing the whistleblower, as actual witnesses have appeared since then.

The only (nasty) reason is to make it less likely that anyone with a sense of justice will ever raise his hand again. And that's exactly why whistleblower protection has been created, and this proves how valuable and necessary it is. It protects the Constitution.

And yes, it's a mere distraction from the thread's topic, and very predictable given the overwhelming evidence and witnesses..
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 10, 2019, 08:47:54 am
As expected, Schiff ruled out the whistleblower from testifying and earlier ruled out Biden from testifying.  The Democrat Commissar has spoken. The Star Chamber Trial continues. The anti-Trump media will continue to support the protection of Biden. 
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/09/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower-impeachment-inquiry/index.html
When will you understand that there is NO trial.  The trial on takes place after the Impeachment articles are adopted by the House and ONLY THEN does a trial take place over in the Senate.  Everything right now is simple posturing by both sides and Speaker Pelosi will make the final call on whether they move to full impeachment articles.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 10, 2019, 08:49:02 am
Indeed, as expected. Hunter Biden is not under investigation and he has played no part in replacing a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine. There is no point in hearing the whistleblower, as actual witnesses have appeared since then.

The only (nasty) reason is to make it less likely that anyone with a sense of justice will ever raise his hand again. And that's exactly why whistleblower protection has been created, and this proves how valuable and necessary it is. It protects the Constitution.

And yes, it's a mere distraction from the thread's topic, and very predictable given the overwhelming evidence and witnesses..
Amazing how someone living in The Netherlands knows more about the American political process than some of those who liver here!!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 10, 2019, 08:55:38 am
Amazing how someone living in The Netherlands knows more about the American political process than some of those who liver here!!

It can help to view the theater from a distance, it allows to overview all aspects of the entire spectacle.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 10, 2019, 09:29:17 am
Fair minded people see this as a Star Chamber hearing where the decision was made three years ago.  That's how long Democrats have been wanting to impeach Trump.  Decisions made by Schiff are political in nature and will be seen as such by the public.  Of course anti-Trumpers could care less about the method as long as they see Trump hang.  I get it.  But there are people out there who are concerned that the process is fair.  Otherwise there could be sympathy for Trump in the general election.  Also, remember there are two sections of this process.  Republicans will get their chance to to put their thumb on the scale of justice as well when the impeachment moves to the Senate and Trump is found innocent.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 10, 2019, 10:05:25 am
... Hunter Biden is not under investigation and he has played no part in replacing a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine...

That’s an interesting angle. And how do you know that? How do you know that he didn’t go to his daddy and said: “Daddy, daddy, can you please get that nasty man off our backs, pretty please?” And daddy said: “Don’t you worry, kiddo, I’ve been in politics for 40 years, I surely know how to do that without leaving any trace, and how to make it look like I had no idea you were involved.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 10, 2019, 10:28:19 am
That’s an interesting angle. And how do you know that? How do you know that he didn’t go to his daddy and said: “Daddy, daddy, can you please get that nasty man off our backs, pretty please?” And daddy said: “Don’t you worry, kiddo, I’ve been in politics for 40 years, I surely know how to do that without leaving any trace, and how to make it look like I had no idea you were involved.
Of course.  The whole point of the Trump request to Ukraine's president is to clean up any corruption in the Ukraine including corruption that the Bidens may have been involved in.  To find out if the request had some basis of legitimacy would go to the heart of deciding whether the president should be impeached.  Only Democrats wanting to impeach regardless of the evidence and wanting to protect their presidential candidate would dismiss testimony from the Bidens.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 10, 2019, 10:32:28 am
That’s an interesting angle. And how do you know that?

The investigation into Burisma had already stalled before Hunter Biden was employed. That was one of the reasons that the international community, including the USA, have pressured Ukraine to replace the prosecutor with one that would become more active in fighting corruption.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 10, 2019, 10:42:26 am
... to replace the prosecutor with one that would become more active in fighting corruption.

And how is that going? Any change? Why wasn't the investigation into Burisma reopened then?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 10, 2019, 10:42:53 am
The investigation into Burisma had already stalled before Hunter Biden was employed. That was one of the reasons that the international community, including the USA, have pressured Ukraine to replace the prosecutor with one that would become more active in fighting corruption.

All of that is nice but doesn;t answer the question.  Did VP Joe Biden and his son do anything to protect Barisma?  Testimony from Biden could reveal that.  After all, for what purpose was Hunter being paid $50,000 a month if fear of an investigation was eliminated?   If they did collude to use the VP office to protect Barisma, then the president was perfectly right in asking for an investigation and he should not be impeached.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 10, 2019, 10:47:46 am
If they did collude to use the VP office to protect Barisma, then the president was perfectly right in asking for an investigation and he should not be impeached.
And if they did not collude for such purpose, he should be impeached?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 10, 2019, 10:58:12 am
And if they did not collude for such purpose, he should be impeached?
No.  If the president had a reason to ask for an investigation, that would be acceptable as well.  After all, the purpose of an investigation is to find out the facts.  You can't know what happened until you investigate.  Isn't that what the whole Mueller investigation was about? 

That's why the whole impeachment thing is bogus.  There is an appearance of corruption that should be investigated.  While there certainly is political fallout against Biden, that doesn;t eliminate the rationale for an investigation.   The VP shouldn;t got himself involved with his son;s nonsense in the first place as he was warned by his Democrat friends.  Maybe that's why he decided not to run in the 2016 presidential election knowing that this might become an issue.  You can be sure his democrat rivals today would love to see Hunter testify.  They're just not saying it or they'll be lambasted by democrats.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 10, 2019, 11:10:29 am
No.  If the president had a reason to ask for an investigation, that would be acceptable as well.  After all, the purpose of an investigation is to find out the facts.  You can't know what happened until you investigate.  Isn't that what the whole Mueller investigation was about?
That's the whole "are you still beating your wife" rationale you like to quote. You make an unfounded allegation, and then say you need a investigation to determine the facts. Which is exactly what the Biden thing is about. You have to ask with all the corruption everywhere in the world, why is he only interested in investigating alleged corruption of the son of the political rival he consistently loses to in the polls. Witch hunts are okay as long as he is the one pursuing them.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 10, 2019, 11:37:42 am
That's the whole "are you still beating your wife" rationale you like to quote. You make an unfounded allegation, and then say you need a investigation to determine the facts. Which is exactly what the Biden thing is about. You have to ask with all the corruption everywhere in the world, why is he only interested in investigating alleged corruption of the son of the political rival he consistently loses to in the polls. Witch hunts are okay as long as he is the one pursuing them.
So why was it OK for Obama to launch an investigation of Trump a political rival based on a dossier prepared by Trump's adversary, Hillary Clinton, a Democrat?  In any case, the Trump request was rather benign and mild compared what happened to him when the whole secret forces of the US government were directed against him and still are three years later in the current impeachment.  Yet, you have no concern with these attacks. 


Of course there's political fallout from an investigation.  But that doesn;t make the investigation illegitimate. Otherwise, any politician could get away with corruption by saying they're after me for political reasons and the investigation should be dropped, just what Trump has said as well.  If you don't want to be investigated, you have to remain squeaky clean, something Biden, Trump, Warren, and all the others really don;t know how to do. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 10, 2019, 11:43:37 am
If you are going to quote me, don't change my words.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 10, 2019, 11:46:03 am
If you are going to quote me, don't change my words.
What are you talking about?  I quoted your entire post.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 10, 2019, 12:00:34 pm
And how is that going? Any change? Why wasn't the investigation into Burisma reopened then?

It was, by the subsequent Prosecutor General who later exempted Mr. Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma, from the suspicions.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 10, 2019, 12:21:21 pm
It was, by the subsequent Prosecutor General who later exempted Mr. Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma, from the suspicions.

It doesn;t explain why Biden was paid $50,000 a month?  It wasn;t for his good looks.  I'd want to know what his father VP Joe Biden knew about his involvement in Barisma and whether he would help out.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 10, 2019, 01:02:32 pm
It was, by the subsequent Prosecutor General who later exempted Mr. Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma, from the suspicions.

Yay! Victory! (for Burisma, of course).

Now, lets recollect... the EU starts an investigation in Zlochevsky (btw, that name translates into "naughty" ;) ) and blocks his millions. Then complains the old prosecutor isn't cooperating with the investigation and wants, allegedly, that prosecutor fired for that. Because of that "lack of cooperation" the EU "has no choice" but to release the funds. Now the new prosecutors finds no corruption. How convenient. That new prosecutor must be a smart guy, having seen what happened to the old prosecutor when you go against the son of the vice-president of the US.

So, no corruption in Ukraine. What else is new?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 10, 2019, 02:54:14 pm
It doesn;t explain why Biden was paid $50,000 a month?  It wasn;t for his good looks.  I'd want to know what his father VP Joe Biden knew about his involvement in Barisma and whether he would help out.

Which still has nothing to do with the impeachment inquiry into Trump witholding Congress approved military funding in exchange for foreign Interference with US politics. Your question is just a distraction.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 10, 2019, 03:11:35 pm
It doesn;t explain why Biden was paid $50,000 a month?  It wasn;t for his good looks.  I'd want to know what his father VP Joe Biden knew about his involvement in Barisma and whether he would help out.

It would be even worse if an American company paid him for such services that kind of money. In such a case, it could come indirectly from your own pocket.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 10, 2019, 04:49:51 pm
It would be even worse if an American company paid him for such services that kind of money. In such a case, it could come indirectly from your own pocket.
I just looked at the proxy statement for a pharma company whose stock I hold.  Average compensation for BOD members is $330,000/year.  there are 10 outside directors so the company is paying over $3M/year.  Yes, that does come out our pocket but is a small amount.  I have no idea how many directors that Ukraine company has and what the compensation is for them.  Taking a quick look at some of my other holdings the range seems to be $330K to $380K per year for serving on a BOD.  I also quickly looked at JP Morgan Chase (biggest bank in the US) and their BOD member average about $440K/year.  Nice work if you can get it.

It's easy enough to find this stuff out as you can Google the company name + proxy statement.  They disclose the the amounts in that document. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 10, 2019, 05:06:47 pm
In Hunter's defense, it is hard to resist the call for such an easy cash, although a Heinz grandson thought it is a bed idea and declined himself. The offer to join the board may or may not came with the expectations of father's influence. Just a mere presence of such a name on the board serves several useful purposes, without anything illegal involved. It might give a certain credibility to clients, partners, creditors. auditors, etc. It might serve as a deterrent to outside meddling by the authorities (obviously worked, though not illegal). For those familiar with the post-Soviet practice, there are several unspoken rules that everyone understands and obeys.

A personal example (and no, it doesn't involve a $600K to me): while working as a finance guy for an internet startup about 20 years ago in Barcelona, I was invited by the CEO to accompany him to Milan to meet the auditors (one of the big four). We flew first class. At the meeting, after the CEO introduced me in English and I exchanged a couple of pleasantries with the Italian hosts, they quickly switched to Italian and forgot about me. I was wondering why I was there? Then it dawned on me: bringing a gray-hair guy who until then worked for one of the biggest US blue-chip multinationals was supposed to give credibility to the start-up and the young CEO. That was about it. I got the first-class flight and a dinner in a nice Milan restaurant out of it (wish it was $600K, alas ;) )
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 10, 2019, 05:08:05 pm
Nice work if you can get it.
That is largely what the pushback is about. A person envious because he is not being paid to be on a board of directors so it must be corruption.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 10, 2019, 05:17:15 pm
Then again, there could be something more than just sitting on the board (although that "more" may or may not be illegal):

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/johnson-grassley-call-state-department-release-documents-hunter-biden-and-burisma

Quote
Recently obtained State Department emails, made public through a FOIA request, indicate Burisma’s consulting firm noted “two high profile U.S. citizens (including Hunter Biden as a board member) affiliated with the company” when requesting a meeting with State Department officials to discuss the validity of the U.S. government’s classification that their client, Burisma, was corrupt.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 10, 2019, 06:36:40 pm
In Hunter's defense, it is hard to resist the call for such an easy cash, although a Heinz grandson thought it is a bed idea and declined himself. The offer to join the board may or may not came with the expectations of father's influence. Just a mere presence of such a name on the board serves several useful purposes, without anything illegal involved.

Not illegal or a violation of ethics rules, perhaps, but according to in a piece by Glenn Thrush and Kenneth Vogel published today in the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/us/politics/joe-biden-ukraine.html), an "unnecessary distraction" sufficient to warrant concern in the Department of State.

Quote
. . . Hunter Biden’s activities struck many of the officials working on Ukraine policy as an unnecessary distraction, or worse. Mr. Biden’s own aides were so worried about the optics, they enlisted State Department officials to gather facts to determine how to handle the story, according to people who worked with his office.

Yet few, if any, had raised the issue with Mr. Biden directly when it first arose. Most viewed the revelation — unseemly, but not illegal or a violation of ethics rules — as simply not worth risking a scolding from Mr. Biden, who had reacted angrily when Mr. Obama’s aides raised the issue of his son’s lobbying during the 2008 campaign. One person who briefly discussed the matter with Mr. Biden said he was anguished by his son’s personal problems and unsure how to help him recover.

Actually, according to the Times report, some State Department officials eventually did raise the issue of his son Hunter's activities in Ukraine with Vice President Biden—the Times was not able to persuade them to reveal the response they received from the vice president—but "former administration officials . . . , speaking on the condition of anonymity, cited one reason above all others for backing off: the vice president’s shaky emotional state over [his elder son] Beau’s illness and death."

That's not to imply that the activities of Hunter Biden are relevant to the issue of whether President Trump abused the power of his office by asking his Ukrainian counterpart to launch an investigation into the Bidens.  Nothing Hunter Biden or his father did plausibly could have any significance in determining Trump's culpability―which would be based solely on his own motives and actions.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 10, 2019, 08:02:32 pm
In Hunter's defense, it is hard to resist the call for such an easy cash, although a Heinz grandson thought it is a bed idea and declined himself. The offer to join the board may or may not came with the expectations of father's influence. Just a mere presence of such a name on the board serves several useful purposes, without anything illegal involved. It might give a certain credibility to clients, partners, creditors. auditors, etc. It might serve as a deterrent to outside meddling by the authorities (obviously worked, though not illegal). For those familiar with the post-Soviet practice, there are several unspoken rules that everyone understands and obeys.

A personal example (and no, it doesn't involve a $600K to me): while working as a finance guy for an internet startup about 20 years ago in Barcelona, I was invited by the CEO to accompany him to Milan to meet the auditors (one of the big four). We flew first class. At the meeting, after the CEO introduced me in English and I exchanged a couple of pleasantries with the Italian hosts, they quickly switched to Italian and forgot about me. I was wondering why I was there? Then it dawned on me: bringing a gray-hair guy who until then worked for one of the biggest US blue-chip multinationals was supposed to give credibility to the start-up and the young CEO. That was about it. I got the first-class flight and a dinner in a nice Milan restaurant out of it (wish it was $600K, alas ;) )
Your father wasn't the Vice President. :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 10, 2019, 08:10:16 pm
Your father wasn't the Vice President. :)
And the crime is?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 10, 2019, 08:11:47 pm
Not illegal or a violation of ethics rules, perhaps, but according to in a piece by Glenn Thrush and Kenneth Vogel published today in the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/us/politics/joe-biden-ukraine.html), an "unnecessary distraction" sufficient to warrant concern in the Department of State.

Actually, according to the Times report, some State Department officials eventually did raise the issue of his son Hunter's activities in Ukraine with Vice President Biden—the Times was not able to persuade them to reveal the response they received from the vice president—but "former administration officials . . . , speaking on the condition of anonymity, cited one reason above all others for backing off: the vice president’s shaky emotional state over [his elder son] Beau’s illness and death."

That's not to imply that the activities of Hunter Biden are relevant to the issue of whether President Trump abused the power of his office by asking his Ukrainian counterpart to launch an investigation into the Bidens.  Nothing Hunter Biden or his father did plausibly could have any significance in determining Trump's culpability―which would be based solely on his own motives and actions.

How do you know, Chris?  Are you a mind reader?  Let Hunter Biden testify and swear under oath and legal penalty if he falsely testifies that there were no corrupt actions by either he or his father and that his father played no part in him getting the job in Ukraine or China.       After all, if he testifies as such, that could even convince republicans that the president's quid pro quo was only to hurt a political rival and could convince the Senate to find him guilty.  Short of testifying, the question remains open to many people who will also ask, what did Hunter fear from testifying?  You see, you can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on November 10, 2019, 08:14:17 pm
I think Hunter Biden was recruited to the BOD because his father was vice president, and the Ukrainians were hoping to get something out of it. Hoping to get something out of it, and actually getting something out of it, are two different things, and nobody alleges the latter. Hunter Biden was a troubled adult, who was exploited by the Ukrainians who, I imagine, felt even the appearance of a connection to Joe Biden was worth $50,000 a month, or whatever it was.

A lot of Presidents have had close relatives and friends who embarrassed them -- Jimmy Carter's brother, Ronald Reagan's gay son, Bill Clinton's wife and girlfriend ( 8-) ). No way to stop that.

None of that has anything to do with Trump's attempted extortion. You have to remember, it wasn't a request from Trump to look into Biden's son's employment that's the problem, it was Trump's effort at extortion that's the problem -- the withholding of U.S. government money from Ukraine, which had been authorized by Congress in an effort to help the Ukraine hold off Trump's buddy Vladimir Putin's troops, that caused the problem. I think if Trump had said, "Listen, pal, you should look into Hunter Biden's presence on the gas company board," there wouldn't have been an impeachable problem. The problem was when he said, "Listen pal, look into Biden or I'll withhold the defense money you need." Clearly extortion, and it wasn't his money to withhold.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 10, 2019, 08:18:37 pm
I think Hunter Biden was recruited to the BOD because his father was vice president, and the Ukrainians were hoping to get something out of it. Hoping to get something out of it, and actually getting something out of it, are two different things, and nobody alleges the latter. Hunter Biden was a troubled adult, who was exploited by the Ukrainians who, I imagine, felt even the appearance of a connection to Joe Biden was worth $50,000 a month, or whatever it was.

A lot of Presidents have had close relatives and friends who embarrassed them -- Jimmy Carter's brother, Ronald Reagan's gay son, Bill Clinton's wife and girlfriend ( 8-) ). No way to stop that.

None of that has anything to do with Trump's attempted extortion.




You think? So we should impeach a president on what you and others think?  Sworn testimony by Hunter Biden would reveal the facts. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on November 10, 2019, 08:22:48 pm
<snip> Sworn testimony by Hunter Biden would reveal the facts.

There's something you don't se every day -- Alan's admitting he'd accept sworn testimony from an admitted cokehead.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 10, 2019, 08:37:33 pm
There's something you don't se every day -- Alan's admitting he'd accept sworn testimony from an admitted cokehead.
There are plenty of sober people who lie on the stand.  So why can't a person with a drug problem tell the truth?  In fact if he's in treatment, he may feel compelled to tell the truth to stay sober.  So we actually get honest testimony.  In any case, if he had drug problems, even more the reason he should answer how he deserved $50,000 a month and whether there were anything untoward about the relationship he and his father had with Ukraine and China. Was he selling his father's office for drug money he needed?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 10, 2019, 08:49:11 pm
I think if Trump had said, "Listen, pal, you should look into Hunter Biden's presence on the gas company board," there wouldn't have been an impeachable problem.

What may be impeachable is a somewhat more complex issue, but your hypothetical would appear to involve a violation of 52 USC §30121 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121): "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit . . . [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 10, 2019, 08:55:06 pm
What may be impeachable is a somewhat more complex issue, but your hypothetical would appear to involve a violation of 52 USC §30121 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121): "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit . . . [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."
Chris, What contribution from a foreign national did Trump solicit? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 10, 2019, 09:58:41 pm
Chris, What contribution from a foreign national did Trump solicit?

This conversation is absolutely insane.

The answer to this question has already been provided tens of times in this thread. Trump has clearly solicited help from Ukraine to make a public statement that a major political rival of Trump was being investigated for corruption. Not only that, he conditioned the release of military funding already approved against this investigation...

The conversational tactics of Allan, which consist in ignoring the previous answers in an attempt to reset the conversation in a way aligned with the disinformation he is continuing to try to spread, is just incredibly tiresome.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 10, 2019, 10:05:00 pm
This conversation is absolutely insane.

The answer to this question has already been provided tens of times in this thread.

The conversational tactics of Allan, which consist in ignoring the previous answers in an attempt to reset the conversation in a way aligned with the disinformation he is continuing to try to spread, is just incredibly tiresome.

Cheers,
Bernard

My question that I never asked before was addressed to Chris, who made the statement, not you.  Your smart-aleck response is tiresome.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 10, 2019, 10:30:21 pm
Without the whistleblower and Hunter Biden's testimony during the impeachment process, the impeachment if approved by the Democrats will be dead on arrival in the Senate.   Apparently, Republican Senator Rand Paul read one of my posts and seems to agree with me. :)

"Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky, who has emerged as an outspoken supporter of Trump and critic of the whistleblower, said making military aid contingent on corruption investigations should not be controversial.

"Presidents have withheld aid before for corruption," Paul said on NBC's Meet the Press . "So the thing is I think it's a mistake to say, 'Oh, he withheld aid, until he got what he wanted.' Well, if it's corruption, and he believes there to be corruption, he has every right to withhold aid.""


Apparently, Sen. Lindsey Graham has been reading my posts as well.

"I consider any impeachment in the House that doesn't allow us to know who the whistleblower is to be invalid because without the whistleblower complaint, we wouldn't be talking about any of this and I also see the need for Hunter Biden to be called to adequately defend the President and if you don't do those two things it's a complete joke," Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/10/politics/lindsey-graham-whistleblower-testimony-impeachment-inquiry/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/10/politics/lindsey-graham-whistleblower-testimony-impeachment-inquiry/index.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 10, 2019, 11:04:21 pm
This conversation is absolutely insane.. just incredibly tiresome.

I agree.

It is absolutely insane and tiresome that you present hearsay, conjectures, what you or somebody else thinks and believes, as unquestionable facts and proof of guilt.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 10, 2019, 11:23:49 pm
My question that I never asked before was addressed to Chris, who made the statement, not you.  Your smart-aleck response is tiresome.

How is exactly does the point you are discussing from Chris differ from the core argument discussed at length in the 60 previous pages of this thread Alan?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 10, 2019, 11:28:58 pm
It is absolutely insane and tiresome that you present hearsay, conjectures, what you or somebody else thinks and believes, as unquestionable facts and proof of guilt.

Well, the only group of people who keep denying the facts at hand are hard core Republicans who seem to think it’s preferable to keep supporting Trump at any cost over a possible loss to Democrats... everybody else, inside and outside the US, has done the very simple thing which is to acknowledge the facts.

Those facts are indisputable, they have been confirmed by all those who testified under oath, Republicans or not. Some of them by Trump himself.

But... I thought the point being debated by Alan with Chris was completely different? ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 10, 2019, 11:37:28 pm
Btw, the rules surroundings whistle blowing should be easily understandable by anyone with common sense.

If the identity of the current whistle blower were revealed this would most probably prevent future whistle blowers from doing what the law forces them to do, which is to inform higher authorities of a possible problem.

Besides, its identity is completely irrelevant because the White House themselves confirmed his/her claims when they published the transcripts.

Not to mention the fact that countless witnesses under oath have confirmed his/her claims also.

This is all driven by pathetic political plays attempting to demonstrate that this case is an unfair political move by Democrats. The hope of those requesting that his/her identity be reveaied are just hoping that he/she is a Democrat. Which, even if true, would only just confirm that Democrats did follow a law voted in by Republicans...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2019, 12:29:22 am
How is exactly does the point you are discussing from Chris differ from the core argument discussed at length in the 60 previous pages of this thread Alan?

Cheers,
Bernard

I asked Chris to explain how Trump violated the law he quoted.  If you know Chris's explanation, you;re a better mind reader than I am. The law seems to constrain foreign nationals not the president of the US.

[quote from: Chris Kern on November 10, 2019, 08:49:11 pm
What may be impeachable is a somewhat more complex issue, but your hypothetical would appear to involve a violation of 52 USC §30121: "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit . . . [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2019, 12:40:01 am
Well, the only group of people who keep denying the facts at hand are hard core Republicans who seem to think it’s preferable to keep supporting Trump at any cost over a possible loss to Democrats... everybody else, inside and outside the US, has done the very simple thing which is to acknowledge the facts.

Those facts are indisputable, they have been confirmed by all those who testified under oath, Republicans or not. Some of them by Trump himself.

But... I thought the point being debated by Alan with Chris was completely different? ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

Facts are not determined in newspapers or by talking heads on cable news programs.  Nor are they determined by a political leader, Congressman Schiff, who has the authority to select who the witnesses are, what types of cross-examination the defence may do, and who can be called to testify or not allowed to testify.  That's how the Soviet Union's star chamber trials preceded when they wanted to convict the defendant.

In America, facts are arrived at by sworn testimony by witnesses selected by both sides,  Other evidence is presented in a fair hearing where both sides can ask questions and cross-examine witnesses and question the evidence.  It's the way to arrive at truth.  Only a dictator says the truth is indisputable.  Your argument shows just how much your lack of understanding the American jurisprudence system and our constitution are.  It's a lynch mentality of "getting the guy"  regardless of what the facts are.  It's just an extension of the two year insane hysteria of how Trump colluded with the Russians, subsequently disproved.  This is just more of the same, only worse. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2019, 12:54:10 am
Btw, the rules surroundings whistle blowing should be easily understandable by anyone with common sense.

If the identity of the current whistle blower were revealed this would most probably prevent future whistle blowers from doing what the law forces them to do, which is to inform higher authorities of a possible problem.

Besides, its identity is completely irrelevant because the White House themselves confirmed his/her claims when they published the transcripts.

Not to mention the fact that countless witnesses under oath have confirmed his/her claims also.

This is all driven by pathetic political plays attempting to demonstrate that this case is an unfair political move by Democrats. The hope of those requesting that his/her identity be reveaied are just hoping that he/she is a Democrat. Which, even if true, would only just confirm that Democrats did follow a law voted in by Republicans...

Cheers,
Bernard


Impeachment of a president has constitutional priority over any congressional laws.  Getting rid of a president is of such a substantial undertaking that a president has a right to defend himself.  He represents the people of the USA and has constitutionally been elected to be president.  That's no small thing.   A president has never been removed from office in over 200 years of our Republic.  We can;t take that removal lightly.  If the witness is required to reveal any facts that may affect the impeachment, his testimony will take priority over any whistleblowing laws.  He may have been protected in less important situations.  But should not be in this situation.

Secondly, you pulled a switch on us.  In the first case you say, or others have said, that impeachment is strictly a political act.   So now you say that there are facts that seem to show that the whistleblower's testimony has already been revealed in facts presented elsewhere, particularly the transcript.  But if the impeachment is political in nature as many argue, then the president's defenders have a right to see if the whistle blower had political reasons to have "whistle blown" in the first place.  After all, you're the one saying it's political.  So making the whistleblower testify is not to reveal facts, but to reveal his political beliefs and whether he was influenced to file complaints based on his political beliefs.  And we don;t know what his political beliefs are at this point.  Only his testimony in Congress will reveal that so he must testify for a fair hearing. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 11, 2019, 12:59:18 am
I asked Chris to explain how Trump violated the law he quoted.  If you know Chris's explanation, you;re a better mind reader than I am. The law seems to constrain foreign nationals not the president of the US.

[quote from: Chris Kern on November 10, 2019, 08:49:11 pm
What may be impeachable is a somewhat more complex issue, but your hypothetical would appear to involve a violation of 52 USC §30121: "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit . . . [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."

It may because English isn’t my mother language, but the sentence above reads: it’s illegal for the “person” (the President Trump) to request something of value (a public announcement that a corruption investigation is on-going on Biden, a political rival of Trump) from a foreign national (the president of Ukraine).

How is that not a confirmation that what Trump did is illegal?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 11, 2019, 01:02:16 am
Facts are not determined in newspapers or by talking heads on cable news programs.  Nor are they determined by a political leader, Congressman Schiff, who has the authority to select who the witnesses are, what types of cross-examination the defence may do, and who can be called to testify or not allowed to testify.  That's how the Soviet Union's star chamber trials preceded when they wanted to convict the defendant.

In America, facts are arrived at by sworn testimony by witnesses selected by both sides,  Other evidence is presented in a fair hearing where both sides can ask questions and cross-examine witnesses and question the evidence.  It's the way to arrive at truth.  Only a dictator says the truth is indisputable.  Your argument shows just how much your lack of understanding the American jurisprudence system and our constitution are.  It's a lynch mentality of "getting the guy"  regardless of what the facts are.  It's just an extension of the two year insane hysteria of how Trump colluded with the Russians, subsequently disproved.  This is just more of the same, only worse.

The facts I am talking about are indeed those provided by witnesses under oath in front of a by-partisan hearing.

Exactly what you write is required.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 11, 2019, 01:03:59 am
Impeachment of a president has constitutional priority over any congressional laws.  Getting rid of a president is of such a substantial undertaking that a president has a right to defend himself.  He represents the people of the USA and has constitutionally been elected to be president.  That's no small thing.   A president has never been removed from office in over 200 years of our Republic.  We can;t take that removal lightly.  If the witness is required to reveal any facts that may affect the impeachment, his testimony will take priority over any whistleblowing laws.  He may have been protected in less important situations.  But should not be in this situation.

Secondly, you pulled a switch on us.  In the first case you say, or others have said, that impeachment is strictly a political act.   So now you say that there are facts that seem to show that the whistleblower's testimony has already been revealed in facts presented elsewhere, particularly the transcript.  But if the impeachment is political in nature as many argue, then the president's defenders have a right to see if the whistle blower had political reasons to have "whistle blown" in the first place.  After all, you're the one saying it's political.  So making the whistleblower testify is not to reveal facts, but to reveal his political beliefs and whether he was influenced to file complaints based on his political beliefs.  And we don;t know what his political beliefs are at this point.  Only his testimony in Congress will reveal that so he must testify for a fair hearing.

You are the one claiming the impeachment is political, I am not.

I am saying the exact opposite.

The impeachment is based on a clear violation of the constitution, it’s NOT a political play.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2019, 01:17:49 am
It may because English isn’t my mother language, but in the sentence above reads: it’s illegal for the “person” (the President Trump) to request something of value (a public announcement that a corruption investigation is on-going on Biden, a political rival of Trump) from a foreign national (the president of Ukraine).

How is that not a confirmation that what Trump did is illegal?

Cheers,
Bernard

Trump wanted the president of the Ukraine to make his investigation public to force him to actually do the investigation.  I'm sure Trump has heard plenty of verbal agreements, yes men,  in his career that were broken before the sun set.    The Ukrainians are so crooked, they;ll make promises one minute and break them the next.  So he wanted Ukraine to make it public to force them to comply and actually do the investigation of their corruption.  Obama should have thought of having them make it public when he asked them to investigate. Trump is smarter than Obama on things like this.  He's dealt with New York contractors like I have.  They all lie.  Ukraine's no different.     

Reminds me of Sam Goldwin of Metro Goldwyn Mayer MGM  Hollywood fame.  He once stated that a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on.  Not sure if you get this English idiom.  It actually sounds like something NY Yankee catcher Yogi Berra would say too. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2019, 01:25:53 am
The facts I am talking about are indeed those provided by witnesses under oath in front of a by-partisan hearing.

Exactly what you write is required.

Cheers,
Bernard

All testimony has mainly been held in secret until now. Democrats who were in charge of the hearings have released only parts of it that make Trump look bad.  There is no impartial judge who makes decisions about these things.

The open hearing regarding impeachment starts next week. It's then that the public will be able to hear testimony that's not in secret.  However,  Democrat Congressman Schiff who still controls the process because Democrats have more members in the House of representatives,  has already refused to allow the whistleblower and Hunter Biden to testify.  There still will be no judge or hearing officer making impartial decisions.  The Democrats will decide what happens just like in a Star Chamber Soviet trial.  So the opposition party, the Democrats, already have their thumbs on the scale of justice.  They will not allow a fair hearing where both sides can present their witnesses and cross examine them.  It's a farce.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2019, 01:28:59 am
You are the one claiming the impeachment is political, I am not.

I am saying the exact opposite.

The impeachment is based on a clear violation of the constitution, it’s NOT a political play.

Cheers,
Bernard
It's nothing but political.  The Democrats have spent three years trying to impeach Trump.  Actually they no longer want to impeach him just damage him enough so he loses re-election in 2020.  Hopefully, the Democrats can also take the Senate.  That's what it's all about.  Power.  The rest is just conversation.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 11, 2019, 02:47:58 am
All testimony has mainly been held in secret until now. Democrats who were in charge of the hearings have released only parts of it that make Trump look bad.  There is no impartial judge who makes decisions about these things.

The open hearing regarding impeachment starts next week. It's then that the public will be able to hear testimony that's not in secret.  However,  Democrat Congressman Schiff who still controls the process because Democrats have more members in the House of representatives,  has already refused to allow the whistleblower and Hunter Biden to testify.  There still will be no judge or hearing officer making impartial decisions.  The Democrats will decide what happens just like in a Star Chamber Soviet trial.  So the opposition party, the Democrats, already have their thumbs on the scale of justice.  They will not allow a fair hearing where both sides can present their witnesses and cross examine them.  It's a farce.

Your statement is completely misleading. You are implying that republicans were not in the loop, which has been demonstrated to be completely untrue.

Not only during the open heardings, but during the initial phase also. Republicans were totally involved in the hearings.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 11, 2019, 02:50:17 am
It's nothing but political.  The Democrats have spent three years trying to impeach Trump.  Actually they no longer want to impeach him just damage him enough so he loses re-election in 2020.  Hopefully, the Democrats can also take the Senate.  That's what it's all about.  Power.  The rest is just conversation.

This is your view.

The reality is that a President in office has violated the constitution he had sworn to protect and that it should be the duty of all senators to ensure this is punished per the law.

The Democrats are doing their job, the Republicans aren't.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 11, 2019, 02:53:22 am
Trump wanted the president of the Ukraine to make his investigation public to force him to actually do the investigation.  I'm sure Trump has heard plenty of verbal agreements, yes men,  in his career that were broken before the sun set.    The Ukrainians are so crooked, they;ll make promises one minute and break them the next.  So he wanted Ukraine to make it public to force them to comply and actually do the investigation of their corruption.  Obama should have thought of having them make it public when he asked them to investigate. Trump is smarter than Obama on things like this.  He's dealt with New York contractors like I have.  They all lie.  Ukraine's no different.     

Care to share any facts on this?

First time I hear this view of what happened. All the public information I have seen indicated that Ukraine had absolutely no intention to investigate Biden because there was no reason to do so.

I am sorry Alan, your comments looks like another attempt to rewrite history in a way that supports the fantasy story you are believing in.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 11, 2019, 09:10:08 am
The facts I am talking about are indeed those provided by witnesses under oath in front of a by-partisan hearing...

No, these are not facts. These are hearsays and opinions. Every “fact” was preceded with “I think,” or “I heard,” or “I believe.”
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 11, 2019, 09:18:13 am
This is your view.

The reality is that a President in office has violated the constitution...

And that is your view.

Otherwise, it is open to (political) interpretation.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 11, 2019, 09:21:55 am
My question that I never asked before was addressed to Chris, who made the statement, not you.  Your smart-aleck response is tiresome.
A lot of us have answered your question multiple times.  You are transfixed by what Hunter Biden may or may not have done.  that is not the question on the table for the impeachment hearing at all.  There is ample documentation that VP Biden AND the EU (or countries within the EU) were trying to get rid of a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor.  The EU has no stake at all in the impeachment inquiry but do provide justification about what the US did with respect to the prosecutor in question.  Hunter Biden is just a smoke screen in another attempt by the anti-impeachment inquiry folks to try to deflect what the President is documented to have done.  You likely will not agree with this; the lead editorial in the NY Times today has a listing of all the defenses of the President that have been put on the table to date (we have not see the ET alien or PTSD defense yet but I suspect those are coming):  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/opinion/republicans-trump-impeachment.html   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 11, 2019, 09:27:08 am
All testimony has mainly been held in secret until now. Democrats who were in charge of the hearings have released only parts of it that make Trump look bad.  There is no impartial judge who makes decisions about these things.

The open hearing regarding impeachment starts next week. It's then that the public will be able to hear testimony that's not in secret.  However,  Democrat Congressman Schiff who still controls the process because Democrats have more members in the House of representatives,  has already refused to allow the whistleblower and Hunter Biden to testify.  There still will be no judge or hearing officer making impartial decisions.  The Democrats will decide what happens just like in a Star Chamber Soviet trial.  So the opposition party, the Democrats, already have their thumbs on the scale of justice.  They will not allow a fair hearing where both sides can present their witnesses and cross examine them.  It's a farce.
For what may be the 200th time, do you not understand that the inquiry is NOT a trial????  the trial takes place in the Senate.  You may not like that the Democrats can set the rules but that's the way things are!  It was the same with Benghazi when the Republicans set the rules and Secretary Clinton testified at length when those hearing went on.  Other than a few good people most Trump appointees are stonewalling this.  What do they have to hide????

this continued argument is getting to be quite pointless.  We'll see what the public process brings and ultimately what Speaker Pelosi decides. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 11, 2019, 09:51:37 am
What may be impeachable is a somewhat more complex issue, but your hypothetical would appear to involve a violation of 52 USC §30121 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121): "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit . . . [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."

It may because English isn’t my mother language, but the sentence above reads: it’s illegal for the “person” (the President Trump) to request something of value (a public announcement that a corruption investigation is on-going on Biden, a political rival of Trump) from a foreign national (the president of Ukraine).

Your understanding of the excerpt from the statute I quoted is correct.  The statute prohibits, inter alia, asking a foreign national for anything of value in connection with a federal election.

That law has frequently been cited in connection with the effort by President Trump, some of his political appointees, and his private lawyer to persuade the Ukrainian president to launch an investigation of the Bidens.  If the House of Representatives impeaches Trump I suspect it will form the basis of one of the counts in an article of impeachment accusing Trump of abuse of power.  But the inquiry is still in the investigative stage—public hearings begin this week—and the content of the articles, if indeed any are adopted, is difficult to predict with confidence at this juncture.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2019, 10:11:38 am
A lot of us have answered your question multiple times.  You are transfixed by what Hunter Biden may or may not have done.  that is not the question on the table for the impeachment hearing at all.  There is ample documentation that VP Biden AND the EU (or countries within the EU) were trying to get rid of a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor.  The EU has no stake at all in the impeachment inquiry but do provide justification about what the US did with respect to the prosecutor in question.  Hunter Biden is just a smoke screen in another attempt by the anti-impeachment inquiry folks to try to deflect what the President is documented to have done.  You likely will not agree with this; the lead editorial in the NY Times today has a listing of all the defenses of the President that have been put on the table to date (we have not see the ET alien or PTSD defense yet but I suspect those are coming):  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/opinion/republicans-trump-impeachment.html   
We need Hunter Biden to testify and swear under legal penalty that he and his father have either conspired to get the 50000 month by offering a deal with the Ukrainian Corporation or they hadn't.  If they made a deal,  then Trump was correct in asking for an investigation and the impeachment won't happen.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 11, 2019, 10:38:22 am
We need Hunter Biden to testify and swear under legal penalty that he and his father have either conspired to get the 50000 month by offering a deal with the Ukrainian Corporation or they hadn't...

Alan, this isn't how these things work. Nobody would make such a deal on either side that would leave a trace of it, nor admit it. Such things are done with unspoken rules that everybody involved understands. There is nothing technically illegal about accepting a cushy position on the board. It stinks in the court of public opinion, though.

Such a game is played much more subtly. Never directly. Never open quid pro quo. Things often appear the opposite of what they are. A smart player would not fire a prosecutor for investigating a company. They would make it look like they are firing him for NOT investigating the company. Appearances are deceiving. Never mind the company continues un-investigated after the "heroic" firing.

So, let me see.

- The State Department thought Burisma is corrupt.

- The EU thought Burisma is corrupt.

So what is Burisma to do? They put a son of the US Vice-President on board and pay him $600K. Smart move, however you look at it.

1. If Burisma knew they are corrupt and the Biden move worked, then that was a small price to pay.
2. If Burisma knew they are innocent, then the Biden move was a costly, but ultimately worthy, price to pay.

My bet is on #1.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2019, 12:04:06 pm
Alan, this isn't how these things work. Nobody would make such a deal on either side that would leave a trace of it, nor admit it. Such things are done with unspoken rules that everybody involved understands. There is nothing technically illegal about accepting a cushy position on the board. It stinks in the court of public opinion, though.

Such a game is played much more subtly. Never directly. Never open quid pro quo. Things often appear the opposite of what they are. A smart player would not fire a prosecutor for investigating a company. They would make it look like they are firing him for NOT investigating the company. Appearances are deceiving. Never mind the company continues un-investigated after the "heroic" firing.

So, let me see.

- The State Department thought Burisma is corrupt.

- The EU thought Burisma is corrupt.

So what is Burisma to do? They put a son of the US Vice-President on board and pay him $600K. Smart move, however you look at it.

1. If Burisma knew they are corrupt and the Biden move worked, then that was a small price to pay.
2. If Burisma knew they are innocent, then the Biden move was a costly, but ultimately worthy, price to pay.

My bet is on #1.


Of course I realize Hunter is not going to say he did anything wrong.  However, his appearance as a witness will raise in the people's mind that it still smells fishy.   Average people don;t make $50,000 a month in a no-show job and that Trump called it right.  There probably was corruption so Trump's (and Obama's) calling for the Ukraine to investigate corruption in general and the Bidens in particular was a smart request on his part.  If there's political fallout against Joe Biden, well, that just points to the DC swamp Trump always talks about.  People will give Trump a pass and Biden becomes toast in getting nominated. 

Like I said, the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot.  Like setting your camera at its widest aperture, only the nose is in focus - getting Trump.  Meanwhile the bokeh has obscured the rest of the picture that will help destroy Biden, the very candidate that had the best chance to beat Trump in 2020. 

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2019, 12:07:20 pm
If you don't believe me that Biden's toast, ask Bloomberg.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 11, 2019, 12:40:52 pm
We need Hunter Biden to testify and swear under legal penalty that he and his father have either conspired to get the 50000 month by offering a deal with the Ukrainian Corporation or they hadn't.  If they made a deal,  then Trump was correct in asking for an investigation and the impeachment won't happen.
Trump can ask for an investigation and he can also direct the Justice Department to investigate this.  What he CANNOT to is use a quid pro quo of holding up or preventing Congressionally appropriated funds.  This is the case, not whether Hunter, VP Biden, or even Rudy Guiliani did anything wrong (though Rudy looks to be skating on very thin ice these days and that's why he has retained outside counsel).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 11, 2019, 02:41:04 pm
If you don't believe me that Biden's toast, ask Bloomberg.

Right now, Bloomberg is too busy for silly questions. He is preoccupied with more important stuff.

Quote
“I think he [Bloomberg] would be better for the markets because he would represent more fiscal responsibility,” Brown Brothers Harriman Chief investment strategist Scott Clemons said on Yahoo Finance’s The First Trade. “One of the most interesting things — and discouraging things — about this administration over the past two or three years is that we are running trillion dollar deficits in a period of relatively good economic activity. I am a long-term investor, so I worry what that means in the longer term when the economy turns down again.”

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/president-bloomberg-may-be-better-for-stocks-than-trump-191535586.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on November 11, 2019, 03:42:12 pm
I think Trump would beat Bloomberg. Sad to say, Bloomberg, a Jew, would push all those alt-right, white supremecist, anti-semitic, anti-big-city, anti-media buttons that make up Trump's base; and as a moderate liberal, he'd all piss off all the progressive Democrats who are pulling for Warren or Sanders, and they just might sit on their hands if Bloomberg snatched the nomination away from them. At this point, a Biden/Klobuchar ticket seems to be the Democrats best bet. Joe may be too old and a little dumb, but he'd just be a caretaker anyway, until 2024. The #1 task of the 2020 election, IMHO, is to get rid of Trump, who is essentially the head of an organized crime family. I don't care who does it, conservative Republican, centrist, liberal Democrat. We just have to keep our eye on the ball, and get rid of heel spurs.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2019, 05:09:43 pm
Trump can ask for an investigation and he can also direct the Justice Department to investigate this.  What he CANNOT to is use a quid pro quo of holding up or preventing Congressionally appropriated funds.  This is the case, not whether Hunter, VP Biden, or even Rudy Guiliani did anything wrong (though Rudy looks to be skating on very thin ice these days and that's why he has retained outside counsel).
Trump has held up foreign aid to Pakistan when they didn't meet what he thought were anti-terrorist requirements.  DIsputes between Congress and the president go through a process called impoundment if they can't agree on situations where a president hold back foreign aid.  If they can't come to an agreement it could go before the Supreme Court to decide.  But these are not impeachable offenses, just normal disagreements between these two branches of the government.    In any case, Trump only delayed payments to Ukraine.  They got the money after a few weeks. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2019, 05:18:00 pm
I think Trump would beat Bloomberg. Sad to say, Bloomberg, a Jew, would push all those alt-right, white supremecist, anti-semitic, anti-big-city, anti-media buttons that make up Trump's base; and as a moderate liberal, he'd all piss off all the progressive Democrats who are pulling for Warren or Sanders, and they just might sit on their hands if Bloomberg snatched the nomination away from them. At this point, a Biden/Klobuchar ticket seems to be the Democrats best bet. Joe may be too old and a little dumb, but he'd just be a caretaker anyway, until 2024. The #1 task of the 2020 election, IMHO, is to get rid of Trump, who is essentially the head of an organized crime family. I don't care who does it, conservative Republican, centrist, liberal Democrat. We just have to keep our eye on the ball, and get rid of heel spurs. 
Klobuchar is already at the bottom of Davy Jones locker and Biden is sinking fast.  Regarding Bloomberg, while there are anti-semites and other despicable people who support Trump, their numbers are probably smaller than number of Communists who support Sanders.  It's not like in Europe where the multi party system allows for marginal parties of extremes.  In America, you either support the Democrat Party or you support the Republican Party.  So each party is stuck with their crazies. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 11, 2019, 05:41:24 pm
Your statement is completely misleading. You are implying that republicans were not in the loop, which has been demonstrated to be completely untrue.

Not only during the open heardings, but during the initial phase also. Republicans were totally involved in the hearings.

Cheers,
Bernard

Being involved is not the same as being given fair treatment. 

As Alan said, it is a farce.  Schiff is not allowing wintnesses to be called by the Republicans, including the whistle blower whom Schiff was very excited about having testify before it came to light that his staff met with him 18 days before filing the report.  Additionally, Schiff has been coaching witnesses and censoring Republican questions. 

It is not a fair process by any stretch. 

The other Alan is right though on his opinion of it not being the actual trial.  If it gets that far, which I doubt it will since it will coming crashing down on the Dems, Republicans will be given a fair trial.  However, I doubt it reaches that far.  In order to prove it is an impeachable offense, they need to prove intent to that it was for the 2020 election, not the continuing 2016 election corruption investigation, which will be impossible to do.  So if it goes to the Senate, Trump wins and comes out strong, then the Dems loose. 

With this, it is hit or miss what happens.  However, with all of the moderates coming into the race in the Dems, and Biden's candidacy shot, Warren looks like the winner, and then the looser.  In recent polling by the NYTs, she looses in all of the swing states to Trump, even with the impeachment noise. 

All the Dems had to do was not go crazy, and on a local level that is what they did and won, but on the national level they have totally lost their minds. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2019, 05:55:35 pm
For what may be the 200th time, do you not understand that the inquiry is NOT a trial ??? ?  the trial takes place in the Senate.  You may not like that the Democrats can set the rules but that's the way things are!  It was the same with Benghazi when the Republicans set the rules and Secretary Clinton testified at length when those hearing went on. Other than a few good people most Trump appointees are stonewalling this.  What do they have to hide? ???

this continued argument is getting to be quite pointless.  We'll see what the public process brings and ultimately what Speaker Pelosi decides. 

What do Schiff and the Democrats have to hide?  They;re the ones refusing to allow the whistleblower and the Bidens to testify.  Also, the impeachment may not be a trial.  But it is legal hearing where a decision will be made to impeach or not to impeach the duly elected President of the United States, no small matter.  That requires a fair process otherwise the people will reject  the results as being just political.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2019, 06:30:46 pm
Being involved is not the same as being given fair treatment. 

As Alan said, it is a farce.  Schiff is not allowing wintnesses to be called by the Republicans, including the whistle blower whom Schiff was very excited about having testify before it came to light that his staff met with him 18 days before filing the report.  Additionally, Schiff has been coaching witnesses and censoring Republican questions. 

It is not a fair process by any stretch. 

The other Alan is right though on his opinion of it not being the actual trial.  If it gets that far, which I doubt it will since it will coming crashing down on the Dems, Republicans will be given a fair trial.  However, I doubt it reaches that far.  In order to prove it is an impeachable offense, they need to prove intent to that it was for the 2020 election, not the continuing 2016 election corruption investigation, which will be impossible to do.  So if it goes to the Senate, Trump wins and comes out strong, then the Dems loose. 

With this, it is hit or miss what happens.  However, with all of the moderates coming into the race in the Dems, and Biden's candidacy shot, Warren looks like the winner, and then the looser.  In recent polling by the NYTs, she looses in all of the swing states to Trump, even with the impeachment noise. 

All the Dems had to do was not go crazy, and on a local level that is what they did and won, but on the national level they have totally lost their minds. 
Joe, this whole thing isn't about impeachment. It's about damaging  Trump enough so he will lose reelection and possibly give the Senate to the Democrats.  They saw what happened in 2018 when they picked up a lot of anti-Trump seats in the House.  They figure lighting will strike twice.

I do agree that they may have bitten off more than they can chew because they hate Trump so much.  They''re willing to shoot Biden to hurt Trump.  Cut their nose off to spite their face.  Frankly, I think Trump set the whole thing up.  He wanted to destroy Biden and now it looks like the impeachment will do exactly that.  People have it backwards.  Trump is playing chess while the Democrats are playing checkers.  He didn't beat the Republican insiders in 2016 and then the Democrat party run by the Clinton machine because he's a dope.  The Dems are acting like dodo birds.  The only thing in Bidens favor is the Dems are terrified if Warren wins the nomination because she'll then lose the general election.  Biden is well-liked and will continue to get the protection of the anti-Trump media. It's going to be an interesting few months.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2019, 07:02:21 pm
Oh.  I forgot about Hillary. She's not done.  She's probably warming up another email server right now, licking her chops as she sees Hunter Biden, the Ukraine Grifter, drag his father down to oblivion.  She's probably lining up the superdelegates as we speak ready to pounce when the two mayors, the Indian and the Marxist scare the Democrats to hell and go pleading at Hillary's doorstep in upstate New York to save them.  She'll be cackling all the way back down. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 11, 2019, 07:13:31 pm
Oh.  I forgot about Hillary. She's not done.  She's probably warming up another email server right now, licking her chops as she sees Hunter Biden, the Ukraine Grifter, drag his father down to oblivion.  She's probably lining up the superdelegates as we speak ready to pounce when the two mayors, the Indian and the Marxist scare the Democrats to hell and go pleading at Hillary's doorstep in upstate New York to save them.  She'll be cackling all the way back down.

The Clintons are a sign of everything that went wrong with the Dems and probably the main reason why both someone like Trump and Bernie/Warren could have a chance.  Bill Clinton changed the course of the Dems in supporting workers to supporting elites primarily for the campaign contributions.  Although I would most certainly have not supported the Dems if Bill never went into politics and the Dems continued to supporting working class people, I would have been more comfortable with them.  I think balance is key and we no longer have balance. 

We have a group of people (Republicans) being dragged kicking and screaming to work with working class people by Trump, whom they would not normally associate with, and a group of people, who lived through the red scare and seen first hand the destruction socialism brought upon the countries who employed it, using socialism to attract voters.  It's a pretty bad paradigm the Clintons have brought onto the country. 

I still favor Trump over the Dems though.  Trump is not a great politicians, but a wrecking ball.  Warren too may be a wrecking ball, but we all know what socialism brings, and I would rather retain my wealth, not see it squandered away. 

My wife are and I are not worth 7 figures yet, but more then halfway between 6 and 7.  I would not be surprised to see the so called wealth tax be lowered into our realm, since what she proposes just cant be paid for even with the current taxes she advertises, and I cant imagine how we would come up with a 2% additional tax every year of our total wealth. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 11, 2019, 07:33:54 pm
I've wasted too many bytes in offering replies to this thread.  Here is my parting prediction.  Nancy Pelosi is too clever for the President and she will carefully read the tea leaves before deciding to move ahead with an impeachment vote.  The rank and file Republican legislators really don't like the President other than a hard core 12-24 in the House and I'm not sure there are any in the Senate.  They are going to figure out a way to kick Trump out after this term one way or another.  The Republican nominee for President and odds on favorite to win given the economy will be.................................wait for it..............................................................Nikki Haley!!!!!!  First woman President.  You can book mark this and see if I'm correct.

Have fun continuing this "dialogue."  Ich habe genug.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 11, 2019, 07:53:05 pm
2020 winning ticket: Trump-Haley.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2019, 08:03:16 pm
I've wasted too many bytes in offering replies to this thread.  Here is my parting prediction.  Nancy Pelosi is too clever for the President and she will carefully read the tea leaves before deciding to move ahead with an impeachment vote.  The rank and file Republican legislators really don't like the President other than a hard core 12-24 in the House and I'm not sure there are any in the Senate.  They are going to figure out a way to kick Trump out after this term one way or another.  The Republican nominee for President and odds on favorite to win given the economy will be.................................wait for it..............................................................Nikki Haley!!!!!!  First woman President.  You can book mark this and see if I'm correct.

Have fun continuing this "dialogue."  Ich habe genug.
Alan G., you mean we won't hear from you until Nov 2020?  No. There's too much that's going to happen before then to keep you in here. :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on November 11, 2019, 08:25:19 pm
I've wasted too many bytes in offering replies to this thread.  Here is my parting prediction.  Nancy Pelosi is too clever for the President and she will carefully read the tea leaves before deciding to move ahead with an impeachment vote.  The rank and file Republican legislators really don't like the President other than a hard core 12-24 in the House and I'm not sure there are any in the Senate.  They are going to figure out a way to kick Trump out after this term one way or another.  The Republican nominee for President and odds on favorite to win given the economy will be.................................wait for it..............................................................Nikki Haley!!!!!!  First woman President.  You can book mark this and see if I'm correct.

Have fun continuing this "dialogue."  Ich habe genug.

Yeah, you're right. I'm out, too.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 11, 2019, 11:25:41 pm
Being involved is not the same as being given fair treatment. 

As Alan said, it is a farce.  Schiff is not allowing wintnesses to be called by the Republicans, including the whistle blower whom Schiff was very excited about having testify before it came to light that his staff met with him 18 days before filing the report.  Additionally, Schiff has been coaching witnesses and censoring Republican questions. 

It is not a fair process by any stretch. 

The other Alan is right though on his opinion of it not being the actual trial.  If it gets that far, which I doubt it will since it will coming crashing down on the Dems, Republicans will be given a fair trial.  However, I doubt it reaches that far.  In order to prove it is an impeachable offense, they need to prove intent to that it was for the 2020 election, not the continuing 2016 election corruption investigation, which will be impossible to do.  So if it goes to the Senate, Trump wins and comes out strong, then the Dems loose. 

With this, it is hit or miss what happens.  However, with all of the moderates coming into the race in the Dems, and Biden's candidacy shot, Warren looks like the winner, and then the looser.  In recent polling by the NYTs, she looses in all of the swing states to Trump, even with the impeachment noise. 

All the Dems had to do was not go crazy, and on a local level that is what they did and won, but on the national level they have totally lost their minds.

The process is following the rules set forth by Republicans for such cases. No more, no less. At least we have now cleared the lies that Republicans were not involved. We are progressing towards an objective understanding of the situation. ;)

The expectation that it should be "fair" is misleading if "fair" means that Republicans should be allowed to accuse Democrats not currently in office of whatever they feel like accusing them of (including getting to testify on unrelated matter to spread misinformation). The expectation for symmetry is not aligned with the nature of the situation at hand. Previous impeachment processes were no more symmetric, and rightfully so.

Why so? Because the focus of this process is the current President of the US, nothing else. Your logic is circular in that it uses a political ploy as an hypothesis to drive the conclusion that it's a political ploy. The snake is biting its own tail.

Per this wicked logic, a raper should be allowed to accuse his victim of stealing a short dress that made her appealing... whether she did it or not (she in fact bought the dress). And they both should be given equal rights.

As far as Democrats going crazy, let me turn this the other way around. I find it crazy that Republicans senators support a clear violation of the constitution by a Republican President. This is partisanship at its worse where politics take precedence about the constitution. Democrats did their job, the whistle blower (whether he is Republican or not) did his job. The Republicans senators aren't doing their at all.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2019, 11:41:47 pm
The process is following the rules set forth by Republicans for such cases. No more, no less. At least we have now cleared the lies that Republicans were not involved. We are progressing towards an objective understanding of the situation. ;)

The expectation that it should be "fair" is misleading if "fair" means that Republicans should be allowed to accuse Democrats not currently in office of whatever they feel like accusing them of (including getting to testify on unrelated matter to spread misinformation). The expectation for symmetry is not aligned with the nature of the situation at hand. Previous impeachment processes were no more symmetric, and rightfully so.

Why so? Because the focus of this process is the current President of the US, nothing else. Your logic is circular in that it uses a political ploy as an hypothesis to drive the conclusion that it's a political ploy. The snake is biting its own tail.

Per this wicked logic, a raper should be allowed to accuse his victim of stealing a short dress that made her appealing... whether she did it or not (she in fact bought the dress). And they both should be given equal rights.

As far as Democrats going crazy, let me turn this the other way around. I find it crazy that Republicans senators support a clear violation of the constitution by a Republican President. This is partisanship at its worse where politics take precedence about the constitution. Democrats did their job, the whistle blower (whether he is Republican or not) did his job. The Republicans senators aren't doing their at all.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard, any person over 13 years old realizes that the Biden's look like they were on the take.  Getting $50,000 a month for a no-show job smells fishy. It warranted an investigation.  His supporters are going to fade away.  Apparently Bloomberg came to that conclusion and decided to run in Biden's stead.  And now another person is stepping up to the plate to take Biden;s place as well as the liberal/centrist, Deval Patrick, former governor of Massachusetts.  Like I said, Biden's toast.  I suspect that Democrat bigwigs behind the scene have approached Patrick to urge him to run seeing no way they can win with Biden.

Frankly, Trump might have been better off leaving things as they were as it may have been easier to run against a confused Biden than someone who has all their faculties. Anyway, it's getting very interesting. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/us/politics/deval-patrick-2020-president.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/us/politics/deval-patrick-2020-president.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2019, 11:48:42 pm
Let me modify my last post.  Words added in bold at end of sentence: "... I suspect that Democrat bigwigs behind the scene have approached Patrick to urge him to run seeing no way they can win with Biden...,Warren, Sanders,  Buttgieg and all other current nominees."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 12, 2019, 12:14:03 am
Doesn't the Democratic party still have superdelegates? I think they can be used if there isn't a majority vote in the first or second ballet during the convention.  That will open the nomination to deal making like the good old, smoke-filled back-room days.  Hillary or someone who they could see beating Trump.

Which brings up the polls.   Despite all the Democrat candidates showing they can beat Trump in the election, by wide margins, the big wigs in the party don't really believe their own polls.  Trump's got them spooked. Why else would Bloomberg and Patrick throw their hat in the ring?  They'll be others.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 12, 2019, 12:28:50 am
Let me modify my last post.  Words added in bold at end of sentence: "... I suspect that Democrat bigwigs behind the scene have approached Patrick to urge him to run seeing no way they can win with Biden...,Warren, Sanders,  Buttgieg and all other current nominees."

Alan,

do you know that you can modify your existing post directly? (without adding a new post). Use the Modify option (just above your original post on the right side). In situations like this, it's easier to have all the information in one post, rather than trying to combine it mentally from two different places.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 12, 2019, 12:34:50 am
Alan,

do you know that you can modify your existing post directly? (without adding a new post). Use the Modify option (just above your original post on the right side). In situations like this, it's easier to have all the information in one post, rather than trying to combine it mentally from two different places.
Les, I was aware and usually use Modify to correct spelling and other grammatical errors.  But since I was adding something of substance, I thought it better to add another post.  The original post is only mailed out once, I believe.  Modified posts are not mailed a second time.  So if people are reading only their emails, they would miss this kind of a change.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 12, 2019, 12:35:52 am
PS   What are you doing up so late?  I hope I'm not keep you from getting some sleep. :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 12, 2019, 01:45:25 am
Bernard, any person over 13 years old realizes that the Biden's look like they were on the take.  Getting $50,000 a month for a no-show job smells fishy. It warranted an investigation.  His supporters are going to fade away.  Apparently Bloomberg came to that conclusion and decided to run in Biden's stead.  And now another person is stepping up to the plate to take Biden;s place as well as the liberal/centrist, Deval Patrick, former governor of Massachusetts.  Like I said, Biden's toast.  I suspect that Democrat bigwigs behind the scene have approached Patrick to urge him to run seeing no way they can win with Biden.

As usual, you have not answered any of the points made.

I'll act differently and answer yours.

Perhaps, but this is totally unrelated to the impeachment investigation.

Even if Biden had killed 100 people with chopsticks, Trump should still be impeached for have done what he has done.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 12, 2019, 02:04:16 am
PS   What are you doing up so late?  I hope I'm not keep you from getting some sleep. :)
No, I was just going for my midnight walk. Fresh snow, crunching under your feet, feels like early Christmas.
We got in two days at least 6 inches of snow, must be due to the extreme changes in weather patterns.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 12, 2019, 06:49:55 am
The process is following the rules set forth by Republicans for such cases. No more, no less. At least we have now cleared the lies that Republicans were not involved. We are progressing towards an objective understanding of the situation. ;)

The expectation that it should be "fair" is misleading if "fair" means that Republicans should be allowed to accuse Democrats not currently in office of whatever they feel like accusing them of (including getting to testify on unrelated matter to spread misinformation). The expectation for symmetry is not aligned with the nature of the situation at hand. Previous impeachment processes were no more symmetric, and rightfully so.

Why so? Because the focus of this process is the current President of the US, nothing else. Your logic is circular in that it uses a political ploy as an hypothesis to drive the conclusion that it's a political ploy. The snake is biting its own tail.

Per this wicked logic, a raper should be allowed to accuse his victim of stealing a short dress that made her appealing... whether she did it or not (she in fact bought the dress). And they both should be given equal rights.

As far as Democrats going crazy, let me turn this the other way around. I find it crazy that Republicans senators support a clear violation of the constitution by a Republican President. This is partisanship at its worse where politics take precedence about the constitution. Democrats did their job, the whistle blower (whether he is Republican or not) did his job. The Republicans senators aren't doing their at all.

+1
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 12, 2019, 06:53:39 am
Frankly, Trump might have been better off leaving things as they were as it may have been easier to run against a confused Biden than someone who has all their faculties.

I agree that it's another miscalculation on Trumps part. Trying to eliminate the easiest counterpart to beat, is plain stupid. But that's what you get from acting on impulse ...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 12, 2019, 10:01:14 am
You got to love it when foreigners want so desperately to impeach the President of the United States.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 12, 2019, 10:10:07 am
You got to love it when foreigners want so desperately to impeach the President of the United States.

Huh? Only Congres plus the Senate can impeach the US president.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 12, 2019, 10:10:53 am
You got to love it when foreigners want so desperately to impeach the President of the United States.

It's a pretty harmless sport.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 12, 2019, 10:54:02 am
It's a pretty harmless sport.

If only the same could be said about US foreign policy.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 12, 2019, 12:29:03 pm
The process is following the rules set forth by Republicans for such cases. No more, no less. At least we have now cleared the lies that Republicans were not involved. We are progressing towards an objective understanding of the situation. ;)

The expectation that it should be "fair" is misleading if "fair" means that Republicans should be allowed to accuse Democrats not currently in office of whatever they feel like accusing them of (including getting to testify on unrelated matter to spread misinformation). The expectation for symmetry is not aligned with the nature of the situation at hand. Previous impeachment processes were no more symmetric, and rightfully so.

Why so? Because the focus of this process is the current President of the US, nothing else. Your logic is circular in that it uses a political ploy as an hypothesis to drive the conclusion that it's a political ploy. The snake is biting its own tail.

Per this wicked logic, a raper should be allowed to accuse his victim of stealing a short dress that made her appealing... whether she did it or not (she in fact bought the dress). And they both should be given equal rights.

As far as Democrats going crazy, let me turn this the other way around. I find it crazy that Republicans senators support a clear violation of the constitution by a Republican President. This is partisanship at its worse where politics take precedence about the constitution. Democrats did their job, the whistle blower (whether he is Republican or not) did his job. The Republicans senators aren't doing their at all.

Cheers,
Bernard

When I said crazy, I was not talking about the impeachment thing.  I was talking about policies, which is what people actually vote on. 

Examples of crazy:

Wanting to kick 150M people off of their current health insurance, most of whom like it, just to help a few million without insurance.

Assuming a Medicare for all plan will work wonders and get people the procedures they need while ignoring the fact that Medicare has a denial rate higher then any other private insurer.  On top of that, Medicare pays less then what it cost for most procedures (made up for by private insurance), which would lead to many healthcare businesses to go bunk. 

Implementing a wealth tax, which has been shown in the past to fail miserably in countries where it was implemented (like France). 

Legalizing homelessness, refusing to prosecute public urination and defecation (the newly elected DA of San Fran literally came out this week and announce he would not prosecute any quality of life crimes such as this), while ignoring it creates a public health hazard.  Lets make Cholera & Typhoid great again!

(Keeps on getting better everyday in CA! A Bucket of Hot Diarrhea Was Randomly Poured on a Woman by a Homeless Man (https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/diarrhea-poured-on-woman-hollywood-homeless-564585101.html))

Slavery Repatriations, along with Native American Repatriations if Warren gets the ticket. 

Forcing institutions to recognize transgender rights to the point where it makes no sense, such as allowing genetic men to compete in women's sports even though it is a clear unfair advantage, or allowing people to choose the prison they want to go to while ignoring the fact that male rapists might claim to be a woman to get access to more victims in the women's prison.  (This has happened in the UK by the way; also every single Dem at the CNN LGBTQ town hall supported this idea.) 

Wanting to decriminalize all illegal border crossings, essentially creating an open border. 

The Green New Deal and the religious backing of wind and solar power, even though it has been shown to be a very horrible power source that is incredibly expenses, while ignoring nuclear power. 

Requiring all major companies to have boards comprising of at least 40% of workers and having government oversight of all business decisions, something Warren has campaigned on. 

I can keep on going on.  So when it comes down to it, the election will be about Trump (who is far from perfect) with a booming economy and policies that are on the majority side of the country (this has been shown in polling, repeatably) vs. Warren (who lets admit lies pretty just as much as Trump does) with policies no one but the most extreme support. 

It's going to be an easy choice. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on November 12, 2019, 12:36:43 pm
Huh? Only Congres plus the Senate can impeach the US president.

Last time I looked, the U.S. Senate was part of the U.S. Congress.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 12, 2019, 12:39:13 pm
I've wasted too many bytes in offering replies to this thread.  Here is my parting prediction.  Nancy Pelosi is too clever for the President and she will carefully read the tea leaves before deciding to move ahead with an impeachment vote.  The rank and file Republican legislators really don't like the President other than a hard core 12-24 in the House and I'm not sure there are any in the Senate.  They are going to figure out a way to kick Trump out after this term one way or another.  The Republican nominee for President and odds on favorite to win given the economy will be.................................wait for it..............................................................Nikki Haley!!!!!!  First woman President.  You can book mark this and see if I'm correct.

Have fun continuing this "dialogue."  Ich habe genug.

It's a good theory, and I would actually welcome a Nicky Haley presidency. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 12, 2019, 12:44:11 pm
2020 winning ticket: Trump-Haley.

I dont think that would happen. 

Even though I see him beating any of the current Dems, he is still a wrecking ball that destroys everyone around him.  Haley's exit was timed perfectly to give her enough distance from Trump to be able to still be viable while also not making her an enemy of him. 

She's too smart to ruin this by being his running mate.  I bet she has her eye on 2024. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 12, 2019, 02:11:48 pm
Democrats aren't going to nominate Warren and throw away the chance to beat Trump. There will be a shake-up in the Democrat Party and a middle.of the roader will be nominated.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 12, 2019, 06:26:11 pm
You got to love it when foreigners want so desperately to impeach the President of the United States.

You've got to love it when the only answer left is to categorize your interlocutor as a foreigner...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 12, 2019, 07:41:49 pm
You've got to love it when the only answer left is to categorize your interlocutor as a foreigner...

Cheers,
Bernard

It seems strange to me as well that foreigners get so involved as if they live here.  What difference does it make to you if our president builds a wall, doesn;t build a wall?  raises taxes, doesn;t raise taxes? Asks Ukraine to investigate?  Doesn't ask Ukraine to investigate?  To argue so vociferously for his impeachment seems over the top even for Democrats.  But foreigners?  Don't you have better things to do? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on November 12, 2019, 07:50:36 pm
It seems strange to me as well that foreigners get so involved as if they live here.  What difference does it make to you if our president builds a wall, doesn;t build a wall?  raises taxes, doesn;t raise taxes? Asks Ukraine to investigate?  Doesn't ask Ukraine to investigate?  To argue so vociferously for his impeachment seems over the top even for Democrats.  But foreigners?  Don't you have better things to do?
If the USA would be dominant in the world as the Jamestown, we would not be so interested;
However this president reversed a lot of treaties that were only some years old and that effect us and many other countries, making the US not trustworthy.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 12, 2019, 08:00:32 pm
It seems strange to me as well that foreigners get so involved as if they live here. 

Unfortunately, Trump as a president affects also other countries, what was not the case when he ran the Apprentice TV show.
In addition, the media in all countries devote more space to Trump than to Real Madrid C.F. or Madonna whose antiques and scandals can't be compared to Trump's.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 12, 2019, 08:01:05 pm
If the USA would be dominant in the world as the Jamestown, we would not be so interested;
However this president reversed a lot of treaties that were only some years old and that effect us and many other countries, making the US not trustworthy.



So your interest in impeaching the president is not to help Americans or America but to help your own country and your own people.  That I can understand.  Thanks for your honesty. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 12, 2019, 09:14:27 pm
So your interest in impeaching the president is not to help Americans or America but to help your own country and your own people.  That I can understand.  Thanks for your honesty.

It's really frustrating when my fellow countrymen insist on acting like international relations are a zero-sum game.  My apologies to my friends in the EU, Central, and South America, and beyond.  :-[
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 12, 2019, 09:30:10 pm
It's really frustrating when my fellow countrymen insist on acting like international relations are a zero-sum game.  My apologies to my friends in the EU, Central, and South America, and beyond.  :-[

An example of Democrats colluding with foreigners ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 12, 2019, 09:31:18 pm
It's really frustrating when my fellow countrymen insist on acting like international relations are a zero-sum game.  My apologies to my friends in the EU, Central, and South America, and beyond.  :-[
The problem with a lot of Americans, they think because foreigners say they don't like Trump, that they are also on America's side and not their own country's side.  I don't fault them for what they say.  I would expect nothing less for a patriot to support his own country's interest.  But don't be fooled as everyone supports their own interests. 

Europeans opposed Trump for having to meet the 2% NATO defense spending requirement because they preferred to use that money for their social programs.  Let America spend it's social money on defending them.  Same with NATO itself.  Go down the list: tariffs cost foreign countries exports and hurt their economy.  Trump eliminating NAFTA hurt Canadians and Mexicans and gave some advantages to Americans.   America spending 750 billion on defense saves countries around the world billions in their own expenditures.  Paris Accord hurt America and helped China especially as well as Europeans.  American pulling out of Iran hurt European business interests there.   Fracking in America makes America less dependent on Middle East oil creating a possibility America won;t defend European interests there.  Why do you think Europe wants us to keep our forces all over the ME?
 To help the Kurds who they abandoned 100 years ago and have been screwing them since then? 

Trump has put America first.  Other countries expect America to put them first as we've been doing for decades.  So whenever you hear a non-American complain about Trump or America, follow their security interests and follow the money.  And see where their bread is buttered.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 12, 2019, 09:31:43 pm
...making the US not trustworthy...

Turning Europe in a caliphate makes you not trustworthy.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 12, 2019, 09:43:17 pm
If the USA would be dominant in the world as the Jamestown, we would not be so interested;
However this president reversed a lot of treaties that were only some years old and that effect us and many other countries, making the US not trustworthy.


The Netherlands isn't trustworthy.  Your country promised to spend 2% of your GDP on defense.  You're only spending 1.35% in 2018.  Why should Americans spend our social funding on defending your country?  Why don;t you keep your word.  That's what friends do.
https://www.euronews.com/2019/03/14/nato-pledge-which-european-countries-spend-over-2-of-gdp-on-defence (https://www.euronews.com/2019/03/14/nato-pledge-which-european-countries-spend-over-2-of-gdp-on-defence)
 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 12, 2019, 09:43:35 pm
It seems strange to me as well that foreigners get so involved as if they live here.  What difference does it make to you if our president builds a wall, doesn;t build a wall?  raises taxes, doesn;t raise taxes? Asks Ukraine to investigate?  Doesn't ask Ukraine to investigate?  To argue so vociferously for his impeachment seems over the top even for Democrats.  But foreigners?  Don't you have better things to do?

It's an international web site and the topic was started so people joined in. If you don't want to hear the opinions of non-Americans, you're in the wrong forum.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 12, 2019, 09:44:43 pm
Is the final impeachment vote (in the Senate, is it?) a secret ballot?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 12, 2019, 09:45:49 pm
It's an international web site and the topic was started so people joined in. If you don't want to hear the opinions of non-Americans, you're in the wrong forum.
They can say what they like as can I.  I'm cautioning Americans to take what they say with a grain of salt. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 12, 2019, 09:53:41 pm
Is the final impeachment vote (in the Senate, is it?) a secret ballot?
How could you prove what the results were if it's secret?  I suppose that Democrat Nancy Pelosi can say there were enough votes to impeach by taking an oral vote. "All in favor say "aye".  Etc.  Then say there were enough votes.

But that couldn't happen in the senate.  In the trial in the senate at least, the Constitution requires the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to preside over the trial, not the Senate leader.  That isn't the case in the House for the impeachment.  So he would be the one insisting on an actual count just as they would do in a criminal trial with a jury.  Each senator will have to personally vote one way or the other or obstain. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 12, 2019, 10:02:06 pm
How could you prove what the results were if it's secret? 

What?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 12, 2019, 10:03:19 pm
Is the final impeachment vote (in the Senate, is it?) a secret ballot?

No, it is public, with each senator's vote ("yea" or "nay") separately recorded.

Quote
On the final question whether the impeachment is sustained, the yeas and nays shall be taken on each article of impeachment separately; and if the impeachment shall not, upon any of the articles presented, be sustained by the votes of two-thirds of the Members present, a judgment of acquittal shall be entered; but if the person impeached shall be convicted upon any such article by the votes of two-thirds of the Members present, the Senate shall proceed to the consideration of such other matters as may be determined to be appropriate prior to pronouncing judgment. Upon pronouncing judgement, a certified copy of such judgment shall be deposited in the office of the Secretary of State. A motion to reconsider the vote by which any article of impeachment is sustained or rejected shall not be in order.

Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on Impeachment Trials, XXIII (https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/senaterules.pdf)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 12, 2019, 10:15:20 pm
No, it is public, with each senator's vote ("yea" or "nay") separately recorded.

Quote
On the final question whether the impeachment is sustained, the yeas and nays shall be taken on each article of impeachment separately; and if the impeachment shall not, upon any of the articles presented, be sustained by the votes of two-thirds of the Members present, a judgment of acquittal shall be entered; but if the person impeached shall be convicted upon any such article by the votes of two-thirds of the Members present, the Senate shall proceed to the consideration of such other matters as may be determined to be appropriate prior to pronouncing judgment. Upon pronouncing judgement, a certified copy of such judgment shall be deposited in the office of the Secretary of State. A motion to reconsider the vote by which any article of impeachment is sustained or rejected shall not be in order.

Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on Impeachment Trials, XXIII (https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/senaterules.pdf)


CHris, I only skimmed the rules.  Could the Senate, theoretically, change their own rules and allow a secret vote?

More importantly, I didn't see very much the the Chief Justice does.  It seems that the presiding officer (who's that, McConnell), pretty much can set a lot of the rules as to who is called to testify, especially since the Republican have a majority.  Is this correct or am I misreading the rules?

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 12, 2019, 10:16:49 pm
An example of Democrats colluding with foreigners ;)

As soon as one of them sends me a check, I’ll disclose it ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 12, 2019, 10:25:08 pm
I didn't see very much the the Chief Justice does.  It seems that the presiding officer (who's that, McConnell), pretty much can set a lot of the rules as to who is called to testify, especially since the Republican have a majority.  Is this correct or am I misreading the rules?

The chief justice serves as the presiding officer of the Senate during the impeachment of a president or vice president.  The presiding officer makes decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132282.msg1138552#msg1138552), although the senators may vote to overturn those decisions.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 12, 2019, 10:27:37 pm
The chief justice serves as the presiding officer of the Senate during the impeachment of a president or vice president.  The presiding officer makes decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132282.msg1138552#msg1138552), although the senators may vote to overturn those decisions.
So if the CHief Justice rules that calling Hunter Biden is not acceptable, then the Republican led Senate could overrule him and demand that he be called to testify? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 12, 2019, 10:47:20 pm
Is the final impeachment vote (in the Senate, is it?) a secret ballot?

It isn't but it can be. That's a not-so-secret hope of Democrats.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/12/path-to-removing-donald-trump-from-office-229911

Quote
It would take just three Republican senators to turn the impeachment vote into a secret ballot. It’s not hard to imagine what would happen then.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 13, 2019, 12:13:12 am
The following news item has nothing to do with Trump's impeachment, unless someone could be impeached for gross exaggerations.

Quote
In speaking about the initiative on Tuesday, Trump told the crowd that hundreds of private sector employers were providing “over 14 million skills and career training opportunities for U.S. workers.” He then called himself “very proud” of Ivanka’s role.
“She wants to make these people have great lives,” Trump said. “When she started this two and a half years ago, her goal was 500,000 jobs.”
Linking her efforts to private sector job creation, Trump added that “she’s now created 14 million jobs. And they are being trained by these companies. The greatest companies in the world. Because the government can’t train them,” he added.
The White House’s website states that 5.3 million jobs were created between Trump’s election and his second State of the Union address, a figure consistent with official jobs data.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-credits-ivanka-for-role-in-creating-14-million-jobs-via-worker-pledge-194213144.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 13, 2019, 05:18:11 am
Buttigieg on the roll. Winning in Iowa polls with 22% support.

Quote
Pete Buttigieg has pulled to the top of the pack of Democratic presidential candidates in Iowa for the first time after drawing increased support from nearly every demographic group, according to a Monmouth University poll released on Tuesday.

Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, leapfrogged past former Vice President Joe Biden since Monmouth’s Iowa poll in August to lead in the state that will in February host the first nominating contest. Buttigieg gained 14 percentage points during that time and now has support from about 22% of likely Democratic caucusgoers. During the same time period, Biden dropped 7 points to 19% support; U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts dropped 2 points to 18% support; and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont gained 5 points, with 13% support, according to the poll.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-iowa/buttigieg-rises-in-iowa-to-lead-democratic-white-house-pack-poll-idUSKBN1XM2GZ
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 13, 2019, 07:26:42 am
It isn't but it can be. That's a not-so-secret hope of Democrats.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/12/path-to-removing-donald-trump-from-office-229911

Might be an interesting civics lesson to have two votes, one secret and one not, see if they were different. :)

I remember an episode in Toronto about 15-20 years ago where a union local was fighting a proposal that some employees had put forward to have a secret vote on some issue. It might have been a strike vote, I've forgotten all the details. The union was dead against a secret ballot. Seems to me that the reason that they were against a secret ballot is exactly the reason why we have them.

It's a quandary in a public body like Senate or Congress. You want votes to be public so that the public can know what their representatives did on their behalf, otoh it can lead to intimidation of their members by the political parties. It's also a good way for contributors to know if they got their money's worth.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 13, 2019, 08:07:15 am
. . . unless someone could be impeached for gross exaggerations.

Alas, no.  Rumor has it that the delegates to the 1787 constitutional convention briefly considered making incompetence, mendacity, and repetitive infantile ranting grounds for impeachment, however instead they settled on treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 13, 2019, 12:02:19 pm
Buttigieg on the roll. Winning in Iowa polls with 22% support.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-iowa/buttigieg-rises-in-iowa-to-lead-democratic-white-house-pack-poll-idUSKBN1XM2GZ

Annnnnnnnnnnd ... anywhere else? 

Get back to us when he is actually in the top three nationally. 

Although Buttigieg may be doing well in the small state of Iowa, he has no support amongst blacks, who make up larger voting blocks in the Southern states.  And part of Buttigieg's straggly to fix this is by first telling blacks you dont like me because you are anti-gay, and this is the time for you to redeem yourself by voting for me.  Not a winning message. 

The really telling poll is the one that shows Biden is 7 points ahead in NH, a state that borders both Bernie's and Warren's home states.  If Biden wins in NH, he wins the nomination. 

As much as I really want Warren to win, since that pretty much ensures a republican victory, I think she blew it with the release of her medicare for all plan and not to mention she is a loathsome off-putting person who happens to be a big liar. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: D Fuller on November 13, 2019, 06:00:09 pm
As much as I really want Warren to win, since that pretty much ensures a republican victory, I think she blew it with the release of her medicare for all plan and not to mention she is a loathsome off-putting person who happens to be a big liar.

Annnnnnnnnnnd...... yet, you vote for Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: marvpelkey on November 13, 2019, 07:51:49 pm
D Fuller,

Although I read these forums quite regularly, I don't post much anymore, but I just had to come back to say, your most recent post/response is about the funniest thing I have read in awhile. Just about spit out a mouth full of water I happened to be drinking. Priceless.

And on a more somber note, a bit disappointed I was not taken to a bunch of photos of airstream trailers when I clicked your link......

Marv
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 13, 2019, 08:29:26 pm
Annnnnnnnnnnd...... yet, you vote for Trump.

LOL

Lets see, given the option between a liar not in the government who is pro free markets vs. a liar who is in government that is progressive, yes, as a libertarian, I voted for the former. 

And given the option between a liar who is a capitalist vs. a liar who is a socialist, and lies about it, I'd still vote for the former.  You better hope Biden wins the ticket, otherwise everyone in the swing states will be looking at 2020 in the manner which I just described. 

BTW, all three people being talked about here are pretty off putting.  I dont think you could say either Trump or Clinton or Warren happen to be more nasty then the other two. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: D Fuller on November 13, 2019, 10:03:12 pm
D Fuller,

Although I read these forums quite regularly, I don't post much anymore, but I just had to come back to say, your most recent post/response is about the funniest thing I have read in awhile. Just about spit out a mouth full of water I happened to be drinking. Priceless.

And on a more somber note, a bit disappointed I was not taken to a bunch of photos of airstream trailers when I clicked your link......

Marv

As it happened, the name of my company pre-dated my interest in the trailers. It was a (hopefully) clever way to combine over-the-air tv with streaming video. But we do own one now. The pictures you were hoping for can be found here: https://airstreampictures.typepad.com/pictures_from_the_road/2008/10/on-the-road-again.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 13, 2019, 10:44:43 pm
Back to photography:
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 13, 2019, 10:54:46 pm
Maybe he was shooting editorial images for a microstock agency.
What is the burst rate for that camera?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 14, 2019, 05:59:44 am
Back to photography:

That's great; he could not have dressed more to the part as well.  His jacket just matches that camera to a T. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 14, 2019, 06:01:11 am
Getting back to the subject this topic is about ...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 14, 2019, 07:19:52 am
If you want to take your mind off the daily impeachment news cycle and all the endless details that you'll forget by next Tuesday, here's an interesting read for you: The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis. It's largely about the transition in governance during Trump's first year in the various US government departments. It's clarifying to take your mind away from the Twitter nonsense and all the pseudo-legal political mumbo-jumbo going on at the moment and instead focus on actual real-world problems.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 14, 2019, 08:11:24 am
If you want to take your mind off the daily impeachment news cycle and all the endless details that you'll forget by next Tuesday, here's an interesting read for you: The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis. It's largely about the transition in governance during Trump's first year in the various US government departments. It's clarifying to take your mind away from the Twitter nonsense and all the pseudo-legal political mumbo-jumbo going on at the moment and instead focus on actual real-world problems.
Let me guess.  It's anti-Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 14, 2019, 08:14:25 am
One day I'm going to write a pro-Trump book and tell of the time he once helped an old lady cross the street.  It'll be rather short.  I wonder if anyone will believe me?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 14, 2019, 08:19:27 am
Let me guess.  It's anti-Trump.

Well, why don't you read it and find out. Are you worried that you might find something out you don't like or don't want to know?

In all seriousness, I don't care if you read it or not. This is public discussion forum and I came across something that I thought people might find a lot more interesting than day-to-day political minutia. The post was not directed at you. I gather from your tone that you've already made your mind up about it anyway, without knowing its contents, as per usual, and I'd hate to ruin your worldview.

So no Alan, don't read it. Please don't read it. Don't get a free copy from the library and don't read any reviews. Stay away from it, please.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 14, 2019, 08:21:57 am
One day I'm going to write a pro-Trump book and tell of the time he once helped an old lady cross the street.  It'll be rather short.  I wonder if anyone will believe me?

I don't think anyone ever said that he wasn't nice to old ladies. People are mostly concerned that he's incompetent at his job. I'm sure he's good at something. :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 14, 2019, 08:24:42 am
Well, why don't you read it and find out. Are you worried that you might find something out you don't like or don't want to know?

In all seriousness, I don't care if you read it or not. This is public discussion forum and I came across something that I thought people might find a lot more interesting than day-to-day political minutia. The post was not directed at you. I gather from your tone that you've already made your mind up about it anyway, without knowing its contents, as per usual, and I'd hate to ruin your worldview.

So no Alan, don't read it. Please don't read it. Don't get a free copy from the library and don't read any reviews. Stay away from it, please.  :)

I already read segments and the reviews.  It's totally anti-Trump.  It's bad enough people here want me to read short anti-Trump articles.  Now you want me to read a whole book.  I'd rather blow my brains out than waste time like that.    :)  (Can't wait for the people who are on the moderator's "take a time out break" list come back and have something to say about my comment.)  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 14, 2019, 08:33:40 am
I don't think anyone ever said that he wasn't nice to old ladies. People are mostly concerned that he's incompetent at his job. I'm sure he's good at something. :)

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 14, 2019, 08:49:41 am
Here's my "Letter to the Editor" to the NY Times published in response to their editorial today.

"Where was your concern when Obama used his IRS to go after conservative organizations?  Where was your concern when the Obama administration started a political anti-trump investigation based on a phony dossier to gain political advantage for the Democrats? 

Why are the Bidens above the law to be investigated when there is apparent corruption when one of them is getting paid $50,000 a month in a no-show job?

It seems what's impeachable is in the eye of the beholder and something we never should do lightly.  That's what elections are for yet for three years you have advocated impeaching a president.  Remember, what goes around comes around."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/13/opinion/trump-impeachment-hearing-day-1.html#commentsContainer (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/13/opinion/trump-impeachment-hearing-day-1.html#commentsContainer)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 14, 2019, 09:53:24 am
  • Destroyed ISIS, Killed al Baghdadi
  • Stock market at its highest ever. 
  • Rebuilding military
  • Lowest unemployment rate ever for blacks, Latinos and everyone else.
  • Got Europe to increase their defense spending
  • Reduced  many regulations crushing businesses
  • Improved America trade advantages with Mexico and Canada and others
  • Working On improving them with China
  • Stopped North Korea from testing nukes and ICBM's.
  • Got us out of Paris Accord
  • Got us out of Iran agreement
  • Help American fossil fuel industries
  • Building Mexico wall
  • Got new tax bill to reduce taxes and expand business
  • Annoying Democrats and making them neurotic :)

Is there a Trump troll resource site where you can copy/paste this stuff on demand? Instead of repeating yourself, just give us the link. :)

But going back to that Michael Lewis book, are you saying that you think the transition went well? Do you think Lewis made it all up?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 14, 2019, 10:05:12 am
  • Destroyed ISIS, Killed al Baghdadi
  • Stock market at its highest ever. 
  • Rebuilding military
  • Lowest unemployment rate ever for blacks, Latinos and everyone else.
  • Got Europe to increase their defense spending
  • Reduced  many regulations crushing businesses
  • Improved America trade advantages with Mexico and Canada and others
  • Working On improving them with China
  • Stopped North Korea from testing nukes and ICBM's.
  • Got us out of Paris Accord
  • Got us out of Iran agreement
  • Help American fossil fuel industries
  • Building Mexico wall
  • Got new tax bill to reduce taxes and expand business
  • Annoying Democrats and making them neurotic :)

1.   ISIS is not destroyed, and most of the damage to them was done by the Kurds, whom we have since abandoned. And Baghdadi was killed by our military with intelligence from the Kurds, not by the bone spur boy
2.   Trump has nothing to do with the stock market, which started going up in 2010 under Obama.
3.   Rebuilding how? By taking money from the military for his asinine wall.
4.   Again, nothing to do with Trump, unemployment has been going down since—you guessed it—2010 under Obama.
5.   True, but the world needs less defense spending, not more.
6.   As the economy under Obama showed, business was doing just great with all these nasty regulations. And most of the regulations Trump removed were in place to protect the environment, workers, and consumers.
7.   The new agreement with Canada and Mexico is essentially identical to the old one, so big whoop.
8.   To the detriment of American farmers, workers, and consumers and 0 results to show.
9.   According to Foreign Policy magazine, “Trump’s growing impulsiveness and unilateral decision-making may signal to Kim that he can get precisely what he wants.” So Kim is doing what’s best for him and The Orange One is taking credit.
10.   Stupidest thing ever. No one with the wits of an oyster doubts anthropogenic climate change any more.
11.   Second stupidest thing ever. Essentially every nuclear weapons expert agreed that this was a good agreement that would reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation, and without the agreement Iran has resumed work toward a bomb. Thanks, Donny, Iran is going to get the bomb.
12.   Why? Dumb as dirt. Fossil fuels need to fade into history, the sooner the better.
13.   The wall? Gimme a break. Why this hatred of the immigrants? And does Trump not know that the Central Americans have ladders and shovels?
14.   What nonsense. Trump added $1.5 trillion to our debt and ladled it out almost entirely to the wealthy and businesses. And businesses, who in theory were going to use it for investment and hiring, instead spent most of it on stock buybacks, which further enrich stockholders.
15.   You got me here—Trump is certainly good at this.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on November 14, 2019, 10:18:28 am
  • Destroyed ISIS, Killed al Baghdadi
  • Stock market at its highest ever. 
  • Lowest unemployment rate ever for blacks, Latinos and everyone else.
This unrelated to this presidency


  • Rebuilding military
There is nothing to rebuilt;
The US already spends more than the sum of the second nine most spending countries in the world.
they should spend money on more sensible things;
I agree it employs a lot of people and it fuels a lot of wars in the world that keep that industry going strong.


  • Stopped North Korea from testing nukes and ICBM's.
   
   Are you serious? the opposite is true
   

  • Got us out of Paris Accord
  • Got us out of Iran agreement
  • Help American fossil fuel industries
  • Building Mexico wall
All bad decisions
Iran is starting to get their nukes because of this and only a total Middle East War can prevent that.
After that trump will visit Iran as he did with North Korea...
The fossil fuels are from the 20 century- It is thanks to the progressive states like California that the US will not miss the boat.
Fracking the soil contaminates it and may pollute groundwater for decennia.
there is no wall - a few Miles only and it will not help against immigration...
It will be just an ugly reminder of the the Trump era.
Walls did not help the Warschau pact...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 14, 2019, 10:26:36 am
Is there a Trump troll resource site where you can copy/paste this stuff on demand? Instead of repeating yourself, just give us the link. :)

But going back to that Michael Lewis book, are you saying that you think the transition went well? Do you think Lewis made it all up?
First off I didn't tread the book just a summary.  I'm sure there were plenty of transition problems.  There always are since first term presidents never were presidents before.  In Trump's case he never was a politician before, knew none of the niceties, (Still doesn't and doesn;t care).  He had no connection to Washington DC and even the Republicans were ticked off that an outsider won.  But he was voted in as a disruptor.  People were tired of the "same old, same old".  They wanted him "drain the swamp".  Clear out the old brush that had grown stale following their own ways of doing stuff to make themselves more powerful and rich.  The fact he ignored the intelligentsia and traditional DC insiders and procedures are what his supporters wanted and want.   It's like what Canon owners say about Nikon Cameras and vice versa.  They're screwed up, don;t work right and no one should buy them.  :)  Oh, and by the way, have you seen their menus?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 14, 2019, 10:32:43 am
1.   ISIS is not destroyed, and most of the damage to them was done by the Kurds, whom we have since abandoned. And Baghdadi was killed by our military with intelligence from the Kurds, not by the bone spur boy
2.   Trump has nothing to do with the stock market, which started going up in 2010 under Obama.
3.   Rebuilding how? By taking money from the military for his asinine wall.
4.   Again, nothing to do with Trump, unemployment has been going down since—you guessed it—2010 under Obama.
5.   True, but the world needs less defense spending, not more.
6.   As the economy under Obama showed, business was doing just great with all these nasty regulations. And most of the regulations Trump removed were in place to protect the environment, workers, and consumers.
7.   The new agreement with Canada and Mexico is essentially identical to the old one, so big whoop.
8.   To the detriment of American farmers, workers, and consumers and 0 results to show.
9.   According to Foreign Policy magazine, “Trump’s growing impulsiveness and unilateral decision-making may signal to Kim that he can get precisely what he wants.” So Kim is doing what’s best for him and The Orange One is taking credit.
10.   Stupidest thing ever. No one with the wits of an oyster doubts anthropogenic climate change any more.
11.   Second stupidest thing ever. Essentially every nuclear weapons expert agreed that this was a good agreement that would reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation, and without the agreement Iran has resumed work toward a bomb. Thanks, Donny, Iran is going to get the bomb.
12.   Why? Dumb as dirt. Fossil fuels need to fade into history, the sooner the better.
13.   The wall? Gimme a break. Why this hatred of the immigrants? And does Trump not know that the Central Americans have ladders and shovels?
14.   What nonsense. Trump added $1.5 trillion to our debt and ladled it out almost entirely to the wealthy and businesses. And businesses, who in theory were going to use it for investment and hiring, instead spent most of it on stock buybacks, which further enrich stockholders.
15.   You got me here—Trump is certainly good at this.


Best thing he's done.  15. Annoying Democrats and making them neurotic :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 14, 2019, 10:38:18 am
This unrelated to this presidency

There is nothing to rebuilt;
The US already spends more than the sum of the second nine most spending countries in the world.
they should spend money on more sensible things;
I agree it employs a lot of people and it fuels a lot of wars in the world that keep that industry going strong.

   Are you serious? the opposite is true
   
All bad decisions
Iran is starting to get their nukes because of this and only a total Middle East War can prevent that.
After that trump will visit Iran as he did with North Korea...
The fossil fuels are from the 20 century- It is thanks to the progressive states like California that the US will not miss the boat.
Fracking the soil contaminates it and may pollute groundwater for decennia.
there is no wall - a few Miles only and it will not help against immigration...
It will be just an ugly reminder of the the Trump era.
Walls did not help the Warschau pact...
Well, if you don;t like his policies, then you can vote him out of office next year.  Oh wait.  You're not an American and can't vote.   ???
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 14, 2019, 11:01:01 am
1.   ISIS is not destroyed, and most of the damage to them was done by the Kurds...

 ;D ;D ;D

Too bad you put this first... I stopped reading after that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 14, 2019, 11:39:29 am
... 14.   What nonsense. Trump added $1.5 trillion to our debt and ladled it out almost entirely to the wealthy and businesses. And businesses, who in theory were going to use it for investment and hiring, instead spent most of it on stock buybacks, which further enrich stockholders...

Nonsense indeed.

a. "Ladled it out" - only if you equate "not taking" with "giving." In other words, if I didn't take your camera away from you today, I gave you a camera?

b. Stock buybacks - somehow that got a bad rep among liberals. I thought you guys like giving money back to people, no? Yes, but not to shareholders? Why not? I am a shareholder, pretty sure most of you as well.

Stock buybacks are giving money back to shareholders (people). Which then goes either into spending (good for the economy) or reinvestment into more promising sectors (again, good for the economy). What's  not to like?

P.S. I lied... I did glance at all the points of hate ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on November 14, 2019, 11:57:50 am
Well, if you don;t like his policies, then you can vote him out of office next year.  Oh wait.  You're not an American and can't vote.   ???
After 'Grab them by the pussy' Only the US would vote for man...
No, we cannot vote but still he influences a lot around here for the bad.
If this man is not impeached the US constitution does not work properly.
He simply mis-used his Presidential power, as a tool to dirt his opponent for the next election.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 14, 2019, 12:12:38 pm
After 'Grab them by the pussy' Only the US would vote for man...

And the rest of the world doesn't do that? How do you think the humanity is created?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 14, 2019, 12:53:59 pm
Quote
Quote from: kers on Today at 11:57:50 am
After 'Grab them by the pussy' Only the US would vote for man...

And the rest of the world doesn't do that? How do you think the humanity is created?
I can't imagine Pete Buttigieg doing that. Not even Mike Pence.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 14, 2019, 12:58:56 pm
I can't imagine Pete Buttigieg doing that. Not even Mike Pence.

Mary Pete doesn't contribute to the survival of humanity. But his father did, temporarily.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 14, 2019, 01:10:25 pm
I can't imagine Pete Buttigieg doing that. Not even Mike Pence.
Mike Pence is so afraid that he will do it that he won't have a one-on-one meeting with a woman unless his wife is present. The Billy Graham rule.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 14, 2019, 01:31:41 pm
I'm sure there were plenty of transition problems. 

Yeah, there sure were. They were orders of magnitude or two greater than for previous transitions. The level of incompetence is mind-boggling and none of it to do with politics or ideology.

And please stop repeating that phrase "draining the swamp", he has done no such thing.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 14, 2019, 01:44:54 pm
And the rest of the world doesn't do that? How do you think the humanity is created?

Wow.  Right up there with the "butt plug" comment.
And here I thought that the dinosaurs were extinct.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 14, 2019, 01:53:45 pm
... And here I thought that the dinosaurs were extinct.

We all know the real reason:

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on November 14, 2019, 05:54:32 pm
And the rest of the world doesn't do that? How do you think the humanity is created?
I guess we think different on this topic...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 14, 2019, 08:57:51 pm
After 'Grab them by the pussy' Only the US would vote for man...
No, we cannot vote but still he influences a lot around here for the bad.
If this man is not impeached the US constitution does not work properly.
He simply mis-used his Presidential power, as a tool to dirt his opponent for the next election.

President Obama used his power over the Internal Revenue Service to go after and silence his political opponents before the 2012 re-election campaign.  The IRS can destroy people and organizations financially and even send them to jail.  You couldn't vote in that election either, but I don't recall any complaints about that constitutional violation from you.  Did you call for Obama's impeachment?  There was deafening silence from your side.


We don't impeach presidents for political hijinks.  We suck it up, complain a lot, and then vote the guy out of office or not.  Going the impeachment route is a terrible process because it sets the country up for a replay whenever the president and congress are from different parties, which is very often.  We should be fighting about policy rather than power - who's trying to get it or keep it.  At least let;s wait for elections to play the power and finger pointing game.  Impeachment is a destructive measure for these things never created for that purpose. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 14, 2019, 09:35:09 pm
After 'Grab them by the pussy' Only the US would vote for man...

You my friend need to do some research into the former prime minister of Italy. 

Top 25 Quotes By Silvio Berlusconi Quotes (https://www.azquotes.com/author/19693-Silvio_Berlusconi)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 14, 2019, 09:42:57 pm
Well, it's Italy.  That doesn't count.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 14, 2019, 10:06:57 pm
Pretty much sums up the inquiry so far.  And yes, he actually said that. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 14, 2019, 11:05:30 pm
Joe, I just can't believe he said that.  Did you really hear him say it or did someone tell you he said it?  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 14, 2019, 11:07:16 pm
I guess we think different on this topic...

Oh, shut up! You guys made a window shopping of it ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 15, 2019, 12:15:31 am

(https://pics.me.me/life-is-short-make-sure-you-spend-as-much-time-36952638.png)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on November 15, 2019, 06:51:19 am
You my friend need to do some research into the former prime minister of Italy. 

Top 25 Quotes By Silvio Berlusconi Quotes (https://www.azquotes.com/author/19693-Silvio_Berlusconi)

I completely agree with you on Berlusconi; But that does not make Trump any better.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 15, 2019, 06:55:50 am
Joe, I just can't believe he said that.  Did you really hear him say it or did someone tell you he said it?  :)

There is an audio clip of him actually saying that!  Really, you can look it up, it may even be a video clip. 

PS

Just looked it up, and yes it is a video clip of him saying this during the actual hearing.  Obviously he realizes that the entire testimony was nothing by hearsay (and not to mention most of it was hearsay of hearsay with some being hearsay of hearsay of hearsay) and is trying to make the excuse that in certain instances hearsay is allowed by the courts, so all this testimony should matter here and have weight. 

However, what he failed to note was that there are very few instances where hearsay is allowed.  The only two I found was dying declarations given to police officers and when a party is providing hearsay evidence against itself but the witness needs to be a member of that party.  None of what the Dems presented even come close to meeting these qualifications. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 15, 2019, 07:51:26 am
There is an audio clip of him actually saying that!  Really, you can look it up, it may even be a video clip. 

PS

Just looked it up, and yes it is a video clip of him saying this during the actual hearing.  Obviously he realizes that the entire testimony was nothing by hearsay (and not to mention most of it was hearsay of hearsay with some being hearsay of hearsay of hearsay) and is trying to make the excuse that in certain instances hearsay is allowed by the courts, so all this testimony should matter here and have weight. 

However, what he failed to note was that there are very few instances where hearsay is allowed.  The only two I found was dying declarations given to police officers and when a party is providing hearsay evidence against itself but the witness needs to be a member of that party. None of what the Dems presented even come close to meeting these qualifications. 
Well, democrats must feel that impeachment of a president falls into that hearsay category?  Now Pelosi wants to accuse him of bribery.  I guess she figures high crimes and misdemeanors are too "loosy goosy" to convince the skeptical public.  But bribery is one of the words mentioned in the constitution regarding impeachment. 


The whole impeachment argument for the last three years has been accusations in search of a crime. Mueller put the kibosh on collusion and his testimony before Congress caused obstruction of justice to fizzle and make the Democrats look foolish.  They couldn't charge Trump paying off bimbos as a violation of campaign finance law.  It sounded too close to what Democratic President Bill Clinton had a habit of doing.  How embarrassing that would be.  So they're still looking and trying out different charges.  Bribery has a solid ring to it.  Nancy may have finally hit on the right charge that people won;t laugh at. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 15, 2019, 08:16:07 am
The more I read this thread, the more I feel that some here - that I assume are honestly thinking what they are writing - are being held hostage by a logical fallacy.

This fallacy is the belief that the truth necessarily falls in the middle of extremes.

By far the best example is the belief that the vast majority of media are anti-Trump because they report negative news about Trump (not the other way around...).

This relies on the belief that if media were fair, they would average be 50% for Trump and 50% anti-Trump. But... this a priori rules out the possibility that Trump may be less than 50% good.

So the claim that media in the US are overall leaning to the left is simply the result of lack of objectivity about who Trump is and what he does.

The media is not objective because it doesn't agree with your own imbalanced view of what Trump is.

In other words, due to this logical fallacy, media can only be assessed as being to the left if they report objectively about Trump... :)

There are many other examples here. When sports papers report time and again that Roger Federer is a better tennis player than Jack Socks, nobody calls them anti-American... but according to the logic complaining that media leans to the left, sports papers should split 50-50% between those thinking that Federed is better vs those thinking that Jack Socks is better.

Similarly, media should have shared opinions about the size of the US vs the size of Belgium. If more than 50% of media think the US is the larger country, that must mean they are anti-Belgian. And... they all keep writing that the US is larger... I am revolted by the degree of racism against Belgium!

I wonder why this isn't the case...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 15, 2019, 08:34:23 am
The more I read this thread, the more I feel that some here - that I assume are honestly thinking what they are writing - are being held hostage by a logical fallacy.

This fallacy is the belief that the truth necessarily falls in the middle of extremes.

By far the best example is the belief that the vast majority of media are anti-Trump because they report negative news about Trump (not the other way around...).

This relies on the belief that if media were fair, they would average be 50% for Trump and 50% anti-Trump. But... this a priori rules out the possibility that Trump may be less than 50% good.

So the claim that media in the US are overall leaning to the left is simply the result of lack of objectivity about who Trump is and what he does.

The media is not objective because it doesn't agree with your own imbalanced view of what Trump is.

In other words, due to this logical fallacy, media can only be assessed as being to the left if they report objectively about Trump... :)

There are many other examples here. When sports papers report time and again that Roger Federer is a better tennis player than Jack Socks, nobody calls them anti-American... but according to the logic complaining that media leans to the left, sports papers should split 50-50% between those thinking that Federed is better vs those thinking that Jack Socks is better.

Similarly, media should have shared opinions about the size of the US vs the size of Belgium. If more than 50% of media think the US is the larger country, that must mean they are anti-Belgian. And... they all keep writing that the US is larger... I am revolted by the degree of racism against Belgium!

I wonder why this isn't the case...

Cheers,
Bernard

Narratives and mythology always have a stronger emotional pull than reality. Thinking is work. Acquiring and studying evidence objectively is difficult, it does not come naturally.

Also, we love belonging to tribes. Just think of the utter insanity of supporters of different pro sports teams getting into brawls over games. What possible difference does it make to anyone's life whether City A or City B wins this year's championship? That is an arena where basically nothing important is at stake, and yet people are willing to harm each other over the outcomes of games.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 15, 2019, 08:51:44 am
However, what he failed to note was that there are very few instances where hearsay is allowed.  The only two I found was dying declarations given to police officers and when a party is providing hearsay evidence against itself but the witness needs to be a member of that party.  None of what the Dems presented even come close to meeting these qualifications.
There are twenty three exceptions to the hearsay rule. Google will find them for you. And impeachment hearings are not governed by the federal rules of evidence. Many of the individuals with first hand knowledge are ignoring subpeonas at Trump's insistence. Does anyone disbelieve the so-called hearsay testimony?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 15, 2019, 08:59:47 am
Quote
This relies on the belief that if media were fair, they would average be 50% for Trump and 50% anti-Trump. But... this a priori rules out the possibility that Trump may be less than 50% good.

So the claim that media in the US are overall leaning to the left is simply the result of lack of objectivity about who Trump is and what he does.

The media is not objective because it doesn't agree with your own imbalanced view of what Trump is.

In other words, due to this logical fallacy, media can only be assessed as being to the left if they report objectively about Tru

Interesting and valid theory, Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 15, 2019, 09:03:13 am
There are twenty three exceptions to the hearsay rule. Google will find them for you. And impeachment hearings are not governed by the federal rules of evidence. Many of the individuals with first hand knowledge are ignoring subpeonas at Trump's insistence. Does anyone disbelieve the so-called hearsay testimony?

Thanks for updating me on hearsay and letting me know this is all political.  By the way, can you please supply the exception that applies to these hearings. 

And lets not forget he said that it can be much better then direct evidence.  LOL

Although one could argue hearsay is better then no evidence, it would be quite difficult to argue hearsay is better then direct evidence. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 15, 2019, 09:14:23 am
The more I read this thread, the more I feel that some here - that I assume are honestly thinking what they are writing - are being held hostage by a logical fallacy.

This fallacy is the belief that the truth necessarily falls in the middle of extremes.

By far the best example is the belief that the vast majority of media are anti-Trump because they report negative news about Trump (not the other way around...).

This relies on the belief that if media were fair, they would average be 50% for Trump and 50% anti-Trump. But... this a priori rules out the possibility that Trump may be less than 50% good.

So the claim that media in the US are overall leaning to the left is simply the result of lack of objectivity about who Trump is and what he does.

The media is not objective because it doesn't agree with your own imbalanced view of what Trump is.

In other words, due to this logical fallacy, media can only be assessed as being to the left if they report objectively about Trump... :)

There are many other examples here. When sports papers report time and again that Roger Federer is a better tennis player than Jack Socks, nobody calls them anti-American... but according to the logic complaining that media leans to the left, sports papers should split 50-50% between those thinking that Federed is better vs those thinking that Jack Socks is better.

Similarly, media should have shared opinions about the size of the US vs the size of Belgium. If more than 50% of media think the US is the larger country, that must mean they are anti-Belgian. And... they all keep writing that the US is larger... I am revolted by the degree of racism against Belgium!

I wonder why this isn't the case...

Cheers,
Bernard

Come on now Bernard.

First, the case is weak at best.  The Dems have not provided any testimony that with direct evidence.  It is all hearsay of hearsay and conjecture on the part of those testifying. 

On top of that, the witnesses have provided information that helps Trump.  Kent yesterday noted theories that Trump wanted investigated that had nothing to do with the Bidens and everything to do with 2016.  Admittedly, a couple of them are conspiracy theories with no evidence to back them up, but Trump wanted them investigated.  He gave credence to these even if the evidence was very questionable, the same thing you are claiming about with any evidence for the Bidens.  These investigations got all lumped together, implying intent was about 2016 corruption, not for 2020. 

On top of that, the witnesses also implied that Giuliani was getting bad information, and then feeding it to Trump, from two nefarious individuals that had an ax to grind.  Once again, Trump acting on bad information is not impeachable.  It may be ignorant, especially on Giuliani's part, but not impeachable. 

Last, even some of the Dem's witnesses had call for, during these hearings, further investigation into Burisma itself. 

For all intents and purposes, the intent appears to be investigating 2016 election corruption that Trump thought Biden could be a part of. 

Unless either Giuliani or Bolton or Mulvaney testify that Trump's intent was for help in the 2020 election, the Dems have nothing. 

Lets also not forget all of the lies the Dems are spreading around with the biggest one being that Schiff claims he does not know the name of the whistle blower, while at the same time threatening that if you say his name during the hearings he will shut you done.  LOL.  That in itself destroys his credibility. 

"Oh yes, my staff met with the whistle blower, but I refused to be in the room and covered my ears whenever his name was spoken."  Sure.   ;D  (FYI, this quotation was a parody; I'll admit to it before I am called out on it, unlike Schiff.  Thankfully I'm not under oath.) 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 15, 2019, 09:32:52 am
. . . there are very few instances where hearsay is allowed.

The federal rule against hearsay does not apply to investigations, only at trial or during depositions intended to be introduced at trial.

If the House of Representatives adopts articles of impeachment and a trial to determine whether President Trump should be removed from office is held in the Senate, I presume Chief Justice John Roberts will apply the federal rules of evidence regarding the admissibility of testimony and documents.

The federal rules provide numerous exclusions from (https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-801/) and exceptions to (https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-803/) the rule against hearsay and additional ones have been created by various statutes.  Among those that might apply in a Senate trial are the rules allowing statements by agents and co-conspirators and the special exception for declarants who are "unavailable," (https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-804/) such as when a privilege (such as "executive privilege" or the privilege against self-incrimination) prevents a witness from testifying.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 15, 2019, 09:50:45 am
Come on now Bernard.

First, the case is weak at best.  The Dems have not provided any testimony that with direct evidence.  It is all hearsay of hearsay and conjecture on the part of those testifying. 

On top of that, the witnesses have provided information that helps Trump.  Kent yesterday noted theories that Trump wanted investigated that had nothing to do with the Bidens and everything to do with 2016.  Admirably, a couple of them are conspiracy theories with no evidence to back them up, but Trump wanted them investigated.  He gave credence to these even if the evidence was very questionable, the same thing you are claiming about with any evidence for the Bidens.  These investigations got all lumped together, implying intent was about 2016 corruption, not for 2020. 

On top of that, the witnesses also implied that Giuliani was getting bad information, and then feeding it to Trump, from two nefarious individuals that had an ax to grind.  Once again, Trump acting on bad information is not impeachable.  It may be ignorant, especially on Giuliani's part, but not impeachable. 

Last, even some of the Dem's witnesses had call for, during these hearings, further investigation into Burisma itself. 

For all intents and purposes, the intent appears to be investigating 2016 election corruption that Trump thought Biden could be a part of. 

Unless either Giuliani or Bolton or Mulvaney testify that Trump's intent was for help in the 2020 election, the Dems have nothing. 

Lets also not forget all of the lies the Dems are spreading around with the biggest one being that Schiff claims he does not know the name of the whistle blower, while at the same time threatening that if you say his name during the hearings he will shut you done.  LOL.  That in itself destroys his credibility. 

"Oh yes, my staff met with the whistle blower, but I refused to be in the room and covered my ears whenever his name was spoken."  Sure.   ;D  (FYI, this quotation was a parody; I'll admit to it before I am called out on it, unlike Schiff.  Thankfully I'm not under oath.)

Comon now, how naive do you need to be to think that Trump would, at this point in time, devote such an amount of energy himself to investigate something that happened 3 years ago for any reason but to use this information against Biden for the 2020 elections?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 15, 2019, 10:04:07 am
Comon now, how naive do you need to be to think that Trump would, at this point in time, devote such an amount of energy himself to investigate something that happened 3 years ago for any reason but to use this information against Biden for the 2020 elections?

Cheers,
Bernard

He was trying to clear his name against the accusation that he won due to election interference. 

And how much energy did he really donate?  Apparently not that much.  We are talking about a few conversations in which he flirted with withholding aid but ultimately gave in and sent the aid even though none of the investigations where commenced. 

Does not seem to me that Trump was really hellbent on seeing this thing through, which certainly shows the amount of energy he devoted was small.   

In other news, a next star witness is up, who also never spoke to Trump, refused to engage in the foreign policy Trump was promoting, got fired due to insubordination and perjured herself last time around.  I should also add that she also was not even in a state department position during the timeline of events put forth by the Dems. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 15, 2019, 10:08:03 am
Comon now, how naive do you need to be to think that Trump would, at this point in time, devote such an amount of energy himself to investigate something that happened 3 years ago for any reason but to use this information against Biden for the 2020 elections?

Indeed, and in addition, why didn't he mention the issue of "corruption" but instead asked for making a public statement about an investigation into the Bidens? And why the bribery, witholding Congress appoved funds for Military aid (in the interest of the USA). Bribery is an impeachable offense in the Constitution, and jeopardising the (military) safety of the USA by witholding funds for defense to an advanced post that's in a battle with Russia (people die almost every day in that combat zone). And why the bypassing of Congressional oversight by Giuliani as instructed by Trump. And why the hiding of the phone transcript in the first place, on a server that's only used for the highest confidentiality class of documents. And why the instructions to witnesses to not cooperate (=obstruction of justice).

The case for impeachment is getting stronger with each action trying to frustrate the legal process. And the public hearings have only just started.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 15, 2019, 10:09:52 am
Indeed, and in addition, why didn't he mention the issue of "corruption" but instead asked for making a public statement about an investigation into the Bidens? And why the bribery, witholding Congress appoved funds for Military aid (in the interest of the USA). Bribery is an impeachable offense in the Constitution, and jeopardising the (military) safety of the USA by witholding funds for defense to an advanced post that's in a battle with Russia (people die almost every day in that combat zone). And why the bypassing of Congressional oversight by Giuliani as instructed by Trump. And why the hiding of the phone transcript in the first place, on a server that's only used for the highest confidentiality class of documents. And why the instructions to witnesses to not cooperate (=obstruction of justice).

The case for impeachment is getting stronger with each action trying to frustrate the legal process. And the public hearings have only just started.

Please show the exact Bribery statue he violated, because the Dems have refused to do so.  Also, please show the direct evidence for this statue, because the Dems also refuse to do so.

Insofar as using a personal lawyer to handle aspects of his policy, this is not unprecedented.  FDR did the same thing.   

Additionally, the New York Times has repeatably reported on the fact that Trump often keeps information of dealings in a private secure server due to the massive amount of leaking the occurred when he was first in office.  This was reported before this story ever began.  If this was the only incident of this happening, I would agree it does not look good.  But since is part of a large process put in place to preventing leaking, it means nothing!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 15, 2019, 10:11:26 am
He was trying to clear his name against the accusation that he won due to election interference.

Who cares, he won the electoral college vote.

Quote
And how much energy did he really donate?  Apparently not that much.  We are talking about a few conversations in which he flirted with withholding aid but ultimately gave in and sent the aid even though none of the investigations where commenced.

The fact that he failed, doesn't excuse the effort. The attempted bribery is an impeachable offense on it's own.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 15, 2019, 10:16:04 am
Who cares, he won the electoral college vote.

The fact that he failed, doesn't excuse the effort. The attempted bribery is an impeachable offense on it's own.

He just failed, just failed to follow through with his own convictions.  He was not stopped or thwarted or caught in the middle of it, which we know, he just failed to overcome himself.  Keep on pushing that one. 

Secondly, are you saying that people should not be concerned about their legacy?  People should not be concerned about clearing their names? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 15, 2019, 10:40:12 am
Secondly, are you saying that people should not be concerned about their legacy?  People should not be concerned about clearing their names?

At the expense of other people's lifes, and against the security of the USA? You can answer that for yourself.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 15, 2019, 11:02:25 am
Secondly, are you saying that people should not be concerned about their legacy?  People should not be concerned about clearing their names?
What does investigating the Biden's have to do with clearing his name?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 15, 2019, 11:27:07 am
What does investigating the Biden's have to do with clearing his name?

Once again, he was investing several 2016 election corruption theories, and Biden's Burisma concerns got lumped into the whole package.  Some of these theories, admittedly, were laughable, like the crowd source conspiracy theory, but that does not take away from the fact that Trump acted appropriately on these theories that he believed in.  If the president of the USA believes corruption might exist, he has a responsibility to investigate them. 

Now, I'll be honest with you, the fact that he actually believed in some of these enough to investigate them is pretty damn foolish.  I am not going to sit here and write that it was brilliant on part of the president to take seriously some of these claims, especially considering that many of these were fed to Giuliani by known untrustworthy individuals.  This does reek of incompetence on both Trump's and Giuliani's part, but they are not impeachable actions. 

And before any asks if I will vote for Trump in 2020, against Warren or Bernie?  Well, their incompetence trumps Trump's that cant be trumped, even by Trump.  Against a moderate?  :-X
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 15, 2019, 11:34:38 am
Comon now, how naive do you need to be to think that Trump would, at this point in time, devote such an amount of energy himself to investigate something that happened 3 years ago for any reason but to use this information against Biden for the 2020 elections?

Cheers,
Bernard

The whole collusion investigation against TRump was to politically damage him for the 2018 election when democrats re-took the house of representatives because of their and the press's smear campaign.  The whole impeachment thing is about the same for the 2020 elections.  It's all about smearing him.  Yet, I don't see you objecting to democrats doing all of this for political reasons.  To argue they're doing it for some noble constitutional reason is about as believable as Trump's reason for investigating the Biden's. It's political hijinks on both sides.  But as long as they're some nexus to possible illegality, in both situations, then calling for and having investigations are legal, despite the fact they is political fallout.  That's American politics.  But we don;t impeach for it. 

For three years we've been hearing how Trump's kids have taken advantage of their father's presidential position to advance Trump business interests.  Yet, I haven't heard any similar complaints about Vice President Biden's son garnering a no-show job for $50K a month with a corrupt Ukrainian corporations (and Chinese also).

The problem with the press, is that it's mainly Democrat liberal and has been for a long time.  So while it's OK for them to go after Republican malfeasance, which should be done by the press, they cover for similar behavior from Democrats.  It was OK for Democrats to set up a phony investigation of Russian collusion for political reasons.  But it's not OK for a Republican administration to ask for investigation of the Bidens who seem to have been involved in corrupt activities themselves.  The bias of 90% of the press is and always has been against Republicans and conservative ideas.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 15, 2019, 11:36:02 am
Who cares, he won the electoral college vote.

The fact that he failed, doesn't excuse the effort. The attempted bribery is an impeachable offense on it's own.
You're spouting Pelosi's nonsense.  There was no bribery.  You're slandering our president. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 15, 2019, 11:56:08 am
There was no bribery. 

So, what was it?  Just business?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 15, 2019, 11:56:13 am
Please show the exact Bribery statue he violated . . .

Presumably what Nancy Pelosi and several other members of Congress are referring to is 18 USC §201 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201).  While this statute establishes that a crime is committed when "a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for . . . being influenced in the performance of any official act," employing it in an article of impeachment against President Trump strikes me as questionable for two reasons.  First, although I can't be certain, my impression is that although solicitation alone technically is sufficient, prosecutions typically are initiated under this statute only when the official has already accepted something of value or was apprehended in the act of accepting it.  Second, demonstrating that the Ukrainian government was prepared to accede to a demand to make a public statement about investigating the Bidens would put that government in precisely the position it has been trying to avoid—in the middle of a U.S. political dispute—which would be undesirable from a policy perspective.

If the members of Congress favoring impeachment feel they must charge a statutory violation to establish abuse of power with respect Trump's request to Ukrainian President Zelensky, 52 USC §30201 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121) would seem to be a more appropriate choice, since it explicitly applies to soliciting something of value from a foreign national and does not require evidence that the foreign national intended to accede to the request.  Moreover, Trump's own words in the White House transcript of his July telephone conversation with Zelensky establish a prima facie case that he violated that law.

And, of course, any articles of impeachment may include the statutory crime of obstruction of justice, multiple instances of which were documented in Volume II of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report (https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 15, 2019, 12:28:46 pm
Presumably what Nancy Pelosi and several other members of Congress are referring to is 18 USC §201 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201).  While this statute establishes that a crime is committed when "a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for . . . being influenced in the performance of any official act," employing it in an article of impeachment against President Trump strikes me as questionable for two reasons.  First, although I can't be certain, my impression is that although solicitation alone technically is sufficient, prosecutions typically are initiated under this statute only when the official has already accepted something of value or was apprehended in the act of accepting it.

Although I'm not an expert, I do doubt that. If I'm not mistaken, Rod Blagojevich was impeached and removed from office for corruption:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich
Quote
Rod Blagojevich[1][2][3] (/bləˈɡɔɪ.əvɪtʃ/, born December 10, 1956) is an American politician who served as the 40th Governor of Illinois from 2003 until his impeachment, conviction, and removal from office in 2009.

A Democrat, Blagojevich was a state representative before being elected to the United States House of Representatives representing parts of Chicago. He was elected governor in 2002, the first Democrat to win the office since Dan Walker's victory 30 years earlier and won reelection to a second term in 2006.[4] Blagojevich was impeached and removed from office for corruption; he solicited bribes for political appointments, including Barack Obama's vacant U.S. Senate seat after Obama was elected president in 2008. Blagojevich was convicted and sentenced to 14 years in federal prison.

Surely, Alan K. wouldn't want a different treatment for a Republican official.

Quote
Second, demonstrating that the Ukrainian government was prepared to accede to a demand to make a public statement about investigating the Bidens would put that government in precisely the position it has been trying to avoid—in the middle of a U.S. political dispute—which would be undesirable from a policy perspective.

But they managed to resist. It even took a (prepared by USA officials) statement to be read on CNN, which was cancelled just in time before the Fareed Zakaria interview was aired. So it was obviously not what President Zelensky wanted to do.

Quote
If the members of Congress favoring impeachment feel they must charge a statutory violation to establish abuse of power with respect Trump's request to Ukrainian President Zelensky, 52 USC §30201 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121) would seem to be a more appropriate choice, since it explicitly applies to soliciting something of value from a foreign national and does not require evidence that the foreign national intended to accede to the request.  Moreover, Trump's own words in the White House transcript of his July telephone conversation with Zelensky establish a prima facie case that he violated that law.

We'll have to see what the actual indictments will be.

Quote
And, of course, any articles of impeachment may include the statutory crime of obstruction of justice, multiple instances of which were documented in Volume II of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report (https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf).

Yes, that might be added but would not be enough by itself, and at the same time it has to be simple enough for the general public to understand.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 15, 2019, 01:54:15 pm

For three years we've been hearing how Trump's kids have taken advantage of their father's presidential position to advance Trump business interests.  Yet, I haven't heard any similar complaints about Vice President Biden's son garnering a no-show job for $50K a month with a corrupt Ukrainian corporations (and Chinese also).


You may have a point but Biden's family didn't work for the White House.

You must be happier now that the impeachment proceedings have entered a new public phase and that deliberations are no longer being held behind closed doors.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 15, 2019, 02:13:15 pm
Presumably what Nancy Pelosi and several other members of Congress are referring to is 18 USC §201 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201).  While this statute establishes that a crime is committed when "a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for . . . being influenced in the performance of any official act," employing it in an article of impeachment against President Trump strikes me as questionable for two reasons.  First, although I can't be certain, my impression is that although solicitation alone technically is sufficient, prosecutions typically are initiated under this statute only when the official has already accepted something of value or was apprehended in the act of accepting it.  Second, demonstrating that the Ukrainian government was prepared to accede to a demand to make a public statement about investigating the Bidens would put that government in precisely the position it has been trying to avoid—in the middle of a U.S. political dispute—which would be undesirable from a policy perspective.

If the members of Congress favoring impeachment feel they must charge a statutory violation to establish abuse of power with respect Trump's request to Ukrainian President Zelensky, 52 USC §30201 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121) would seem to be a more appropriate choice, since it explicitly applies to soliciting something of value from a foreign national and does not require evidence that the foreign national intended to accede to the request.  Moreover, Trump's own words in the White House transcript of his July telephone conversation with Zelensky establish a prima facie case that he violated that law.

And, of course, any articles of impeachment may include the statutory crime of obstruction of justice, multiple instances of which were documented in Volume II of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report (https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf).

So when Obama said on an open microphone to the Russian ambassador that he will go light on Russia after the election but has to show forcefulness now before the election, and that Russians should stay quiet during the election season, he could have been brought up on similar charges.  So anytime a president says to a foreign leader it would be nice for him to say something nice about the president to help in with the public, the president could be accused of soliciting something of value.

Technically yes.  But not impeachable.  It;s just too silly.  This doesn;t rise to the level of bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors required for impeachment.  This whole thing today is just politics, the democrats smearing Trump tor the 2020 election. 

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 15, 2019, 02:15:41 pm
You may have a point but Biden's family didn't work for the White House.

You must be happier now that the impeachment proceedings have entered a new public phase and that deliberations are no longer being held behind closed doors.
Doesn;t matter.  If the Biden's solicited $50,000 a month "fee" and got a wink and a nod from the Vice President, than that would be a bride, exactly what Blagojevich went to jail for.  Certainly something worthy of investigating.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 15, 2019, 02:32:11 pm
... This relies on the belief that if media were fair, they would average be 50% for Trump and 50% anti-Trump. But... this a priori rules out the possibility that Trump may be less than 50% good...

This whole little diatribe rests on a false premise:

No, media will not be "fair" if 50% are pro-Trump and 50% are anti-Trump. To be objective, media should neither be pro, nor against Trump (or anyone else for that matter), but report the news matter-of-factly. And then let me, or you, or anyone else decide what we want to be: pro or against.

As for your "possibility that Trump may be less than 50% good"... that is circular reasoning - you first determine that he is not good, take that as granted and absolute truth, and then asses media based on that. Just another false premise.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 15, 2019, 02:49:36 pm
Who cares, he won the electoral college vote.

The fact that he failed, doesn't excuse the effort. The attempted bribery is an impeachable offense on it's own.

Just discovered that attempted bribery is not an offense in the constitution.  On top of that, they still have no direct evidence of attempted bribery. 

Second, the Dems have been doing internal polling, which they have been trying to keep secret, in swing districts as to whether quid pro quo, extortion, or bribery would be more effective and bribery seems to be the winner.  This is why they suddenly changed terms and proves that it is nothing but political. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 15, 2019, 04:25:21 pm
This is why they suddenly changed terms and proves that it is nothing but political.

I don't think that it is correct to say that it "proves that is nothing but political". It just proves that they're using polling data to help decide on a strategy. On the surface it seems like a bizarre way to proceed, it's not clear to me what public opinion has to do with it. I doubt that most people understand the nuances of what's being discussed in the first place.

But as I've said before, I have no oar in this water. I couldn't care less if he's impeached or not. I think the better long-term strategy would have been to keep pointing out all the repulsive things he's done since taking office in the view of tossing him out at the next election. I would have made that priority 1, but other people are different ideas. Maybe their thinking was that if Trump was kept busy worrying about impeachment, it would distract him from doing other harm. :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 15, 2019, 04:43:05 pm
If I'm not mistaken, Rod Blagojevich was impeached and removed from office for corruption . . .

Correct.  However, Blagojevich was neither accused during his state of Illinois impeachment, nor subsequently charged by the U.S. Department of Justice, with criminal violations of the federal bribery statute; he was accused, and ultimately convicted, of violating other federal statutes.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 15, 2019, 04:48:43 pm
I don't think that it is correct to say that it "proves that is nothing but political". It just proves that they're using polling data to help decide on a strategy. On the surface it seems like a bizarre way to proceed, it's not clear to me what public opinion has to do with it....

This is precisely what makes it political. They know they have a lost case, so they are aiming at energizing their voters to show up in 2020. That's why the public opinion matters (to them).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 15, 2019, 05:57:20 pm
This whole little diatribe rests on a false premise:

No, media will not be "fair" if 50% are pro-Trump and 50% are anti-Trump. To be objective, media should neither be pro, nor against Trump (or anyone else for that matter), but report the news matter-of-factly. And then let me, or you, or anyone else decide what we want to be: pro or against.

As for your "possibility that Trump may be less than 50% good"... that is circular reasoning - you first determine that he is not good, take that as granted and absolute truth, and then asses media based on that. Just another false premise.

It’s again the same prejudice on your part talking here.

But ok, I won’t adopt the systematic point avoiding tactics of the Trump camp and will answer you as objectivity as I can, what could be a neutral measuring stick? How about the international press?

Have you compared the average WW opinion of the right wing press about Trump? Well, guess what it’s a lot more anti-Trump than it was during the Obama or Bush days.

The left press? Even worse...

Is that a WW conspiracy against Trump?

What you may want to consider realizing is that you have been brain washed into supporting him no matter what.

Even I, the worst Nikon fanboy on the whole internet, am 10 times more objective about Nikon’s weaknesses than you are about Trump. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 15, 2019, 08:14:51 pm
Although I'm not an expert, I do doubt that. If I'm not mistaken, Rod Blagojevich was impeached and removed from office for corruption:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich)
Surely, Alan K. wouldn't want a different treatment for a Republican official.

But they managed to resist. It even took a (prepared by USA officials) statement to be read on CNN, which was cancelled just in time before the Fareed Zakaria interview was aired. So it was obviously not what President Zelensky wanted to do.

We'll have to see what the actual indictments will be.

Yes, that might be added but would not be enough by itself, and at the same time it has to be simple enough for the general public to understand.

Cheers,
Bart


Nor a Democrat.  Remember it was a democrat, Hunter Biden who received $50K a month for doing nothing with the payers who worked for a corrupt corporation getting a nod and a wink from VP Biden.  If proven, that's bribery.  That's different than what Trump or Obama did (with the open microphone with his discussion with the Russians telling them to be quiet during the election and he'll go easy on them afterwards.)


What are we supposed to do?  Impeach a president every time he tells a foreign leader: "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."  THat's just politics, not worthy of impeachment.  Save it for the election.  Regarding the current claim, unlike the Obama Russian open microphone example, Trump can point to an appearance of corruption with the Biden's which should be investigated.  Only the Democrats can call that (investigation) bribery.


Here's an article on the Obama flap.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/us/politics/obama-caught-on-microphone-telling-medvedev-of-flexibility.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/us/politics/obama-caught-on-microphone-telling-medvedev-of-flexibility.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 15, 2019, 08:28:27 pm

Nor a Democrat.  Remember it was a democrat, Hunter Biden who received $50K a month for doing nothing [...]

Please, cut the crap. What evidence do you have that Hunter Biden:
a. received $50k a month
b. for doing nothing.

Not answering those, will reduce your remaining credibility to ZERO.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 15, 2019, 09:31:59 pm
Please, cut the crap. What evidence do you have that Hunter Biden:
a. received $50k a month
b. for doing nothing.

Not answering those, will reduce your remaining credibility to ZERO.
Making such a naive statement and demand on me reduces your credibility to ZERO. 

The government only has to believe there's corruption to open an investigation.  That's how evidence is produced.  There's prima facie belief that someone who collects $50,000 a month for a no show job where he neither speaks the language or knows anything about the work he's doing could be receiving that money for nefarious reasons. If the government sees you driving around in a Ferrari yet your tax return indicates an income of $30,000 a year for the last five years, it raises suspicions.  They will open an investigation to see if you're hiding income to defraud the government.

No one over 12 believes that Hunter Biden earned $50,000  a month legitimately from a corporation riddled with corruption without possible favors being proffered possibly with the knowledge of his father the VP.  Certainly the president has a right to order that investigation especially since in coincided with other corrupt practice Ukraine was going on during that period.  Both Trump and Obama before him demanded that the Ukraine straighten out corruption.    Meanwhile, Hunter Biden resigned from his "positions" in both the Ukraine and China companies within the last two weeks.  Or they terminated him, or....who knows?


The bottom line is Democrats have been scratching around for an impeachment for three years to smear Trump.  That's what they want to run on in 2020 because they have nothing else.  While Trump runs on MAGA Make America Great Again, Democrats will run on TBDG - Trump Bad Democrats Good.  I have to admit, it's catchy. I wish I had thought of it.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 15, 2019, 09:40:24 pm
Making such a naive statement and demand on me reduces your credibility to ZERO. 

The government only has to believe there's corruption to open an investigation.  That's how evidence is produced.

Clear. Your statements deserve no credibility whatsoever then. That even doesn't qualify you for an ignore list. That would be too much of an honor.

Thanks for confirming though, it saves me some time having to point out how ludicrous the statements are each and every time and time again.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 15, 2019, 09:43:53 pm
Clear. Your statements deserve no credibility whatsoever then. That even doesn't qualify you for an ignore list. That would be too much of an honor.

Thanks for confirming though, it saves me some time having to point out how ludicrous the statements are each and every time and time again.
Well in that case, I apologize for keeping you up so late in the Netherlands for no reason at all.  What time is it there anyway? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 15, 2019, 10:25:29 pm
I don't think that it is correct to say that it "proves that is nothing but political". It just proves that they're using polling data to help decide on a strategy. On the surface it seems like a bizarre way to proceed, it's not clear to me what public opinion has to do with it. I doubt that most people understand the nuances of what's being discussed in the first place.

But as I've said before, I have no oar in this water. I couldn't care less if he's impeached or not. I think the better long-term strategy would have been to keep pointing out all the repulsive things he's done since taking office in the view of tossing him out at the next election. I would have made that priority 1, but other people are different ideas. Maybe their thinking was that if Trump was kept busy worrying about impeachment, it would distract him from doing other harm. :)

Hmmmm, ... hmmmmm, ..., but the defacto speaker of the Dems feels otherwise. 

"“At the end of the day, we have to be able to come together as a caucus, and if it is this Ukrainian allegation that is what brings the caucus together, then I think we have to run with however we unify the House,” Ocasio-Cortez told Wolf Blitzer, who asked the Congresswoman whether she hoped other potential violations by Trump would be considered in any articles of impeachment.

“. . . We also need to move quite quickly because we’re talking about the potential compromise of the 2020 elections.  And so this is not just about something that has occurred; this is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome from occurring next year.”

I guess as Ben Franklin said, three can keep a secret if two are dead.

Insofar as the text I bolded, good luck with that! 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 15, 2019, 10:36:16 pm
Well in that case, I apologize for keeping you up so late in the Netherlands for no reason at all.  What time is it there anyway?

You make me yawn.

I'm finishing a report on airpollution, and I needed a comic relief. Disappointed again.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 15, 2019, 11:23:59 pm
You make me yawn.

I'm finishing a report on airpollution, and I needed a comic relief. Disappointed again.
Well, it's hard to be funny this late in the night.   :o
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 16, 2019, 11:42:30 am
Good advice from Obama to Democrats too far on the left.

"Obama Says Average American Doesn’t Want to ‘Tear Down System’
Former President Barack Obama, in an address to liberal donors, warned candidates not to go too far left and sought to calm those who were concerned about the state of the Democratic primary."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/politics/barack-obama-2020-dems.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on November 16, 2019, 11:54:52 am
Please, cut the crap. What evidence do you have that Hunter Biden:
a. received $50k a month
b. for doing nothing.

Not answering those, will reduce your remaining credibility to ZERO.

Take a chill pill, Bart. I know ignorance is bliss, but one can take that principle too far.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 16, 2019, 12:31:37 pm
Take a chill pill, Bart. I know ignorance is bliss, but one can take that principle too far.

Thanks for the advice Frans, but Alan K. has no problem demonstrating that principle, hence the questions ...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 16, 2019, 01:40:44 pm
One humorous, one serious:
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 16, 2019, 03:45:09 pm
Media, congress, etc: Trump did X and it's illegal.

Trump: I didn't do X.

Media, congress, etc: Here's proof that  you did it

Trump: OK I did it but it's not illegal or wrong.

Media, congress, etc: Here's proof that its wrong/illegal.

Trump: OK, so what. Witch hunt!!!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 16, 2019, 05:23:16 pm
Media, congress, etc: Trump did X and it's illegal.

Trump: I didn't do X.

Media, congress, etc: Here's proof that  you did it

Trump: OK I did it but it's not illegal or wrong.

Media, congress, etc: Here's proof that its wrong/illegal.

Trump: OK, so what. Witch hunt!!!
The Bidens are corrupt so they should be investigated.  That's not illegal.  I thought you were opposed to corruption. 

The democrats will impeach regardless because they want to win the presidential election in 2020 and need to smear Trump because they got nothing else to run on or anyone except Biden who might win.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 16, 2019, 09:22:51 pm
The Bidens are corrupt so they should be investigated.  That's not illegal.  I thought you were opposed to corruption. 

The democrats will impeach regardless because they want to win the presidential election in 2020 and need to smear Trump because they got nothing else to run on or anyone except Biden who might win.

It appears as if Trump tried to use the power of the state to force someone (the guy in Ukraine) to help Trump in a personal political battle. He didn't try to use American muscle to accomplish a foreign policy objective or fix some trade problem or accomplish some national security objective, he did to enhance his own political fortune. He didn't do it for the country.

What I cannot understand is why you don't think this is problem.

Trump's political aspirations ARE not the concern of the state. The USA is NOT Trump. You don't seem to be able to separate these concepts. Except I think you probably can but choose not to, or pretend not to. Explain to us how your behaviour is any different to that of a paid-for troll.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 16, 2019, 11:02:17 pm
It appears as if Trump tried to use the power of the state to force someone (the guy in Ukraine) to help Trump in a personal political battle. He didn't try to use American muscle to accomplish a foreign policy objective or fix some trade problem or accomplish some national security objective, he did to enhance his own political fortune. He didn't do it for the country.

What I cannot understand is why you don't think this is problem.

Trump's political aspirations ARE not the concern of the state. The USA is NOT Trump. You don't seem to be able to separate these concepts. Except I think you probably can but choose not to, or pretend not to. Explain to us how your behaviour is any different to that of a paid-for troll.
Corruption in government is the concern of government.  You can;t seem to see that there could be two operating contingencies working here.  One, corruption of the VP and a foreign country that we need to prosecute and political fallout that benefits a politician.  Politicians make all sorts of legal decisions with one eye on political fallout in their favor or against them for that matter.  Obama pulled American troops out of Iraq in 2011 to help him win re-election knowing that he would create a vacuum for ISIS and cost thousands of more lives in extending the war that he could have avoided.  You seem more concerned about $50,000 a month payoffs that the death of people.  No one called for the prosecution of Obama as it was his prerogative to do what he did even though he did it with his eyes on the election.

The Democrats went after Trump based on a phony dossier to investigate Russian collusion.  But of course everyone understood there would be political fallout in the favor of Democrats as proved by the 2018 election when dirtying up Trump helped Democrats win the House.  That wasn't pretty.  The current impeachment after the collusion failed is just more politics on the Democrat side.  The Democrat poll that Joe mentioned earlier shows that the Democrats are only interested in damaging the president, not impeachment in itself.  Only a paid-for-troll couldn't see that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 16, 2019, 11:59:45 pm
Only a paid-for-troll couldn't see that.

Could we really get paid for our posts?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: texshooter on November 17, 2019, 12:10:41 am
I had no idea politicians did good things for America just to get re-elected.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ECROj-WE3jA/UnlHA9Alv7I/AAAAAAAAB9Q/FsqKz3i-R8Y/s320/18409579_s.jpg)



Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 17, 2019, 07:11:40 am
So, now it looks like the impeachment circus won't hurt the Democrats.

Quote
One thing seems certain: The predicted political backlash over impeachment that Democrats were frightened about will not be taking place. Republicans won't have an easy time employing the standard partisan witch hunt argument.
The case that House Democrats are making to the public about how Trump and his inner circle abused presidential power, skewed foreign policy for personal gain and then tried to hide and obstruct the investigation that followed the revelations is becoming overwhelming. The President himself keeps helping Democrats build their case through his tweets and public statements. His inclination to attack and seek to destroy might work in less frenzied times but now it registers differently in the middle of a formal investigation.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/16/opinions/democrats-backlash-impeachment-zelizer/index.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 17, 2019, 07:18:55 am
So, now it looks like the impeachment circus won't hurt the Democrats.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/16/opinions/democrats-backlash-impeachment-zelizer/index.html

It's an opinion piece. 

Look at polling, those in the swing states are not for the impeachment hearings.  It is in the swing states where it matters. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 17, 2019, 07:29:47 am
It's an opinion piece. 

Look at polling, those in the swing states are not for the impeachment hearings.  It is in the swing states where it matters.

But it could hurt Trump on another level. As recently reported, he underwent an unscheduled health exam on Saturday.

Quote
At February's physical exam, Trump weighed 243 pounds, four pounds more than the previous year's exam. His blood pressure was measured as 118/80, and results showed he had increased his daily dose of rosuvastatin, a medication used to treat high cholesterol, according to the exam results. The examination took "approximately four hours" and did not require any sedation or anesthesia, according to the President's physician, Dr. Sean Conley, who performed and supervised the exam. Last year's exam revealed that Trump has a common form of heart disease and high cholesterol.

Then-White House physician Dr. Ronny Jackson recommended that the President get on a diet, start exercising and set a goal of losing a dozen pounds, but sources told CNN in February that Trump had made only minor changes to his diet and exercise regimen since his 2018 exam. Jackson also revealed that Trump underwent a coronary calcium CT scan as part of his routine physical exam. Trump's score was recorded as 133, and Gupta noted at the time that anything over 100 indicates plaque is present and that the patient has heart disease.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/16/politics/trump-annual-physical-walter-reed/index.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 17, 2019, 08:38:21 am
1. When Democrats have to use focus groups just to figure out what to charge Trump with  ;D

2. When everything else fails, they hope they’ll annoy him enough, so he’ll die from a heart attack before they lose another election  ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 17, 2019, 09:03:01 am
1. When Democrats have to use focus groups just to figure out what to charge Trump with  ;D

Indeed, the luxury of being able to choose from several issues ...

Quote
2. When everything else fails, they hope they’ll annoy him enough, so he’ll die from a heart attack before they lose another election  ;D

Health is no laughing matter, but it could provide an elegant escape route ...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 17, 2019, 09:21:33 am
1. When Democrats have to use focus groups just to figure out what to charge Trump with  ;D

2. When everything else fails, they hope they’ll annoy him enough, so he’ll die from a heart attack before they lose another election  ;D



Trump is the kind of guy who gives heart attacks; he doesn't get them.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 17, 2019, 10:16:16 am
But it could hurt Trump on another level. As recently reported, he underwent an unscheduled health exam on Saturday.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/16/politics/trump-annual-physical-walter-reed/index.html

Fingers crossed for death to remove him now? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 17, 2019, 10:34:11 am
Then VP Pence would take over and become president and open up the Republican primary to other people as well.  That could be worse for the Democrats as would an impeachment that concluded with Trump being found guilty in the Senate, something Pelosi really doesn;t want.  What's the expression?  Watch what you pray for.:)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 17, 2019, 10:42:40 am
Want a wall-related laugh? Although the laugh is ultimately on the taxpayers.

1) Smugglers have shown that with a $100 reciprocating saw from Home Depot they can cut a hole in the wall fairly quickly.
2) It's been demonstrated that the wall can be scaled by someone as young as 8 in in 15 seconds.
3) Wall specs say it will be tunnel-resistant down to 6 feet. Six feet is nothing when these folks decide to dig a tunnel.



Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 17, 2019, 10:49:57 am
Want a wall-related laugh? Although the laugh is ultimately on the taxpayers.

1) Smugglers have shown that with a $100 reciprocating saw from Home Depot they can cut a hole in the wall fairly quickly.
2) It's been demonstrated that the wall can be scaled by someone as young as 8 in in 15 seconds.
3) Wall specs say it will be tunnel-resistant down to 6 feet. Six feet is nothing when these folks decide to dig a tunnel.
Good thing that three years in they haven't actually built any of it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 17, 2019, 11:29:44 am
... 1) Smugglers have shown that with a $100 reciprocating saw from Home Depot they can cut a hole in the wall fairly quickly.
2) It's been demonstrated that the wall can be scaled by someone as young as 8 in in 15 seconds...

Another good reason to electrify the fence.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 17, 2019, 11:41:50 am
Want a wall-related laugh? Although the laugh is ultimately on the taxpayers.

1) Smugglers have shown that with a $100 reciprocating saw from Home Depot they can cut a hole in the wall fairly quickly.
2) It's been demonstrated that the wall can be scaled by someone as young as 8 in in 15 seconds.
3) Wall specs say it will be tunnel-resistant down to 6 feet. Six feet is nothing when these folks decide to dig a tunnel.




Well, if it cuts cross border crossing by 90%, than it's doing a good job.  Frankly, I don't think we need a wall.  All we have to do is arrest and jail a few employers.  Then the job market for illegals would dry up overnight and they'd stay home.  Cheaper and more efficient.  Then we could issue one year job visas for enough migrant workers to handle any jobs we need them to take.  Employers would have to sponsor and pick up health insurance for them so they don;t become a burden for the American taxpayer while they're here.   Who could complain about this?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 17, 2019, 11:44:45 am
Who could complain about this?
Stephen Miller?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on November 17, 2019, 12:27:25 pm
Another good reason to electrify the fence.

+ a water barrier + automatic shotguns within a 100m security zone... that will keep the Americans locked in for sure... ;)

unless they use a plain, a tunnel or a boat to travel...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on November 17, 2019, 01:14:10 pm
But it could hurt Trump on another level. As recently reported, he underwent an unscheduled health exam on Saturday.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/16/politics/trump-annual-physical-walter-reed/index.html

Americans, I have unbounded admiration for your doctors, who can undertake an examination lasting "approximately four hours" during a presidential visit which ended when "[a]fter a little more than two hours at Walter Reed, Trump returned to the White House". That's hard work at its best.

More seriously, it would be entirely unsurprising if detailed investigations showed some coronary artery disease in a 73-year-old American, particularly one with his reported fondness for burgers, even if asymptomatic.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 17, 2019, 01:22:21 pm
Americans, I have unbounded admiration for your doctors, who can undertake an examination lasting "approximately four hours" during a presidential visit which ended when "[a]fter a little more than two hours at Walter Reed, Trump returned to the White House". That's hard work at its best.
Some of us have come to disbelieve anything coming out of the White House. Twelve thousand false or misleading statements and counting.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 19, 2019, 03:16:37 pm
Despite impeachment discussions the stock market is at its highest ever,  Trump pulled out of discussions with South Korea since they refused to contribute what we ask fir defense,  and trump threatened raising tariffs more if China doesn't make a deal.  Apparently his medical exam can't be that bad.   Or maybe it's worse than we think.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on November 19, 2019, 03:48:23 pm
Okay, this may also be fake news, even thought I watched Pompeo mouth it on tv: the settlements on the Left Bank are now not illegal.

But hey, the only Pompeo I really appreciated was Pompeo Posar, late Playboy photographer. I once got a Christmad card from him... those guys were great photographers.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 19, 2019, 03:58:42 pm
Another good reason to electrify the fence.

And throw a grounded cable over it to short it out, end of fence. Christ, how are these people so dumb?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 19, 2019, 04:03:25 pm
Well, if it cuts cross border crossing by 90%, than it's doing a good job.  Frankly, I don't think we need a wall.  All we have to do is arrest and jail a few employers.  Then the job market for illegals would dry up overnight and they'd stay home.  Cheaper and more efficient.  Then we could issue one year job visas for enough migrant workers to handle any jobs we need them to take.  Employers would have to sponsor and pick up health insurance for them so they don;t become a burden for the American taxpayer while they're here.   Who could complain about this?

It's been shown many, many times that immigrants add more to the economy than they take. This "burden on the taxpayer" crap is just that, crap.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 19, 2019, 04:06:53 pm
Trump (right side of mouth): I did nothing wrong and have nothing to hide.

Trump (left side of mouth): To my aides: ignore your subpoenas because I don't want you to tell what I did.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 19, 2019, 04:59:50 pm
It's been shown many, many times that immigrants add more to the economy than they take. This "burden on the taxpayer" crap is just that, crap.

All immigrants (including illegal aliens) or just legal immigrants?  Not trying to wise, just asking. 

I know with the latter, this is true, since legal immigrants tend to be more risk adverse.  But if you are implying the former as well, please site sources. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 19, 2019, 07:02:41 pm
It's been shown many, many times that immigrants add more to the economy than they take. This "burden on the taxpayer" crap is just that, crap.
Americans pay $200 billion annually in illegal immigration costs
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/5/the-real-cost-of-illegal-immigration-and-its-not-a/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 20, 2019, 08:29:48 pm
All immigrants (including illegal aliens) or just legal immigrants?  Not trying to wise, just asking. 

I know with the latter, this is true, since legal immigrants tend to be more risk adverse.  But if you are implying the former as well, please site sources.

If you were right, wouldn't this be a great case for turning illegal immigrants into legal ones?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 20, 2019, 08:34:56 pm
I saw the funniest thing yesterday.

One Republican who had been complaining about the supposed lack of transparency of the phase 1 hearings is now saying that this whole process should have stayed behind closed doors.

I guess it goes to show how bad a beating Trump is taking from the current testimonies.

It appears that 70% of American citizens now think Trump did something wrong. This is overwhelming.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 20, 2019, 08:50:40 pm
If you were right, wouldn't this be a great case for turning illegal immigrants into legal ones?

Cheers,
Bernard

Not necessarily.  Legal immigrants do not break the law, which could imply a great sense of character. 

This is why I asked for sources. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 20, 2019, 09:40:40 pm
If you were right, wouldn't this be a great case for turning illegal immigrants into legal ones?

Interesting logic. Law abiding citizens are risk adverse too. Sounds like a great case to open prison doors and turn criminals into law abiding citizens.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 21, 2019, 12:20:46 am
Interesting logic. Law abiding citizens are risk adverse too. Sounds like a great case to open prison doors and turn criminals into law abiding citizens.

Indeed.  (https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/19/politics/first-step-act-prisoners-released-doj/index.html) One of the things the Trump administration has done that I agree with.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 21, 2019, 12:26:59 am
Not necessarily.  Legal immigrants do not break the law, which could imply a great sense of character. 

This is why I asked for sources.

Article suggests that undocumented people may have a greater positive impact than “legal” immigrants in aggregate. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 21, 2019, 08:56:19 am
Article suggests that undocumented people may have a greater positive impact than “legal” immigrants in aggregate. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy).
The cost to America figures are bogus.   Where I live in New Jersey it costs $19,000 a year to educate a child in public school.  MUltiply that by two, three or more kids and the cost is huge.  You do the math.  65% of my property taxes are used to pay for public education for other family's children including illegals.   It's similar in the county next to me where there is even a larger immigrant (and illegal) population. This is similar in many parts of the country.  The article doesn;t explain the costs, but you can bet that it only covers direct payments and not incidental related expenses these families cost such as $19,000 per kid for education. 

It's all about getting them legalized so they can vote because most vote Democrat.  It's about getting power to the Democratic party.  So you get article after phony article how illegals don;t cost the country anything.  It's just not true.  It's a Democrat political campaign to convince the America public to legalize the illegals. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 21, 2019, 08:58:35 am
Just to clarify.  That's $19,000 per year per child.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 21, 2019, 10:08:31 am
The cost to America figures are bogus.   Where I live in New Jersey it costs $19,000 a year to educate a child in public school.  MUltiply that by two, three or more kids and the cost is huge.  You do the math.  65% of my property taxes are used to pay for public education for other family's children including illegals.   It's similar in the county next to me where there is even a larger immigrant (and illegal) population. This is similar in many parts of the country.  The article doesn;t explain the costs, but you can bet that it only covers direct payments and not incidental related expenses these families cost such as $19,000 per kid for education. 

It's all about getting them legalized so they can vote because most vote Democrat.  It's about getting power to the Democratic party.  So you get article after phony article how illegals don;t cost the country anything.  It's just not true.  It's a Democrat political campaign to convince the America public to legalize the illegals.

Why do people worry if undocumented workers don't pay taxes (assuming that's true) but they're ok for the government to hand over billions to Big Corn or provide tax concessions to Amazon warehouses while Amazon pays little corporate tax?

If anything, undocumented workers fit onto the current scene quite well. Since the objective is to crush unions and pound down wages, it's handy having people around that you don't have to pay decent wages to or provide many benefits for. Saves companies lots of money and helps to increase profits. I wonder if Trump hotels ever use undocumented workers. Just sayin'. :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 21, 2019, 10:18:27 am
This is the best quote I have read on Joe Biden! 

"Biden, I wouldn’t say that he was a house of fire in any of the debates that we’ve been to. And yet he comes — kind of bumps along, kind of Mr. Magoo-ing his way through this."  David Axelrod. 

 ;D  Mr Magoo-ing it! 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 21, 2019, 11:06:28 am
Why do people worry if undocumented workers don't pay taxes (assuming that's true) but they're ok for the government to hand over billions to Big Corn or provide tax concessions to Amazon warehouses while Amazon pays little corporate tax?

If anything, undocumented workers fit onto the current scene quite well. Since the objective is to crush unions and pound down wages, it's handy having people around that you don't have to pay decent wages to or provide many benefits for. Saves companies lots of money and helps to increase profits. I wonder if Trump hotels ever use undocumented workers. Just sayin'. :)
I don;t agree that big corn should get handouts if they do.  But one thing has nothing to do with the other.  Why should American citizens support foreigners who are here illegally?  Additionally, they force wage rates downs and take jobs away from American citizens who are poor and at the lower end of the pay scale.  How is that fair to these people?  Don't you care about poor Americans?  Well, you are Canadian, so I suppose not.  Maybe we should send our illegals to Canada so you can support them up there.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 21, 2019, 08:32:00 pm
Isn't it amusing that all of a sudden the discussions in this thread aren't focused on impeachment anymore... :)

But to cut a long story short, every single public testimony so far has confirmed in minute details all the things I and others have been writing for weeks.

So it looks like this wasn't the press being unfair to Trump, it was the facts being reported accurately.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 21, 2019, 09:41:07 pm
... every single public testimony so far has confirmed in minute details ...

... someone’s hearsay, or what someone perceived, or what someone thought Trump had in mind. And what you’ve been saying for weeks is just wishful thinking.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 21, 2019, 10:00:24 pm
Isn't it amusing that all of a sudden the discussions in this thread aren't focused on impeachment anymore... :)

But to cut a long story short, every single public testimony so far has confirmed in minute details all the things I and others have been writing for weeks.

So it looks like this wasn't the press being unfair to Trump, it was the facts being reported accurately.

Cheers,
Bernard


If the Democrats who run the House allowed Republicans to call the whistleblower Eric Ciaramella to testify, they would find there was a democrat political conspiracy or at least that he was biased and the whole thing was a setup like the Russian collusion charge.  Also, the Democrats are preventing the Republicans from calling ex-VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden to testify about the possible collusion they were involved with Burisma, a corrupt corporation in Ukraine, which would reasonably and legally justify the investigation called for by the president of the US.  The Democrats and anti-Trump press are protecting the Bidens. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 21, 2019, 10:10:39 pm
If the Democrats who run the House allowed Republicans to call the whistleblower Eric Ciaramella to testify, they would find there was a democrat political conspiracy or at least that he was biased and the whole thing was a setup like the Russian collusion charge.  Also, the Democrats are preventing the Republicans from calling ex-VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden to testify about the possible collusion they were involved with Burisma, a corrupt corporation in Ukraine, which would reasonably and legally justify the investigation called for by the president of the US.  The Democrats and anti-Trump press are protecting the Bidens.

You left out Hilary and Obama.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 21, 2019, 10:20:19 pm
You left out Hilary and Obama.  :)

And George Soros.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 21, 2019, 10:57:45 pm
You left out Hilary and Obama.  :)
If they worked for Burisma, absolutely.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 21, 2019, 10:58:04 pm
And George Soros.
Him too.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 21, 2019, 11:09:50 pm
More on the phoniness of the Russian Collusion investigation supports Trump's claim the Democrats have been using impeachment to gain a coup..  FBI lying to the FISA court.

Former FBI lawyer under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/21/politics/fbi-fisa-russia-investigation/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/21/politics/fbi-fisa-russia-investigation/index.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 21, 2019, 11:10:59 pm
Even CNN says it's pretty serious.  Watch the short video on CNN's Wolf Blitzer on that web page
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 21, 2019, 11:47:42 pm

What are Democrats going to talk about next year before the election?
Poll finds sharp swing in opposition to impeachment among independents
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/471542-poll-finds-sharp-swing-in-opposition-to-impeachment-among-independents (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/471542-poll-finds-sharp-swing-in-opposition-to-impeachment-among-independents)

Marquette Poll shows support for impeachment has slipped in Wisconsin as Trump leads 4 top Democratic rivals
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/11/20/marquette-poll-impeachment-donald-trump-democratic-race/4244453002/ (https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/11/20/marquette-poll-impeachment-donald-trump-democratic-race/4244453002/)



Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 22, 2019, 03:29:28 am
What are Democrats going to talk about next year before the election?

The progressive ones will talk about the night-mode on the upcoming 5G iPhone 12.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 22, 2019, 08:54:23 am
The progressive ones will talk about the night-mode on the upcoming 5G iPhone 12.

And if they win, God forbid, we would need that mode, when the darkness descends upon us  ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 22, 2019, 09:31:06 am
... someone’s hearsay, or what someone perceived, or what someone thought Trump had in mind. And what you’ve been saying for weeks is just wishful thinking.

No, hard first hand evidence of what Trump said and did.

Nooooo... not only had you not read about the details of the impeachment procedure.... but you haven’t even listened to the testimonies... ;)

What are you afraid of?

Next thing you are going to complain that the left press lied about the content of the secret testimonies right?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 22, 2019, 09:38:10 am
If the Democrats who run the House allowed Republicans to call the whistleblower Eric Ciaramella to testify, they would find there was a democrat political conspiracy or at least that he was biased and the whole thing was a setup like the Russian collusion charge.  Also, the Democrats are preventing the Republicans from calling ex-VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden to testify about the possible collusion they were involved with Burisma, a corrupt corporation in Ukraine, which would reasonably and legally justify the investigation called for by the president of the US.  The Democrats and anti-Trump press are protecting the Bidens.

Completely irrelevant. Everything the whistleblower said was true.

All the other guys, mostly republicans, who didn’t whistleblow this are likely to be punished for not reporting an illegal action.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 22, 2019, 09:41:58 am
...What are you afraid of?...

Wasting my time?

On what is clearly a political charade from the beginning.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 22, 2019, 10:05:05 am
Wasting my time?

On what is clearly a political charade from the beginning.

It was started by a Trump IG responding to an internal report (now corroborated by multiple witnesses) that said IG deemed credible and appropriately and legally referred to Congress.

You can claim that the Democrats haven’t proven their case (and I can counter with the fact that it hard to do when the primary witnesses refuse to testify), or you can claim that Trump’s behavior doesn’t rise to the level of impeachable conduct (and I can counter with about eleventy billion Republicans talking about what was “clearly” grounds for impeachment when Clinton was the subject), but the idea that it’s an illegitimate inquiry is silly.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 22, 2019, 10:56:16 am
... when Clinton was the subject), but the idea that it’s an illegitimate inquiry is silly.

Since I always thought Clinton's* impeachment was silly...

* at least we knew who his whistleblower was ;)

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 22, 2019, 11:59:04 am
It was started by a Trump IG responding to an internal report (now corroborated by multiple witnesses) that said IG deemed credible and appropriately and legally referred to Congress.

You can claim that the Democrats haven’t proven their case (and I can counter with the fact that it hard to do when the primary witnesses refuse to testify), or you can claim that Trump’s behavior doesn’t rise to the level of impeachable conduct (and I can counter with about eleventy billion Republicans talking about what was “clearly” grounds for impeachment when Clinton was the subject), but the idea that it’s an illegitimate inquiry is silly.
If the IG has the authority so does the president because the IG works for the President.  It's the same if your immediate boss fires you.  If he can do that, the CEO of the corporation can fire you because authority flows upwards.  It's the same with deflassifying material.  The president can override the usual procedures and declassify anything he wants because he's the president.  If the president wants to call for an investigation because he feels the Bidens are crooks, the constitution gives him that authority.  Infact, who would ask Ukraine to investigate other than the president?  He doesn't have to depend on some underling to approve it first. 

Of course, from a political standpoint, it may look better.  Distance gives deniability like Obama can claim he didn't order surveillance of Trump collusion, that it came from others.  That just makes Trump more of a stand-up kind of guy who takes responsibility for his actions.  He just has to standby them and say that he did it because the Bidens are crooks.  People can understand that and would agree.  By weaseling out of it, saying there was no quid pro quo, he just looks more guilty.  He should say yes there was a quid pro quo because I wanted the Bidens to be investigated because they're crooks.  That's perfectly legal. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 22, 2019, 12:33:56 pm
Since I always thought Clinton's* impeachment was silly...

* at least we knew who his whistleblower was ;)

Then I appreciate your intellectual consistency.  Wish I could say the same for some of the clowns in Congress (on both sides).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 22, 2019, 02:29:40 pm
Republican senator Graham sent a shot across the bow of the Democrats in the House. If they go ahead and impeach Trump, then both Bidens will be called to testify as to their corruptionin the Ukraine at the Senate trial for Trump.  Like I said previously, the democrat impeachment will destroy Biden's chance for the presidency.  The democrat are still playing checkers while Trump is playing chess.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/21/graham-ukraine-state-department-biden-072692
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 22, 2019, 02:32:41 pm
I think Pelosi will shut down the impeachment hearing saying something along the line that it would be better for the public to decide the fate of the president in the election then Congress and let it go at that. That way Biden can continue to run for the nomination.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 22, 2019, 04:38:58 pm
Republican senator Graham sent a shot across the bow of the Democrats in the House.
LOL!!!  Lindsey Graham on Joe Biden (https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1197837291554775040) "“If you can’t admire Joe Biden as a person, then probably you’ve got a problem; you need to do some self-evaluation. Cause what’s not to like?” Graham said at the time. “He is as good a man as God ever created.”
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 22, 2019, 04:43:36 pm
Let's investigate Don Jr.  $50K from the University of Florida student government for giving a speech.  Nice work if you can get it.  Impeachment proceedings agains U of Fla Student Body leader (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/opinion/donald-trump-jr-university-of-florida.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 22, 2019, 04:51:23 pm
Let's investigate Don Jr.  $50K from the University of Florida student government for giving a speech.  Nice work if you can get it.  Impeachment proceedings agains U of Fla Student Body leader (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/opinion/donald-trump-jr-university-of-florida.html)

$50k a month is a lot, but $50k for a single speech? It's huge ...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 22, 2019, 05:01:36 pm
For those who didn't read or watch the testimony of former U.S. National Security Counsel specialist and intelligence analyst Fiona Hill before the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, her opening statement (especially pages 5-7) (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6556216-2019-11-21-Fiona-Hill-Opening-Statement-FINAL34.html) is well worth a few minutes of your time.

In it, she provided some interesting detail that I don't recall reading elsewhere that Russia invested large amounts of money to support its covert effort to influence the 2016 election.  This, in addition to its creation of user accounts on social media that purported to be those of American political activists and groups, is how Russian intelligence operatives have been able to inject self-serving fictions into right-wing media―such as the narrative that it was Ukraine rather than Russia that was trying to manipulate the 2016 election result, which President Trump repeated yet again today.

Quote
These fictions are harmful even if they are deployed for purely domestic political purposes. President Putin and the Russian security services operate like a Super PAC. They deploy millions of dollars to weaponize our own political opposition research and false narratives. When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces as they seek to divide us against each another, degrade our institutions, and destroy the faith of the American people in our democracy.

Hill's points reportedly have been independently made during classified (i.e., secret) briefings given in recent weeks to members of the U.S. Senate—not surprising, since Hill is one of the few individuals to testify who would have had access to the classified information about the Russian program of political disruption that has been collected by the U.S. government and its intelligence partners.

Hill said Russia currently is "gearing up" for covert operations to influence the 2020 election.  While her comments were intended to apply to Russian operations within the United States, no doubt there have been and will continue to be similar efforts to influence elections in the United Kingdom and continental Europe.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 22, 2019, 05:32:37 pm
For those who didn't read or watch the testimony of former U.S. National Security Counsel specialist and intelligence analyst Fiona Hill before the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, her opening statement (especially pages 5-7) (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6556216-2019-11-21-Fiona-Hill-Opening-Statement-FINAL34.html) is well worth a few minutes of your time.

In it, she provided some interesting detail that I don't recall reading elsewhere that Russia invested large amounts of money to support its covert effort to influence the 2016 election.  This, in addition to its creation of user accounts on social media that purported to be those of American political activists and groups, is how Russian intelligence operatives have been able to inject self-serving fictions into right-wing media―such as the narrative that it was Ukraine rather than Russia that was trying to manipulate the 2016 election result, which President Trump repeated yet again today.

Hill's points reportedly have been independently made during classified (i.e., secret) briefings given in recent weeks to members of the U.S. Senate—not surprising, since Hill is one of the few individuals to testify who would have had access to the classified information about the Russian program of political disruption that has been collected by the U.S. government and its intelligence partners.

Hill said Russia currently is "gearing up" for covert operations to influence the 2020 election.  While her comments were intended to apply to Russian operations within the United States, no doubt there have been and will continue to be similar efforts to influence elections in the United Kingdom and continental Europe.

Why didn't President Obama do something during the 2016 elections?  After all, it was during his watch and he was aware the Russians were playing games.  He once asked the Russians "to stop interfering with out elections"  That was it!

Instead, he used the phony democrat Clinton dossier to go after TRump with a phony surveillance program that continued until Mueller proved there was no collusion.  Rather then pointing fingers at Republicans, why don;t you ask Democrats to clean up their own house first? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 22, 2019, 05:34:01 pm
Republican senator Graham sent a shot across the bow of the Democrats in the House. If they go ahead and impeach Trump, then both Bidens will be called to testify as to their corruptionin the Ukraine at the Senate trial for Trump.  Like I said previously, the democrat impeachment will destroy Biden's chance for the presidency.  The democrat are still playing checkers while Trump is playing chess.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/21/graham-ukraine-state-department-biden-072692

Not so much the impeachment, as the Buttigieg's candidacy.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 22, 2019, 05:35:11 pm
Not so much the impeachment, as the Buttigieg's candidacy.
Why Buttigieg?  You lost me.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 22, 2019, 05:36:49 pm
Why Buttigieg?  You lost me.

Buttigieg's polls going up, Biden's down
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 22, 2019, 05:39:56 pm
LOL!!!  Lindsey Graham on Joe Biden (https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1197837291554775040) "“If you can’t admire Joe Biden as a person, then probably you’ve got a problem; you need to do some self-evaluation. Cause what’s not to like?” Graham said at the time. “He is as good a man as God ever created.”
Politicians always say nice things about other politicians just before they stab them in the back.  So what's your point? 

Et tu Brutus.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 22, 2019, 05:42:34 pm
Buttigieg's polls going up, Biden's down
After the Bidens are called to testify by the Senate, Joe Biden's ratings will sink like the Titanic. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 22, 2019, 05:43:55 pm
Let's investigate Don Jr.  $50K from the University of Florida student government for giving a speech.  Nice work if you can get it.  Impeachment proceedings agains U of Fla Student Body leader (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/opinion/donald-trump-jr-university-of-florida.html)
Don Jr. can speak English.  Hunter Biden can't speak Ukrainian.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 22, 2019, 05:46:35 pm
$50k a month is a lot, but $50k for a single speech? It's huge ...

I can't wait to hear Hunter Biden's testimony in the Senate for what services he performed for $50,000 a month. I'm sure his father will be listening intently as well. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 22, 2019, 06:00:48 pm
I think Pelosi will shut down the impeachment hearing saying something along the line that it would be better for the public to decide the fate of the president in the election then Congress and let it go at that. That way Biden can continue to run for the nomination.   
Can you imagine listening in to the phone call between Joe and the Speaker of the House?

"Hi Nancy.  How's the wine business?  Now listen, I know you;re doing a great job up their on the hill, going after the president.  But you got to understand that moron senator from the south Lindsay is really out to get me.  When he calls me (to testify)and my idiot drug addict, philandering son who's busy propagating the universe, what do I say to the public why I supported my son in the Ukraine and in China?  Those damn republicans are going to make it seem like I was splitting the $50 grand with my son.  And I don;t do drugs.  Do you want that socialist Warren or worse the Marxist Sanders to oppose Trump?  He'll bury them. I'm the only last great democrat hope against him.  So stop this nonsense in the House and do something productive for the Democrats for a change like signing the new USMCA trade bill.  Adios."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on November 22, 2019, 06:02:39 pm
For those who didn't read or watch the testimony of former U.S. National Security Counsel specialist and intelligence analyst Fiona Hill before the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, her opening statement (especially pages 5-7) (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6556216-2019-11-21-Fiona-Hill-Opening-Statement-FINAL34.html) is well worth a few minutes of your time.

In it, she provided some interesting detail that I don't recall reading elsewhere that Russia invested large amounts of money to support its covert effort to influence the 2016 election.  This, in addition to its creation of user accounts on social media that purported to be those of American political activists and groups, is how Russian intelligence operatives have been able to inject self-serving fictions into right-wing media―such as the narrative that it was Ukraine rather than Russia that was trying to manipulate the 2016 election result, which President Trump repeated yet again today.

Hill's points reportedly have been independently made during classified (i.e., secret) briefings given in recent weeks to members of the U.S. Senate—not surprising, since Hill is one of the few individuals to testify who would have had access to the classified information about the Russian program of political disruption that has been collected by the U.S. government and its intelligence partners.

Hill said Russia currently is "gearing up" for covert operations to influence the 2020 election.  While her comments were intended to apply to Russian operations within the United States, no doubt there have been and will continue to be similar efforts to influence elections in the United Kingdom and continental Europe.


From what I remember watching, she did suggest that Russian influence was far from absent, even at the Brexit referendum. Destabilisation has always been a weapon in the time-tested game of divide and conquer. When it becomes easy to find either simple-minded dupes or just the everyday venal person of low morality but much influence, bingo! you don't need an army to swing into action. Blaming a country you invade for your own crimes is quite effective when you are only having to convince a bunch of fools that it's so.

And it's working. I can't remember a time when either the UK or the States appear to have been so divided, both amongst themselves as one country from the other. That is not good for either, but very good for those who seek to harm us and nullify our spheres of influence. As Britain lost an empire, the States are losing theirs, recognised, admitted or not. It's being achieved by the antics of your President, who has managed to reduce international American credibility to zero. Other than for the home fan-base and from within Israel (for obvious amd predictable reasons), or for oil dictatorships, your good name has been Sanforized.

Unfortunately, the damage doesn't stop there.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 22, 2019, 06:16:56 pm
Rob, It's expensive to be an empire. GB went broke.  Now, America can't afford it anymore.  That predates Trump. America is printing $60 billion a month again like when the 2008 crisis occured. We're a trillion dollars in debt for just this year. Our balance of trade is so negative.   At one time after WWII, America was the leading creditor country in the world.  Today we're the largest debtor country in the world.  Other countries have recovered from WWII devastation and are major competitors of ours.  Frankly our current splurge into the South China Sea and expansion of our military is a last great hurrah, I'm sorry to say as an American.  Americans are pulling back into themselves because our wealth is being dissipated.  We don't want to heal the world any more.  Our people need health care and other benefits, better jobs, more retirement income.  They don't want to see it floating overseas.  That's just ego and pride that we can't afford any more.  Others will have to survive on their own and fight for themselves.  This will continue whether Trump is re-elected or not and will accelerate.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 22, 2019, 10:37:48 pm
Politicians always say nice things about other politicians just before they stab them in the back.  So what's your point? 

Et tu Brutus.

You have an answer for everything.

I see in the other post that you managed to blame Obama for the previously unimportant FAKE Russian meddling.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 22, 2019, 11:15:02 pm
I think Pelosi will shut down the impeachment hearing saying something along the line that it would be better for the public to decide the fate of the president in the election then Congress and let it go at that. That way Biden can continue to run for the nomination.

The fantasy world in which you appear to be living is drifting away from reality at an increasingly high speed Alan.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 22, 2019, 11:18:39 pm
Wasting my time?

On what is clearly a political charade from the beginning.

Talk about a great contributor to the democracy you are living in. You are basically signing a white check for Trump just because he is Republican... incredible stuff... there is nothing he could have done that would make you change your mind right?

How would you know anyway because you are not doing your job to get informed.

In-cre-di-ble!

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 22, 2019, 11:24:54 pm
... for Trump just because he is Republican...

Neither he, nor I, are Republicans.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 23, 2019, 12:13:39 am
You have an answer for everything.

I see in the other post that you managed to blame Obama for the previously unimportant FAKE Russian meddling.
What's your point about my point?  So Lindsay Graham said nice things about a former fellow senator Joe Biden.  What's that got to do with the Senate investigating the Bidens for corruption to prove Trump was right in calling for an investigation in Ukraine?

Regarding blaming Obama,  the Russians meddled in our 2016 presidential election that you said Trump colluded with them which was proven false by Mueller.  However, it still is true that Obama was president while the Russians meddled and did nothing to stop it.  He apparently was too busy tapping Trump's telephone. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 23, 2019, 12:25:47 am
More trouble for Biden although I don't think too much.


Bloomberg makes ‘massive’ ad buy
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/22/michael-bloomberg-ad-buy-2020-election-072893 (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/22/michael-bloomberg-ad-buy-2020-election-072893)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 23, 2019, 12:30:02 am
The fantasy world in which you appear to be living is drifting away from reality at an increasingly high speed Alan.

Cheers,
Bernard

Sure the Democrats have been scratching to impeach.  They've had that itch for three years.  But I like thinking out of the box.  I'd take 5 to 1 odds that Pelosi will pull the plug on the impeachment to help Biden.  It's in his interest to get this behind him.  Meanwhile, Bloomberg is getting into his "moderate" lane to peel of more votes from Biden as my last post shows. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on November 23, 2019, 03:52:33 am
Neither he, nor I, are Republicans.


That's an interesting perspective that needs some filling out.

Or is it a fake news test?

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 23, 2019, 05:45:57 am
What's your point about my point?  So Lindsay Graham said nice things about a former fellow senator Joe Biden.  What's that got to do with the Senate investigating the Bidens for corruption to prove Trump was right in calling for an investigation in Ukraine?

Simple, there is no corruption. There is only disproven Russian propaganda that Trump clings to. What is it, with Russia and Trump?

Quote
He apparently was too busy tapping Trump's telephone.

Wasn't this also already debunked loooong ago? It was not Trump's phone that was tapped but someone else's who called Trump, or something to that effect.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 23, 2019, 07:12:46 am
Simple, there is no corruption. There is only disproven Russian propaganda that Trump clings to. What is it, with Russia and Trump?

Sadly, corruption is widespread both in Ukraine and in Russia, on all levels in the society and business.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 23, 2019, 07:29:58 am
What's your point about my point?  So Lindsay Graham said nice things about a former fellow senator Joe Biden.  What's that got to do with the Senate investigating the Bidens for corruption to prove Trump was right in calling for an investigation in Ukraine?

Regarding blaming Obama,  the Russians meddled in our 2016 presidential election that you said Trump colluded with them which was proven false by Mueller.  However, it still is true that Obama was president while the Russians meddled and did nothing to stop it.  He apparently was too busy tapping Trump's telephone.

I don't remember ever saying Trump colluded. He may have benefited from it, but you can't hold that against him. The most I would say is that making wisecracks about getting the Russians to hack into stuff on his behalf is stupid, but that's par for the course, the guy's a rube. But hey, he's your rube. :)

Your persistence in placing blame for the Russian interference is beside the point. Social media networks have weaknesses and people exploit them. That problem will solve itself in the long run, no one will pay attention to it if it's toxic, just takes a while for everyone to catch on. To my mind, social media is already a lot like those tabloids in supermarkets. Signs are emerging that Twitter is becoming a place where sex workers hang out, now that "back page" is gone. In time, people will realize how foolish it is to be conducting public policy discussions on social media. The rise of long-form documentary podcasts seems to be a rebellion against it. Trying to fix complex problems requires time and work and exchange of ideas, not something for which Twitter/Facebook/etc. are well-suited.

As for Trump and the impeachment, the denials and excuses I keep reading all sound a little lame to me. My guess is that people instinctively know this. True leaders don't behave the way he does. He has surrounded himself with incompetent yes men and has had a lot of trouble hanging on to even them, and I doubt anyone competent wants to work for him. That's not good for your country. Luckily, the day to day lives of most people are not directly tied to what the President says on Twitter. Decisions at that level are more strategic in nature, so their effects will be felt later.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 23, 2019, 07:58:36 am
Simple, there is no corruption. There is only disproven Russian propaganda that Trump clings to. What is it, with Russia and Trump?

Wasn't this also already debunked loooong ago? It was not Trump's phone that was tapped but someone else's who called Trump, or something to that effect.
Obama, long before Trump became president, demanded that Ukraine clean up their corruption, same as Trump did in the now famous call to the Ukraine president. Wasn't VP Biden who worked for Obama as concerned when he had Ukraine's investigator fired?  Of course, that investigator also happened to be investigating  the corrupt firm Burisma, the company Biden's son was working a no-show job for earning $50,000 a month.   But, hey.  That's just a minor detail. 

Regarding tapping Trump's phone, you;re still repeating the media's knowing refusal to admit that Trump was using slang for saying that he and/or his people and campaign were being surveilled by secret forces (FBI, CIA) of the US government under the Obama administration.  OF course, we learned about the FISA warrant, the perjured evidence provided to the FISA court just yesterday by an Obama FBI agent who was biased against TRump, and all the other surveillance stuff later.  That Trump was right.  Of course the damage to Trump had already been done.  Even you still believe it.  The same lies and bias have been applied to him for three years already and continue to this day. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on November 23, 2019, 08:26:39 am
Sadly, corruption is widespread both in Ukraine and in Russia, on all levels in the society and business.


Name one country where it is not.

If there's a difference, it's the point at which we start killing people.

:-(
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 23, 2019, 08:45:50 am
Buttigieg's polls going up, Biden's down

Biden's poll number are remaining consistent.  Buttigieg is gain those who have become disillusioned with Warren. 

Also, lets not forget, Buttigieg has no support amongst the black community and both of his strategies to get support are laughable.  His first was to say, I'm gay and you guys dont like gay people.  So this is the opportunity to redeem yourself by voting for me.  Outside of church, people kind of dont like preachers. 

Now it is, I'm gay and I know what it is like to be persecuted.  Yes, I might not be able to give any direct examples from my life when I was persecuted, but I understand and can relate to what Jim Crow South was like for you since I too experienced it in my own way.  Not a great 2nd strategy to get black votes. 

And my favorite of his, I'm the poorest one on this stage, so that shows how qualified I am to run the biggest economy in the world. 

PS, my brother is a far left wing progressive who works as a consultant for Dems in PA, and he hates Buttigieg, along with nearly everyone else I see comment on his Facebook posts.  Buttigieg winning will greatly disenfranchise the progressive base.  With that said, I would bet anyone winning except Warren and Bernie would as well.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 23, 2019, 08:48:40 am

Name one country where it is not.

If there's a difference, it's the point at which we start killing people.

:-(

America sent hundred of millions of American taxpayer dollars to Ukraine.  We would like to be sure that money is not siphoned off by corrupt government and civil authorities.  We want it to be used for its intended purpose.  So demanding Ukraine clean up their corrupt act is in our interest. 

That's why a quid pro quo is legal.  We put conditions on all foreign aid we give. That's why the Republicans are foolish trying to say there's no quid pro quo.  They should say yes the president wants Ukraine to stop corruption just as Obama demanded it as well.  That's why Trump tried to get them to correct their ways by holding back the money for a couple of months.  Perfectly legal. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 23, 2019, 08:50:07 am
The fantasy world in which you appear to be living is drifting away from reality at an increasingly high speed Alan.

Cheers,
Bernard

Not really.  Support for impeachment is decreasing amongst independents, especially in the swing districts.  Plus, behind the scenes, reports are showing vulnerable Dems are wavering on an impeachment vote. 

I still give it a greater then 50/50 chance the vote will happen, but it will be a fool's errand.  Like I said, it is the independents you need to convince and most are wavering, not to mention no one is really pay attention to this show.  The Dems in swing districts will, at the end of the day, not get Trump convicted and then realize they have not passed any legislation that means anything, and will have nothing to campaign on next year. 

PS, I will added that the biggest thing right now on impeachment is whether Bolton will testify.  It is pretty clear all of the testimony up until now was hearsay except for Sondland, and Sondland's testimony was a flop for both sides.  Until we find out if Bolton will testify, everything is a moot point. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 23, 2019, 08:52:11 am
Ain't this the truth!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 23, 2019, 08:53:03 am
Not really.  Support for impeachment is decreasing amongst independents, especially in the swing districts.  Plus, behind the scenes, reports are showing vulnerable Dems are wavering on an impeachment vote. 

I still give it a greater then 50/50 chance the vote will happen, but it will be a fool's errand.  Like I said, it is the independents you need to convince and most are wavering, not to mention no one is really pay attention to this show.  The Dems in swing districts will, at the end of the day, not get Trump convicted and then realize they have not passes any legislation that means anything, and will have nothing to campaign on next year.

They're going to wear blue caps that say LGT - Let's Get Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 23, 2019, 09:22:27 am

That's an interesting perspective that needs some filling out.

Or is it a fake news test?

;-)

Regarding why Trump isn't a real Republican is the following:  He's from NYC a liberal town.  He's a social liberal and supports many liberal policies: gay rights for example. Republicans tend to be more conservative on social issues.  Internationally, he opposes getting involved in armed conflict although he does believe in a strong military.  But that's to defend America from attacks from abroad.  Republicans like to flex their muscles more than Demcorats. Trump's an isolationist. Republicans want lower taxes for businesses which he supports as well.  So in that case he's more Republican.  But as a real estate guy who lives on debt, he just caused our deficit to go to a trillion dollars this year.  He doesn;t care because he;s used to debt.  Most republicans don;t like debt and want to cut spending, something Trump hasn't done.  He supports workers, something the Democrats have  forever.  That's why he was able to peel off former democrat voters during the 2016 election.  These were people who voted Democrat for decades before Trump came along.

So although Trump is a Republican and represents the republican party, many of his tendencies are Democrat.  He's usurped the philosophy of the Democrat Party so much so in fact, that they have had to go to representing themselves as Socialist just to be different.  It's been an amazing transformation that if it can continue, will create lot's of books about the subject in the years ahead.  If Trump can hold those former Democrats again and win the 2020 election, those Democrat voters will be lost to the Republican party forever.  The whole landscape in America will change, just like the solid Democrat South went republican after President Johnson passed the civil rights  voting act.


That's why Biden is key.  If he gets nominated, he may be able to pull back those Democrats who have abandoned the party.  If a socialist like Warren gets nominated, they could lose those people forever.  That's why I see a brokered convention if Biden loses the nomination.  That will allow the democrats to pick a middle of the road candidate to face Trump in the 2020 election.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 23, 2019, 09:34:09 am
It's unrelated to the rest of this thread, but I thought it was interesting that no one has mentioned the school shooting in California the other day, where the shooter built his "ghost gun" out of parts https://news.yahoo.com/teen-california-high-school-shooting-215240916.html (https://news.yahoo.com/teen-california-high-school-shooting-215240916.html). I read elsewhere (can't remember where) that this was the 85th school shooting this year.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 23, 2019, 09:35:19 am
Ain't this the truth!
We don't impeach elephants.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 23, 2019, 09:38:35 am
Obama, long before Trump became president, demanded that Ukraine clean up their corruption, same as Trump did in the now famous call to the Ukraine president. Wasn't VP Biden who worked for Obama as concerned when he had Ukraine's investigator fired?  Of course, that investigator also happened to be investigating  the corrupt firm Burisma, the company Biden's son was working a no-show job for earning $50,000 a month.   But, hey.  That's just a minor detail. 

Regarding tapping Trump's phone, you;re still repeating the media's knowing refusal to admit that Trump was using slang for saying that he and/or his people and campaign were being surveilled by secret forces (FBI, CIA) of the US government under the Obama administration.  OF course, we learned about the FISA warrant, the perjured evidence provided to the FISA court just yesterday by an Obama FBI agent who was biased against TRump, and all the other surveillance stuff later.  That Trump was right.  Of course the damage to Trump had already been done.  Even you still believe it.  The same lies and bias have been applied to him for three years already and continue to this day.

I have to admire your tenacity in trying to make the impeachment about Biden.

Your belief in the deep state is interesting. Trump has been President for 3 years and for 2 of those he had the benefit of GOP majorities in both houses, but somehow they did not manage to dismantle the deep state that is so ubiquitous yet so well-hidden that no one except you can see it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on November 23, 2019, 09:49:13 am
The indictments coming up will make it clear, even to you eyes, Robert.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 23, 2019, 09:52:26 am
I have to admire your tenacity in trying to make the impeachment about Biden.

Your belief in the deep state is interesting. Trump has been President for 3 years and for 2 of those he had the benefit of GOP majorities in both houses, but somehow they did not manage to dismantle the deep state that is so ubiquitous yet so well-hidden that no one except you can see it.
But, Robert,  the impeachment is about Biden.  Aren't the Democrats saying that Trump's attempt to use his influence to go after Biden is an impeachable offense?  If so, then whether Biden was in fact corrupt or appeared that way is critical for justifying or not justifying Trump's action.  IF Trump reasonably believed the Bidens committed a crime, then his call for an investigation is perfectly legal.  On the other hand, if it could be shown that wasn;t the case, then you could get support from Republicans for impeachment.  As long as Democrats hide the Bidens, it looks like it's a only a Democrat political act to damage Trump.  The people aren't stupid.  They know politics when they see it.  The Democrats have to play fair and allow the Trump side to present evidence to convince the public what actually is going on.  If Schiff won;t allow that in the HOuse process, you can be sure that the Republican who control the Senate will allow it during the trial, if there is one. 


Regarding the deep state, Republican insiders  didn't want Trump either.  You forget how they went after him during the nomination process.  The dossier investigation was original started by Trump's republican enemies.  So the deep state include Republicans and Democrats who have used Washington to feather their own nests for decades. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 23, 2019, 09:54:00 am
Attorneys for Lev Parnas, Guiliani's associate who has been indicted for illegal campaign contributions to Trump, say he is prepared to testify that Nunes meet with Ukrainians in late 2018 to dig up dirt of the Bidens. If true, it looks like Nunes was part of the plot, which would be keeping in line with his role as Trump's water carrier. There are calls for Nunes to recuse himself.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 23, 2019, 10:00:04 am
Attorneys for Lev Parnas, Guiliani's associate who has been indicted for illegal campaign contributions to Trump, say he is prepared to testify that Nunes meet with Ukrainians in late 2018 to dig up dirt of the Bidens. If true, it looks like Nunes was part of the plot, which would be keeping in line with his role as Trump's water carrier. There are call for Nunes to recuse himself.
Nunes only needed a little shovel.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 23, 2019, 10:24:28 am

Name one country where it is not.

If there's a difference, it's the point at which we start killing people.

:-(

Case in point, the Trump administration.

Withholding military assistance to Ukraine for personal/political gain. Pulling out of Syria, allowing Turkey to invade and displace and kill Kurds and then redeploying the military to protect the oil. Protecting the Saudis and allowing them to slaughter a.o. civilians in Jemen, and a contributing journalist from the Washington post, refugees at the southern borders, allowing Iran to prepare Nuclear weapons by pulling out of an existing agreement, to name a number of recent ones.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 23, 2019, 10:31:02 am
America sent hundred of millions of American taxpayer dollars to Ukraine.  We would like to be sure that money is not siphoned off by corrupt government and civil authorities.  We want it to be used for its intended purpose.  So demanding Ukraine clean up their corrupt act is in our interest.

Corruption wasn't mentioned in the phone call. Biden was, because Trump feels his reelection is more important than Ukranian lives.

Trump tried to have the Ukraine act in a corrupt way, when their new government was elected to promote anti-corruption.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 23, 2019, 10:37:52 am
The point that keeps getting swept under the Klein carpet is not that Trump bribed Ukraine to help America, but that he bribed Ukraine to help Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 23, 2019, 10:40:34 am
Corruption wasn't mentioned in the phone call. Biden was, because Trump feels his reelection is more important than Ukranian lives.

Trump tried to have the Ukraine act in a corrupt way, when their new government was elected to promote anti-corruption.
Trump asked the Ukrainian president for an investigation of possible Ukrainian and/or Russian interference in the 2016 election as well as the Bidens.

"In the July 25 call with Trump, Zelensky thanked Trump for the U.S.'s "great support in the area of defense", an apparent reference to military aid, and expressed an interest in acquiring more missiles. Trump replied, "I would like you to do us a favor though,"[119] suggesting an investigation into CrowdStrike, an American cybersecurity firm that investigated the cyberattacks against the Democratic National Committee in 2015 and 2016. CrowdStrike was one of three firms whose analysis assisted the U.S. intelligence community in determining that Russian intelligence was responsible for the DNC hack.[123] Trump also asked Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and his son.[167] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal#Withholding_of_Ukrainian_military_aid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal#Withholding_of_Ukrainian_military_aid)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 23, 2019, 10:46:36 am
The point that keeps getting swept under the Klein carpet is not that Trump bribed Ukraine to help America, but that he bribed Ukraine to help Trump.
That's the Democrat side of the impeachment hearings.  The Democrats should allow the Bidens to testify to see of Trump had a reason to ask Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.  The accused should be allowed to call his own witnesses to provide testimony in his defense. That's how things normally work in America.  What we have now in the Democrat controlled House is a Star Trial where the prosecution is also the judge andjury. It's acting like the Soviet show trials of the past in its unfair one-sidedness. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 23, 2019, 12:01:20 pm
That's the Democrat side of the impeachment hearings.  The Democrats should allow the Bidens to testify to see of Trump had a reason to ask Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.  The accused should be allowed to call his own witnesses to provide testimony in his defense. That's how things normally work in America.  What we have now in the Democrat controlled House is a Star Trial where the prosecution is also the judge andjury. It's acting like the Soviet show trials of the past in its unfair one-sidedness.

You forgot to include "witch hunt" and "hoax."  You're slipping.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 23, 2019, 12:32:50 pm
I'll just leave this here:
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 23, 2019, 02:40:38 pm
You forgot to include "witch hunt" and "hoax."  You're slipping.

 Not only that.  It's fake news!  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 23, 2019, 02:43:03 pm
I'll just leave this here:

The Bidens are pikers compared to the Clintons.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 23, 2019, 03:57:56 pm

So although Trump is a Republican and represents the republican party, many of his tendencies are Democrat. 

Umm, no. Not by a nautical mile.

- Is lying multiple times day a "Democratic tendency?" No.
- Is surrounding himself with sycophantic yes-men a "Democratic tendency?" No.
- Is grabbing women (your wife or daughter?) by their private parts a "Democratic tendency?" No.
- Is cheating your creditors out of money you owe them a "Democratic tendency?" No.
- Is using a fake letter from a doctor who owes your father a favor to avoid the draft a "Democratic tendency?" No.

This list could go on and on, but I will stop here.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on November 23, 2019, 04:30:13 pm
Isn't is amazing how willing folks are to spend time debating the guy.

He must be the most talked about pressie next to "I did not have sex with that woman."

In a few years, nobody will believe it. I guarantee he will be the most rapidly forgotten one of them all.

Hang around and see.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 23, 2019, 05:28:00 pm
Not only that.  It's fake news!  :)

Ah!  I missed that one  ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 23, 2019, 06:28:02 pm
...
- Is lying multiple times day a "Democratic tendency?" No.
- Is surrounding himself with sycophantic yes-men a "Democratic tendency?" No.
- Is grabbing women (your wife or daughter?) by their private parts a "Democratic tendency?" No.
- Is cheating your creditors out of money you owe them a "Democratic tendency?" No.
- Is using a fake letter from a doctor who owes your father a favor to avoid the draft a "Democratic tendency?" No.

How can a seemingly serious person post such ridiculous non-sequiturs!?

Are you suggesting that Democrats do not lie, cheat, womanize, manize, boyize, steal, swindle, dodge draft, etc.!?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 23, 2019, 10:37:45 pm
This sly accusation/deflection reminds me of a famous line from somewhere or other:

"To have a mistress?  This is French"
"To get caught?  This is American."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 23, 2019, 10:51:26 pm
How can a seemingly serious person post such ridiculous non-sequiturs!?

Are you suggesting that Democrats do not lie, cheat, womanize, manize, boyize, steal, swindle, dodge draft, etc.!?
Manize?  Boyize?  Are those new words Slobo?  Maybe I'm getting old.  But I've never been manized to the point it bothered me.   :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 23, 2019, 11:50:15 pm
Manize?  Boyize?  Are those new words Slobo?  Maybe I'm getting old.  But I've never been manized to the point it bothered me.   :)

I am just trying to be inclusive. Love is love ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 24, 2019, 06:40:29 am
Looks like Nancy Pelosi has been reading my posts.  She may drop impeachment charge going for a simple censorship as support for impeachment craters with independents.  I could see the headlines now: "Democrats In A Straight Line Party Vote To Censure The President-He's Been A Bad Boy."  That should gain independent votes.

Meanwhile, Republican Senators have grown a set and are threatening they will call the Bidens to testify at a Senate trial if the democrats do impeach in the House.   Meanwhile Rudy Giuliani says VP Joe Biden's denial of knowledge of his son's involvement with the corrupt Burisma corporation  reminds him of the Godfather movie where Kay Corleone denies knowledge of the family's "business".

The plot thickens. 

https://nypost.com/2019/11/23/rudy-giuliani-joe-biden-is-like-kay-corleone-in-impeachment-drama/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 24, 2019, 09:13:23 am
Looks like Nancy Pelosi has been reading my posts.  She may drop impeachment charge going for a simple censorship as support for impeachment craters with independents.

According to who?

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on November 24, 2019, 10:10:36 am
"Whom," Bart. (Yeah. There I go again with the Nazi language corrections. Hahaha. I'll NEVER stop!)

Actually, according to practically every news source in the U.S. that's not printing or pumping out fake news. I don't think anyone knows what Nancy's gonna do, but it's clear that support for impeachment is falling to a very low level.

In Nancy's case, I think she's worried about what'll happen in the Senate if the House impeaches. All of a sudden we'll have a situation where Republicans can require crooks like Schiff to testify under oath. Won't be good for the Dems.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 24, 2019, 10:16:26 am
"Whom," Bart...

Russ, I would refrain from directly correcting non-native English speakers. Just somehow not quite gentlemanly.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on November 24, 2019, 10:22:31 am
Bart handles his English better than most Americans, some of whom post on LuLa.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 24, 2019, 10:29:17 am
According to who?


Me.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 24, 2019, 10:46:32 am
Looks like Nancy Pelosi has been reading my posts.  She may drop impeachment charge going for a simple censorship as support for impeachment craters with independents.

According to who?

The voices inside Donald Trump's head?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 24, 2019, 10:54:18 am
"Whom," Bart. (Yeah. There I go again with the Nazi language corrections. Hahaha. I'll NEVER stop!)

Actually, according to practically every news source in the U.S. that's not printing or pumping out fake news. I don't think anyone knows what Nancy's gonna do, but it's clear that support for impeachment is falling to a very low level.

In Nancy's case, I think she's worried about what'll happen in the Senate if the House impeaches. All of a sudden we'll have a situation where Republicans can require crooks like Schiff to testify under oath. Won't be good for the Dems.

Yeah every news source is going after Trump pushing the Democrat argument without really covering Biden's possible corruptness which would justify Trump's call for an investigation, the whole argument for impeachment.  They and the Democrats are sticking their heads in the sand.  They're so blinded by their hatred of Trump, they're making silly errors in judgment about how seriously corrupt the Bidens look. They think that as long as they keep saying the Bidens did nothing wrong, it's just so.  Well, that's the case as long as Democrat Schiff is in charge in the House. 


But now,  I think they're realizing they may have made a mistake.  So, Pelosi will push the impeachment just short of getting into a situation where the Bidens will actually have to testify when they're called by the Republican Senate and the President's legal counselors during the trial.  The president's lawyers will ask the Bidens deep and serious questions about Hunter's salary from Burisma and other activities VP Joe Biden did in the Ukraine to prove they did nothing corrupt.  If the Bidens refuse to testify, certainly their right and plead the FIfth Amendment, that will only make the public ask what does VP Joe have to hide?  He's not above the law either.  Why doesn;t he get on the stand and say he is not a crook?  Either way, his polls will drop like a rock.  He's screwed out of the nomination that would be a more serious threat to Trump in the election then any other candidate, so far.  The Democrats are making the same stupid mistakes with Trump that the Republicans did when they went after Bill Clinton.  When you play chess, you really have to think many moves into the future.  Obviously they're not up to the game. 


Meanwhile, Trump is clamoring for the trial.  He'll get up there and say he asked for the investigation because there's cause to believe they were corrupt.  The whole world will be reminded what Hunter Biden did and Joe too.  Biden's competitors will criticize Trump publicly while rolling on the floor laughing their heads off at Biden's faux pas.  Meanwhile Trump will look like a victim rather than the opposite the media always make him look like.
Check mate.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 24, 2019, 10:57:08 am
How can a seemingly serious person post such ridiculous non-sequiturs!?

Are you suggesting that Democrats do not lie, cheat, womanize, manize, boyize, steal, swindle, dodge draft, etc.!?

Not Democratic presidents--at least in modern times.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 24, 2019, 10:58:41 am
They're so blinded by their hatred of Trump, they're making silly errors in judgment about how seriously corrupt the Bidens look.
Can you outline the Bidens' corruption for the uninitiated.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 24, 2019, 11:03:22 am
Not Democratic presidents--at least in modern times.
Let's see, Bill Clinton had fellatio performed on him in the Oval Office, FDR had his secretary girlfriend, and JFK slept with Marilyn Monroe and other bimbos as well.  When he got tired of them, he gave them to his brother RFK, the Attorney General. Gee I wonder what Lincoln was up too? Oh wait, he's a Republican.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 24, 2019, 11:06:44 am
Can you outline the Bidens' corruption for the uninitiated.
Read my earlier posts.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 24, 2019, 11:28:25 am
"Whom," Bart. (Yeah. There I go again with the Nazi language corrections. Hahaha. I'll NEVER stop!)

Actually Russ, I looked it up before posting, and based on that decided to use 'who' instead of 'whom'. Another way to phrase it could be; Who says he committed corruption?

Quote
Actually, according to practically every news source in the U.S. that's not printing or pumping out fake news. I don't think anyone knows what Nancy's gonna do, but it's clear that support for impeachment is falling to a very low level.

In Nancy's case, I think she's worried about what'll happen in the Senate if the House impeaches. All of a sudden we'll have a situation where Republicans can require crooks like Schiff to testify under oath. Won't be good for the Dems.

It took Nanci Pelosi a long time to decide whether or not to start an investigation leading up to impeachment. She also knew in advance that the chance that an indictment could actually be steered through the Senate (because of the Republican majority of the members of the Senate) is small. With almost every testimony, however, the issue becomes more serious (and why the obstruction of the law? What is there to hide?). Her only concern now is whether the 'average Joe' still sees the illegal behavior as serious enough to take a risk with Mike Pence for the rest of the term.

As each new sworn statement seems to add new evidence, Pelosi is more likely to keep digging until no new destructive evidence of unlawful conduct by Trump can be added. It then comes down to the Senate Republicans to either act in a non-partisan manner and honor the Constitution, or sell their souls to the devil ...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 24, 2019, 11:37:51 am
Actually Russ, I looked it up before posting, and based on that decided to use 'who' instead of 'whom'. Another way to phrase it could be; Who says he committed corruption?

It took Nanci Pelosi a long time to decide whether or not to start an investigation leading up to impeachment. She also knew in advance that the chance that an indictment could actually be steered through the Senate (because of the Republican majority of the members of the Senate) is small. With almost every testimony, however, the issue becomes more serious (and why the obstruction of the law? What is there to hide?). Her only concern now is whether the 'average Joe' still sees the illegal behavior as serious enough to take a risk with Mike Pence for the rest of the term.

As each new sworn statement seems to add new evidence, Pelosi is more likely to keep digging until no new destructive evidence of unlawful conduct by Trump can be added. It then comes down to the Senate Republicans to either act in a non-partisan manner and honor the Constitution, or sell their souls to the devil ...
I hope Pelosi follows your advice and keeps digging.  She's digging a grave for Biden. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 24, 2019, 11:40:42 am
I hope Pelosi follows your advice and keeps digging.  She's digging a grave for Biden.

Biden is a bad candidate. No loss.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on November 24, 2019, 11:44:09 am
Take a chill-pill, Bart. It's hard enough for people here in the US to separate the facts from the BS, so we really don't need the long-distance noise.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 24, 2019, 01:07:05 pm
Take a chill-pill, Bart. It's hard enough for people here in the US to separate the facts from the BS, so we really don't need the long-distance noise.

Don't worry Frans, I'm calm and relaxed.

Maybe some introspection by some Americans is justified.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 24, 2019, 02:43:51 pm
Biden is a bad candidate. No loss.
That gives hope to Hillary.

"I'm baaack."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 24, 2019, 03:08:43 pm
That gives hope to Hillary.

"I'm baaack."

How about Michelle Obama ...?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: dreed on November 24, 2019, 03:31:47 pm
More on the phoniness of the Russian Collusion investigation supports Trump's claim the Democrats have been using impeachment to gain a coup..  FBI lying to the FISA court.

Former FBI lawyer under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/21/politics/fbi-fisa-russia-investigation/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/21/politics/fbi-fisa-russia-investigation/index.html)

Lets just point out that the public does not know what was changed on the document, only that the changes were improper. For all we know it could have been something as minor as spelling corrections and given that no details of what the changes were have leaked, it likely means that the changes themselves are not nearly as exciting as the news of the changes.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: dreed on November 24, 2019, 03:36:38 pm
You act as if Fox News doesn't exist. They are constantly tooting Trump's horn.

Fox News *IS* Trump's horn.

The important thing to remember is that the people we see on TV just read teleprompters that tell them what to say. What we don't know is who writes the stories for the teleprompters.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: dreed on November 24, 2019, 04:05:49 pm
The more I read this thread, the more I feel that some here - that I assume are honestly thinking what they are writing - are being held hostage by a logical fallacy.
....
I wonder why this isn't the case...

Cheers,
Bernard

There's been a good psychological analysis of this.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/trump-doesnt-really-love-america/595231/

and more ...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/07/evangelical-americans-trump-supporters-progressives

but I can't find the story I want.

The reason for Trump being defended so widely and deeply by many in what seems to defy logic is rooted in social constructs. She votes for Trump so therefore I will too. My husband will vote for Trump so therefore I must too. People vote for him not because he's good or like what he stands for but because they don't want to not vote for him. If you spend some time with google and read, you'll find many stories about why Trump got elected and almost none of them have to do with real policy. It is largely all about racial divide except nobody wants to openly admit to being racist - unless you're Donald Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: dreed on November 24, 2019, 04:28:01 pm
Meanwhile, Republican Senators have grown a set and are threatening they will call the Bidens to testify at a Senate trial if the democrats do impeach in the House.

Because what the senate Republicans want to do is distract you from the real issue at hand. They're trying to perform a standard parlour magician trick - 'look over here' - to get you to shift your eyes while the real act happens elsewhere.

Lets also reflect that the president didn't care if there was an actual investigation (i.e. Trump doesn't care if the Bidens are/were corrupt), he only cared about the announcement of an investigation because that would generate negative press headlines for his political opponent.

As it stands, the threat to call the Bidens to testify in the senate will probably be the theme song the Republicans will use for the next n months. Will they call them? Doubt it. The threat of calling them is much better for them than actually calling them and then not getting the dirt they wanted. The Republicans are playing games with headlines and the public is taking the bait, hook, line and sinker. Compare their behaviour with that of the Democrats, that didn't and haven't played "threat" games with who they would call before the current committee.

And you'll be singing the song of "What if they had of called the Bidens" all through next year too because the Republicans won't but you already think they should.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BobShaw on November 24, 2019, 04:41:34 pm
Here in Australia we complain about our politicians and the price of things and then you travel the world and find out it's not so bad after all.
The UK and the US both seem to have the same problem. They voted for something and didn't like the result.

That seems to be in some way due to the fact that you don't have to vote therefore the lazy majority don't vote. So to win any election all you have to do is to get enough people in the right places to get on a bus and vote.

I don't know how long an impeachment process would take but I suspect at least until the next election.
Maybe the way to get rid of him is the same way he got in, by voting. Somehow I suspect that he will still get elected. Love him or hate him, he is not boring. Just keep him away from buttons.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 24, 2019, 06:13:42 pm
Nunes spent $57,000 in taxpayer funds to fly himself and three members of his staff to Vienna to meet with Victor Shokin to dig up dirt on the Bidens. He is now subject to an ethics complaint in the House.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 24, 2019, 06:23:41 pm
Let's see, Bill Clinton had fellatio performed on him in the Oval Office, FDR had his secretary girlfriend, and JFK slept with Marilyn Monroe and other bimbos as well.  When he got tired of them, he gave them to his brother RFK, the Attorney General. Gee I wonder what Lincoln was up too? Oh wait, he's a Republican.

Why are Americans obsessed with who their politicians have sex with? I mean, seriously, who cares. It's none of anyone's business who people have sex with.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 24, 2019, 08:03:42 pm
How about Michelle Obama ...?

Nice lady.   Don't think she's interested.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 24, 2019, 08:09:10 pm
Lets just point out that the public does not know what was changed on the document, only that the changes were improper. For all we know it could have been something as minor as spelling corrections and given that no details of what the changes were have leaked, it likely means that the changes themselves are not nearly as exciting as the news of the changes.
But the country went through two years of angst which continues today because of the charge of collusion with the Russians.  We had half the country calling the president a traitor because of adulterated FISA court evidence and bias of people at the top in the FBI including this man who changed the document that went to the FISA court.  The president wasn't charged with spitting on the street.  You can be executed for treason in the US, never mind being impeached and thrown out of office.  We shouldn't be so nonchalant about these things. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 24, 2019, 08:13:54 pm
There's been a good psychological analysis of this.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/trump-doesnt-really-love-america/595231/

and more ...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/07/evangelical-americans-trump-supporters-progressives

but I can't find the story I want.

The reason for Trump being defended so widely and deeply by many in what seems to defy logic is rooted in social constructs. She votes for Trump so therefore I will too. My husband will vote for Trump so therefore I must too. People vote for him not because he's good or like what he stands for but because they don't want to not vote for him. If you spend some time with google and read, you'll find many stories about why Trump got elected and almost none of them have to do with real policy. It is largely all about racial divide except nobody wants to openly admit to being racist - unless you're Donald Trump.
I voted for Trump and don't appreciate being called  a racist.  I'm not one.  You've personally attacked me and my integrity and I don't like it one bit.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 24, 2019, 08:33:35 pm
Why are Americans obsessed with who their politicians have sex with? I mean, seriously, who cares. It's none of anyone's business who people have sex with.


Half of Hollywood movies are either about sex or killing.  People like talking about it even in other cointries. 

But, from a practical point, having illicit sex opens a politician up to blackmail especially from foreign countries.  Security clearances will be pulled if you're caught cheating.  The affair that Strosk who was cheating on his wife and Lisa what's her name his counterpart FBI agent had should have led to both their dismissal or at least to a transfer and demotion.  That's standard FBI policy.  They've both opened themselves to blackmail to domestic criminals and foreign agents.    In the military, cheating breaks down discipline and creates internecine problems that negatively affect combat readiness and teamwork under hostile conditions.  Soldiers can be demoted for adultery.  Officers can be demoted if the have an affair with someone beneath them in rank especially if they report to them.  The deal here is that military doesn;t want those with rank to take advantage of underlings.  For politicians, if they're cheating on their wives or husbands, do they have the scruples to not cheat on the voters, or are they lining their pockets as well.  Having integrity doesn't end at the bedroom door.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 24, 2019, 08:43:15 pm
Why are Americans obsessed with who their politicians have sex with? I mean, seriously, who cares. It's none of anyone's business who people have sex with.

+1
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 24, 2019, 08:51:59 pm
I voted for Trump and don't appreciate being called  a racist.  I'm not one.  You've personally attacked me and my integrity and I don't like it one bit.   

But Stephen Miller is, and it’s problematic that he’s in a position of influence. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 24, 2019, 09:43:13 pm
But Stephen Miller is, and it’s problematic that he’s in a position of influence. 
Strawman.  The poster called me and all Trump voters racist. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 24, 2019, 10:43:58 pm
Strawman.  The poster called me and all Trump voters racist.

Do you believe Stephen Miller should be fired?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 24, 2019, 10:57:36 pm
Do you believe Stephen Miller should be fired?
I don;t know anything about him other then he works for Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 24, 2019, 11:25:34 pm
Some sample questions Hunter Biden can expect at a Senate trial of the president:

Is it true you were discharged from the Navy for cocaine use months before being named to Burisma in 2014?
Do you speak Ukrainian?
What do you know about energy exploration and markets?
How many board meetings did you attend?
 Is it true you were paid more than $3 million over five years?
How much more?
Did you discuss the job with your father?
Did you ask your father to intercede in Ukrainian politics to help Burisma?
https://nypost.com/2019/11/23/goodwin-impeachment-trial-is-the-ace-up-president-trumps-sleeve/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 25, 2019, 03:23:07 am
Michael Bloomberg has launched officially his presidential bid. You can now forget about Bidens.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: dreed on November 25, 2019, 06:59:11 am
But the country went through two years of angst which continues today because of the charge of collusion with the Russians.

No. The only people that said the word "collusion" was Trump and Fox News. Collusion is not a crime. Mueller was not brought in to investigate "collusion."

Quote
The president wasn't charged with spitting on the street.

Whether he spat in the street or not is irrelevent. It is DoJ policy not to indict a sitting president.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: dreed on November 25, 2019, 07:05:14 am
I voted for Trump and don't appreciate being called  a racist.  I'm not one.  You've personally attacked me and my integrity and I don't like it one bit.   

If you don't like how all this feels then maybe next time you should give more thought to what it means to vote for someone. As an American, you can legally choose not to vote.

The poster called me and all Trump voters racist.

And I've strayed off topic (a bit.)

In light of recent events a more pertinent question should be is Trump's health such that impeachment makes sense and if not, what then?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 25, 2019, 11:27:55 am
Some sample questions Hunter Biden can expect at a Senate trial of the president:

Snipped drivel for brevity.

Biden has nothing to do with Trump violating the Constitution.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on November 25, 2019, 11:59:47 am
... you'll find many stories about why Trump got elected and almost none of them have to do with real policy. It is largely all about racial divide except nobody wants to openly admit to being racist - unless you're Donald Trump.

If you don't like how all this feels then maybe next time you should give more thought to what it means to vote for someone. As an American, you can legally choose not to vote.

Implying that a participant in this forum - many participants, in fact - are racists because they support Trump is an unacceptable slur, and repeating the accusation more directly is disgraceful. Apologise immediately.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on November 25, 2019, 12:40:13 pm
Implying that a participant in this forum - many participants, in fact - are racists because they support Trump is an unacceptable slur, and repeating the accusation more directly is disgraceful. Apologise immediately.

Jeremy


Which leads to the question: what if they are racist, and also, if they are, don't they have a right to their opinions, and if they do, are those rights only applicable if muffled?

I find the entire matter of opinions and politically tied views quite fascinating. No idea how they work (as in legality) in the USA, nor, really, in Britain, but don't you find something quite frightening about attempts to have people's minds purified? I went through some of that third degree in boarding school; more than once it crossed my mind in later years that it was a reaction to puritans that helped steer me towards fashion and calendar photography. So actually, perhaps in a perverse sort of way, the puritans did me some good.

By the way, this is not an attempt to interfere with your Moderator function at all, it is a genuine puzzlement at what society considers or does not consider apt. It seems to me that society sometimes makes rules that are totally unrealistic.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on November 25, 2019, 01:00:05 pm
Which leads to the question: what if they are racist, and also, if they are, don't they have a right to their opinions, and if they do, are those rights only applicable if muffled?

I find the entire matter of opinions and politically tied views quite fascinating. No idea how they work (as in legality) in the USA, nor, really, in Britain, but don't you find something quite frightening about attempts to have people's minds purified? I went through some of that third degree in boarding school; more than once it crossed my mind in later years that it was a reaction to puritans that helped steer me towards fashion and calendar photography. So actually, perhaps in a perverse sort of way, the puritans did me some good.

By the way, this is not an attempt to interfere with your Moderator function at all, it is a genuine puzzlement at what society considers or does not consider apt. It seems to me that society sometimes makes rules that are totally unrealistic.

Rob, if someone has expressed racist views, there can be no objection to the accusation, supported by reasons. However, to accuse someone of racism merely because he has expressed support for a particular politician is highly likely to be unacceptable. In this context, in particular, it's playing the man and not the ball. That's why I consider it worthy of censure (and, in the absence of apology, more).

Not all leaders' views are adopted by their supporters. I take the view, for example, that the Labour Party is institutionally antisemitic and has a leader who is either himself antisemitic or who, while prepared to mouth platitudes when required, in reality considers antisemitism not to be a problem; and I consider that to be a stance supported by a wealth of evidence which is never properly addressed. That does not mean that I consider all the millions of people who will vote for the party in three weeks' time to be racist; many of them will no doubt vote for the party tribally, because they support its policies or for a myriad of other possible reasons. Similar criteria would apply to those who voted for Marine Le Pen in  the 2017 French presidential elections.

I've no wish to purify any individual's mind, and attempting mass purification would make the cleaning of the Augean stables look like a quick whizz round with a feather duster.

Whether racists should be allowed to express racist views, and where a line should be drawn between those views which are racist and those which fall within the scope of either fact or reasonable opinion, is an entirely different question and one which, happily, does not arise or at least has not yet arisen here.

If you, or anyone else, wishes to discuss, or challenge, decisions I take as moderator, you are more than welcome to do so (as long as you don't adopt the Molitor approach, of course).

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on November 25, 2019, 01:35:40 pm
Re. your last paragraph, Jeremy: I specifically stated that I had no intentions of challenging your decisions as Moderator, and indeed, my entire post has been - or at least is intended to be - addressed to the wider matter of how society can or should judge things like racism and, in fact, whether or not society making such decisions part of law makes sense at all.

Now this has nothing to do with things such as attacking people for looking different to whatever the norm might be in a specific town or society, this is about questioning the idea that law should try to influence or prettify what is in a person's mind. That is far from granting freedom to attack someone, and is a separate consideration. I can fully understand that law must protect people from acts of violence and/or intimidation, but those are pretty much physical manifestations, and not confined to thought, which is what concerned me in my question.

There is a massive example of that taking place in China right now, with brainwashing at the heart of the "solution" which, of course, makes me wonder if it will solve anything for the state: it must, after all, be aware that under the right circumstances, most people will say anything that saves their lives. Will conversion really be accepted as successful, and the people in those camps who sing the right song returned to the outside world without lifetime problems?

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 25, 2019, 02:53:19 pm
It is irrational to feel aggrieved if someone calls someone you voted for a racist.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 25, 2019, 03:14:13 pm
I voted for Trump and don't appreciate being called  a racist.  I'm not one.  You've personally attacked me and my integrity and I don't like it one bit.   

I don't see Dreed's remark as being directed at you personally. It is a general observation.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 25, 2019, 03:33:22 pm
The poster implied twice that people who voted for Trump were racist.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 25, 2019, 03:33:51 pm
Another one bites the dust https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/24/politics/read-navy-secretary-richard-spencer-resignation-letter/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/24/politics/read-navy-secretary-richard-spencer-resignation-letter/index.html).

Trump really has a lot of trouble hanging onto people, doesn't he?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 25, 2019, 03:35:16 pm
The problem is some people so hate Trump they can't separate the wheat from the chaff either about him or his voters.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 25, 2019, 05:48:47 pm
Another one bites the dust https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/24/politics/read-navy-secretary-richard-spencer-resignation-letter/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/24/politics/read-navy-secretary-richard-spencer-resignation-letter/index.html).

Trump really has a lot of trouble hanging onto people, doesn't he?
Trump runs the show. Why should a president hang on to people who disagree with his policies?  After all, the secretary of the Navy was not elected and was in fact hired by Trump.  The president was elected by the people, and responds to their wishes.  If the Secretary disagrees with his boss's policies, he should resign which is what he did in a proper way.  He wrote a resignation letter to the president telling him that a president deserves a secretary who can follow his president.   Just like you follow your boss's orders.   


Also, did you complain when Obama fired his generals?  Isn't this just politics?  You just don't agree with anything Trump does.

By the way, I happen to agree with the Navy in this case though.  He should let them run their affairs for the most part even though he's the Commander-in-Chief. But this whole case has been politicized on both sides.  So Trump is responded to what he sees are his supporters wishes and isn't listening to his Admirals.  Obama did the same thing when he didn't listen to his General and pulled out too early in Iraq in 2011 leading to ISIS.    He did it for the 2012 elections. 

Maybe we should have one term presidents or president for life.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 25, 2019, 06:08:34 pm
Trump runs the show. Why should a president hang on to people who disagree with his policies?  After all, the secretary of the Navy was not elected and was in fact hired by Trump.  The president was elected by the people, and responds to their wishes.  If the Secretary disagrees with his boss's policies, he should resign which is what he did in a proper way.  He wrote a resignation letter to the president telling him that a president deserves a secretary who can follow his president.   Just like you follow your boss's orders.   


Also, did you complain when Obama fired his generals?  Isn't this just politics?  You just don't agree with anything Trump does.

By the way, I happen to agree with the Navy in this case though.  He should let them run their affairs for the most part even though he's the Commander-in-Chief. But this whole case has been politicized on both sides.  So Trump is responded to what he sees are his supporters wishes and isn't listening to his Admirals.  Obama did the same thing when he didn't listen to his General and pulled out too early in Iraq in 2011 leading to ISIS.    He did it for the 2012 elections. 

Maybe we should have one term presidents or president for life.  :)

How many has it been now, I've lost count.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 25, 2019, 06:30:42 pm
How many has it been now, I've lost count.
Trump demands loyalty and excellence from his workers.  Why do you object to that?  Aren;t your complaints just politics?  Other presidents put up with just average subordinates.  Trump wants excellence in his people and won't accept less.  "you're fired" is his style. 

Look at Trump properties.  They represent the finest in materials and execution.  Why do you think 500 companies have done business with Trump using the Trump name on their hotels on other properties.  Most of these are not Trump properties.  They are owned by others.  Trump sells them his name.  These developers know his name drawers richer people willing to spend more on elegance and class as well as power. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 25, 2019, 06:45:05 pm
Trump demands loyalty and excellence from his workers.  Why do you object to that?  Aren;t your complaints just politics?  Other presidents put up with just average subordinates.  Trump wants excellence in his people and won't accept less.  "you're fired" is his style. 

Look at Trump properties.  They represent the finest in materials and execution.  Why do you think 500 companies have done business with Trump using the Trump name on their hotels on other properties.  Most of these are not Trump properties.  They are owned by others.  Trump sells them his name.  These developers know his name drawers richer people willing to spend more on elegance and class as well as power.

Your posts are just hilarious.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 25, 2019, 06:47:15 pm
Your posts are just hilarious.
You're pretty funny too. :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 25, 2019, 07:43:10 pm
Other presidents put up with just average subordinates.  Trump wants excellence in his people and won't accept less. 

Oh good grief, Alan.   I don't think anyone actually *believes* deep down inside that this is true.  Or perhaps more accurately, there's a serious disconnect between what Trump defines as "excellence" and what a sane person defines as such.   

I mean, no one that's serious defines Sara Sanders, Ken Cuccinelli and Kris Kobach as "excellence."  The problem with Trump, and to a lesser extent, hard-right Republicans is that they give far too much credence to ideologues and populists who have no grounding in reality or policy, but are trained to advance basic "common sense" emotionally-based solutions to what are actually incredibly complex problems.  Which is why you have guys like Hannity and Steve Doocy (God help us - when I was growing up in DC he was the "wacky personality segment guy on the local NBC affiliate IIRC) as de facto policy directors, and why here in Texas and in Ohio we elected idiot AM radio philosophers (Dan Patrick and Mike Pence, respectively)  to critical positions in their respective states, and of course Donald Trump to the presidency.  There's no "excellence" there, at least insomuch as we're talking about governing a nation...

I know that I'm probably perceived as a loony lefty here, but I'm really not.  I'm not a Warren guy or a Bernie guy - hell, I didn't even vote for Obama in 2012 (I voted for the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, even though his VP candidate was woefully unprepared), but I just don't understand why some segment of the electorate is so susceptible to simplistic messaging and, frankly, policy developed not with any experience or analysis, but by what some bozo on TV tells them when you know damn well that bozo's goal is to craft the least objective argument possible.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 25, 2019, 08:51:54 pm
Oh good grief, Alan.   I don't think anyone actually *believes* deep down inside that this is true.  Or perhaps more accurately, there's a serious disconnect between what Trump defines as "excellence" and what a sane person defines as such.   

I mean, no one that's serious defines Sara Sanders, Ken Cuccinelli and Kris Kobach as "excellence."  The problem with Trump, and to a lesser extent, hard-right Republicans is that they give far too much credence to ideologues and populists who have no grounding in reality or policy, but are trained to advance basic "common sense" emotionally-based solutions to what are actually incredibly complex problems.  Which is why you have guys like Hannity and Steve Doocy (God help us - when I was growing up in DC he was the "wacky personality segment guy on the local NBC affiliate IIRC) as de facto policy directors, and why here in Texas and in Ohio we elected idiot AM radio philosophers (Dan Patrick and Mike Pence, respectively)  to critical positions in their respective states, and of course Donald Trump to the presidency.  There's no "excellence" there, at least insomuch as we're talking about governing a nation...

I know that I'm probably perceived as a loony lefty here, but I'm really not.  I'm not a Warren guy or a Bernie guy - hell, I didn't even vote for Obama in 2012 (I voted for the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, even though his VP candidate was woefully unprepared), but I just don't understand why some segment of the electorate is so susceptible to simplistic messaging and, frankly, policy developed not with any experience or analysis, but by what some bozo on TV tells them when you know damn well that bozo's goal is to craft the least objective argument possible.

James you cherry picked one sentence from two posts I made regarding this issue. I said that Trump wants loyalty as well as excellence.  Obviously loyalty comes first and most alpha leaders insist upon it. Everything else is second.  I never said the Secretary of the Navy was an average administrator.  What I said was his policy was in conflict with the presidents and he had to go.  I even agreed with the Navy in this situation opposing Trump's action that the military should decide.  But that part is politics.

It's hard to write how effective a president is during his term.  Usually it takes 20-30 years or more when people don't have an ax to grind to determine just how effective the president was.  We also need time for history to work its processes.  Many recent presidents well steeped in politics who used other very well experience advisors did terribly.  Either because their advisors were wrong or they overrode them and went down a wrong path.  Johnson  and McNamara "the best and the brightest" got us into the Vietnam disaster.  The second Bush got us into Iraq.  Obama laid the foundation for ISIS.  Clinton ignored the accumulating evidence about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and did little.  How about Nixon and his legal counsel in Watergate?  Where were Carter's advisors during the Iran hostage crisis?   I could go on.  Certainly Trump and his subordinates have their successes and failures already although it is too soon to see how good or bad they really are.  History has a way of reversing itself.

The point is Trump has had stars as well as dim bulbs working for him.  And it's Trump's style to not put up with mediocrity or disloyalty especially if it affects his wealth and power. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: dreed on November 25, 2019, 09:43:24 pm
Implying that a participant in this forum - many participants, in fact - are racists because they support Trump is an unacceptable slur, and repeating the accusation more directly is disgraceful. Apologise immediately.

Jeremy

The disgrace is how people can support (by voting for) a president that is both a racist and a misogynist yet themselves pretend not to be either.

How can you claim to not be either yet support and vote for someone that is?

Just as people say "you are what you eat", so too "you are who you vote for." Own it.

And who you work for. Hence why people resign from the Trump administration.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: dreed on November 25, 2019, 09:45:07 pm
And it's Trump's style to not put up with mediocrity or disloyalty especially if it affects his wealth and power.

Bingo.

He cares more for himself than he does the nation.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 25, 2019, 10:31:12 pm

The point is Trump has had stars as well as dim bulbs working for him.  And it's Trump's style to not put up with mediocrity or disloyalty especially if it affects his wealth and power.

Name a few of his "stars", please.  And tell us why you think they are so.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 25, 2019, 10:35:18 pm
A friend sent me this link https://deadstate.org/rick-perry-trump-is-gods-chosen-one-much-like-king-david-and-solomon/ (https://deadstate.org/rick-perry-trump-is-gods-chosen-one-much-like-king-david-and-solomon/), which reports that Rick Perry likens Trump to King David or Salomon and that he was chosen by god.

My question is how does he know that Trump isn't instead the punishment for some sin?  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 25, 2019, 10:54:13 pm
Name a few of his "stars", please.  And tell us why you think they are so.


General/Secretary of Defense Mattis who left,  Secretary of State Pompeo seems to be pretty effective, his economic advisors. Mainly, it's Trump himself. He's a hands on leader who makes the decisions.  He'll defer as long as the subordinate is effective and follows his policies but will grab back the reins if that deviates.  He's use to leading from the top due to the Trump Organization.  At the end of the day, how are things going?  The economy is doing well, unemployment is at its lowest, ISIS was defeated for all practical purpose (I see the EU shut down their online ability yesterday).  That's how leaders are measured.  No one remembers who worked for them.  No one's going to vote for or against Trump in 2020 because of who his subordinates were. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 25, 2019, 10:56:36 pm
A friend sent me this link https://deadstate.org/rick-perry-trump-is-gods-chosen-one-much-like-king-david-and-solomon/ (https://deadstate.org/rick-perry-trump-is-gods-chosen-one-much-like-king-david-and-solomon/), which reports that Rick Perry likens Trump to King David or Salomon and that he was chosen by god.

My question is how does he know that Trump isn't instead the punishment for some sin?  :)

Give Perry a break.  The article says that he also said that Obama was sent from God. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on November 26, 2019, 03:40:20 am
Re. your last paragraph, Jeremy: I specifically stated that I had no intentions of challenging your decisions as Moderator, and indeed, my entire post has been - or at least is intended to be - addressed to the wider matter of how society can or should judge things like racism and, in fact, whether or not society making such decisions part of law makes sense at all.

I realise that, Rob. I was just making it perfectly clear that neither you nor anyone else should feel any qualms about such a challenge, provided it is done in a sensible, mature and considered fashion.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 26, 2019, 11:34:02 am
General/Secretary of Defense Mattis who left,  Secretary of State Pompeo seems to be pretty effective, his economic advisors. Mainly, it's Trump himself. He's a hands on leader who makes the decisions.  He'll defer as long as the subordinate is effective and follows his policies but will grab back the reins if that deviates.  He's use to leading from the top due to the Trump Organization.  At the end of the day, how are things going?  The economy is doing well, unemployment is at its lowest, ISIS was defeated for all practical purpose (I see the EU shut down their online ability yesterday).  That's how leaders are measured.  No one remembers who worked for them.  No one's going to vote for or against Trump in 2020 because of who his subordinates were.

So, virtually nobody, then. :) Mattis bailed because he couldn't stand working there.  Pompeo remains to be judged in the light of current developments.  His "economic advisors" have done little, other than steal a trillion dollars from America's future to give to her top 1%

Listing Trump as one of Trump's "stars" seems a little like a self-licking ice cream cone, really.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 26, 2019, 11:57:37 am
So, virtually nobody, then. :) Mattis bailed because he couldn't stand working there.  Pompeo remains to be judged in the light of current developments.  His "economic advisors" have done little, other than steal a trillion dollars from America's future to give to her top 1%

Listing Trump as one of Trump's "stars" seems a little like a self-licking ice cream cone, really.
Peter I get it.  You don't like Trump or his policies.  So don't vote for him. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 26, 2019, 11:59:50 am
So, virtually nobody, then. :) Mattis bailed because he couldn't stand working there.  Pompeo remains to be judged in the light of current developments.  His "economic advisors" have done little, other than steal a trillion dollars from America's future to give to her top 1%

Listing Trump as one of Trump's "stars" seems a little like a self-licking ice cream cone, really.

"Self-licking ice cream cone", never heard that before! Great expression.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 26, 2019, 12:04:08 pm
General/Secretary of Defense Mattis who left,  Secretary of State Pompeo seems to be pretty effective, his economic advisors. Mainly, it's Trump himself. He's a hands on leader who makes the decisions.  He'll defer as long as the subordinate is effective and follows his policies but will grab back the reins if that deviates.  He's use to leading from the top due to the Trump Organization.  At the end of the day, how are things going?  The economy is doing well, unemployment is at its lowest, ISIS was defeated for all practical purpose (I see the EU shut down their online ability yesterday).  That's how leaders are measured.  No one remembers who worked for them.  No one's going to vote for or against Trump in 2020 because of who his subordinates were.

You owe it to yourself to read the first chapter of Michael Lewis' The Fifth Risk. You need that information for your own good. I know you don't have an open mind about any criticism of Trump, but still, set aside your prior beliefs and read just that chapter.

Don't be afraid, it won't hurt you.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 26, 2019, 12:43:42 pm
The disgrace is how people can support (by voting for) a president that is both a racist and a misogynist yet themselves pretend not to be either.

How can you claim to not be either yet support and vote for someone that is?

I think it's a little less black or white, because some of them were just against Hillary Clinton, regardless of the consequences. That reeks of desperation, not good judgment.

In this context I kind of like a remark made by Pete Buttigieg:
Quote from: Pete Buttigieg
Democrats can no more turn the clock back to the 1990s, than Republicans can return us back to the 1950's.

Quote
Just as people say "you are what you eat", so too "you are who you vote for." Own it.

And who you work for. Hence why people resign from the Trump administration.

Although I'm not a fan of his, two and a half years ago Bill Maher summed up what you suggested quite nicely and with a little more humor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVavyvMoe8o

Some people will go down in history as enablers...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on November 26, 2019, 02:35:37 pm
You can put me down as an "enabler," Bart. Here are some of the things my vote has enabled: https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments. As James Carville said in 1992: "It's the economy, stupid."

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 26, 2019, 03:00:30 pm
I think it's a little less black or white, because some of them were just against Hillary Clinton, regardless of the consequences. That reeks of desperation, not good judgment.

In this context I kind of like a remark made by Pete Buttigieg:
Although I'm not a fan of his, two and a half years ago Bill Maher summed up what you suggested quite nicely and with a little more humor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVavyvMoe8o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVavyvMoe8o)

Some people will go down in history as enablers...
Oh, so we're not quite racists.  It's a little less black or white, eh?  We're just desperate enablers lacking in good judgment. Gee. I feel better already.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 26, 2019, 03:05:16 pm
You owe it to yourself to read the first chapter of Michael Lewis' The Fifth Risk. You need that information for your own good. I know you don't have an open mind about any criticism of Trump, but still, set aside your prior beliefs and read just that chapter.

Don't be afraid, it won't hurt you.

All that counts are results.  You're more concerned with style rather than substance and results.  It's your way of ignoring his accomplishments by attacking his methods.  The press has been doing that for three years.  Attacking the man.  It's just a cheap shot. 

Check link in Russ's last post.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 26, 2019, 03:09:50 pm
Oh, so we're not quite racists.  It's a little less black or white, eh?  We're just desperate enablers lacking in good judgment. Gee. I feel better already.

The point is, people have a choice. Choices have consequences.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 26, 2019, 03:19:08 pm
"It's the economy, stupid."

That's one measurement, of course.

I was listening to an economist on some podcast the other day (sorry, can't remember which one right now) who said that the yearly interest on the federal government debt is currently on the same order of magnitude as military spending, and if things continue as they are now (which they rarely do, of course) those two items will crowd out everything else in the budget in another 20 years or so. That's a little sobering.

It's funny how "conservatives" preach belt-tightening and living within one means while running for office, then do something different when in power. Trump's tax changes were touted to allow entrepreneurs to keep more of their money so that they could invest in the economy and thus create more jobs. (Funny, I thought you guys already did that trickle-down thing under Reagan, why do you need to do it again?)  The implication was that there was something stopping them from doing so previously, that somehow they weren't getting to keep enough of the money they made because of onerous tax and regulatory requirements. Except that all that occurred during a period of time when wealth creation among the already well-to-do was at historic highs. What an odd combination that is, the 1% making unprecedented amounts of money yet at the same time pleading poverty.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 26, 2019, 03:25:55 pm
The point is, people have a choice. Choices have consequences.
And I chose not to listen to Hillary's cackle for 4 years.  You shouldn't complain.  You'd have to listen to it too.  :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orYcAiFqknU
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 26, 2019, 03:34:16 pm
That's one measurement, of course.

I was listening to an economist on some podcast the other day (sorry, can't remember which one right now) who said that the yearly interest on the federal government debt is currently on the same order of magnitude as military spending, and if things continue as they are now (which they rarely do, of course) those two items will crowd out everything else in the budget in another 20 years or so. That's a little sobering.

It's funny how "conservatives" preach belt-tightening and living within one means while running for office, then do something different when in power. Trump's tax changes were touted to allow entrepreneurs to keep more of their money so that they could invest in the economy and thus create more jobs. (Funny, I thought you guys already did that trickle-down thing under Reagan, why do you need to do it again?)  The implication was that there was something stopping them from doing so previously, that somehow they weren't getting to keep enough of the money they made because of onerous tax and regulatory requirements. Except that all that occurred during a period of time when wealth creation among the already well-to-do was at historic highs. What an odd combination that is, the 1% making unprecedented amounts of money yet at the same time pleading poverty.
Robert, You;re conflating a number of things.  Lowering business tax rates does help the rich.  They own big shares.  But it also helps the rest of the country by increasing business.  So more jobs are created and salaries go up, which helps everyone.  Lower business taxes also means more income for regular investors who own stock, and increasing valuation of that stock for them as well, not just the rich.  Pension plans for teachers and other "regular" people invest in companies, individual stock ownership etc.  Look at where the stock market is. 

Where I do agree with you is that neither Republicans nor Democrats are doing anything about spending.  Politicians of all stripes don;t see a government program they don;t like or can;t support.  If it could buy them votes, well, they're for it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on November 26, 2019, 05:12:16 pm
How I enjoy empty boxes! Peace!

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 26, 2019, 07:09:23 pm
The point is, people have a choice. Choices have consequences.

And we like our choices and consequences.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 26, 2019, 07:28:20 pm
And we like our choices and consequences.

If you say so.

Donald Trump’s long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2019
https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history

Note also Figure 3 at the end of the article, which explains some of the disputed assumptions about the motives of the voters in this thread.

And here's the article  that's being referred to:
Study: racism and sexism predict support for Trump much more than economic dissatisfaction
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/4/14160956/trump-racism-sexism-economy-study
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 26, 2019, 08:07:33 pm
If you say so.

Donald Trump’s long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2019
https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history (https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history)

Note also Figure 3 at the end of the article, which explains some of the disputed assumptions about the motives of the voters in this thread.

And here's the article  that's being referred to:
Study: racism and sexism predict support for Trump much more than economic dissatisfaction
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/4/14160956/trump-racism-sexism-economy-study (https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/4/14160956/trump-racism-sexism-economy-study)
Bart, you're always knocking America.  Putting it down.  It nevers stops. Why don;t you clean up Netherland's house first where black-faced painted Santa helpers are acceptable before you point fingers at others.  This goes for most of Europe.  America has been through its difficulties of course.  And our problems are not all solved. But we are legions ahead of Europe when it comes to accepting people of different races, cultures, ethnic backgrounds, social status, religion, etc. 
https://travelnoire.com/what-it-means-to-be-black-in-amsterdam (https://travelnoire.com/what-it-means-to-be-black-in-amsterdam)
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/12/black-pete-christmas-zwarte-piet-dutch/ (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/12/black-pete-christmas-zwarte-piet-dutch/)

Britain has its own problems.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/04/boris-johnson-urged-to-apologise-for-muslim-women-letterboxes-article (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/04/boris-johnson-urged-to-apologise-for-muslim-women-letterboxes-article)

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on November 26, 2019, 09:43:46 pm
Bart, you're always knocking America.  Putting it down.  It nevers stops. Why don;t you clean up Netherland's house first where black-faced painted Santa helpers are acceptable before you point fingers at others.  This goes for most of Europe.  America has been through its difficulties of course.  And our problems are not all solved. But we are legions ahead of Europe when it comes to accepting people of different races, cultures, ethnic backgrounds, social status, religion, etc. 
https://travelnoire.com/what-it-means-to-be-black-in-amsterdam (https://travelnoire.com/what-it-means-to-be-black-in-amsterdam)
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/12/black-pete-christmas-zwarte-piet-dutch/ (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/12/black-pete-christmas-zwarte-piet-dutch/)
...
The tradition of 'zwarte Piet' has not the same meaning here that 'black face' has for Americans- It has a different background and goes centuries back...
For the vast majority of Dutch people it was not connected to any kind of racism. It had lost its connection to slavery and the character was adopted as part of a fairytale, but of course there was a connection.
By exposing it and giving much publicity to it, we now have to redefine the 'zwarte Piet' and so we do.
'Zwarte Piet' always climbs through chimneys to deliver presents to children, so that is why they are black and now they are played by people with strikes of black in the face instead of totaly black.

Like Bart I am not against Americans at all, but against Trumps behaviour and decisions as a President and before.
When you state that "the US are legions ahead of Europe when it comes to accepting people of different races"  i cannot agree.
We have no Klu Klux Klan, we have no cops that shoot black people in the back - without even a penalty. Europe has always been crowded with very different cultures that have to live together.
Yes there are problems with some nations of Europe that are so Christian they are afraid of moslims entering their country...
It is certainly not optimal, but not worse than the US. Living in Amsterdam I can say we are with a hundred and more nationalities  and we accept all gendertypes.






 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 26, 2019, 10:07:32 pm
The tradition of 'zwarte Piet' has not the same meaning here that 'black face' has for Americans- It has a different background and goes centuries back...
For the vast majority of Dutch people it was not connected to any kind of racism. It had lost its connection to slavery and the character was adopted as part of a fairytale, but of course there was a connection.
By exposing it and giving much publicity to it, we now have to redefine the 'zwarte Piet' and so we do.
'Zwarte Piet' always climbs through chimneys to deliver presents to children, so that is why they are black and now they are played by people with strikes of black in the face instead of totaly black.

Like Bart I am not against Americans at all, but against Trumps behaviour and decisions as a President and before.
When you state that "the US are legions ahead of Europe when it comes to accepting people of different races"  i cannot agree.
We have no Klu Klux Klan, we have no cops that shoot black people in the back - without even a penalty. Europe has always been crowded with very different cultures that have to live together.
Yes there are problems with some nations of Europe that are so Christian they are afraid of moslims entering their country...
It is certainly not optimal, but not worse than the US. Living in Amsterdam I can say we are with a hundred and more nationalities  and we accept all gendertypes.






 

You're in denial for what happens in the Netherlands.  From the article you referenced:  MAybe you  missed it so I underlined a few words.  The point is you should clean up your own house before complaining about America.  Throwing comments like someone got shot in the back in a country of 330 million people does not mean the country is racist.  Like most of the liberal press you read about my country, it accuses everyone of racism to politically divide America for their purposes of getting votes.  Sure there are people who are racist and others who are dangerously to the right, just like in your country.  But that is such a tiny minority.  It's not our country.  After all we elected a black man twice.  I wonder how long it will take for the Dutch to elect a Muslim PM? Despite 9-11, Muslims are more integrated here than in Europe and have attained higher political and economic position here than there.  As an immigrant nation, Amerian is used to people of different color, backgrounds, and heritage.  In Europe, if your family wasn't born in the country, and have the same color and religion, you;re looked down on.  You can't move up socially.  That's not America.  Anyone can make it here. You just don;t know what you;re talking about when you talk about America.   

"This notorious Christmas character is dividing a country
Neo-Nazis in the Netherlands have responded violently to calls to get rid of Santa's blackface holiday assistant."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/12/black-pete-christmas-zwarte-piet-dutch/ (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/12/black-pete-christmas-zwarte-piet-dutch/)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 26, 2019, 10:09:17 pm
Bart, you're always knocking America.  Putting it down.  It nevers stops. Why don;t you clean up Netherland's house first where black-faced painted Santa helpers are acceptable before you point fingers at others.  This goes for most of Europe.  America has been through its difficulties of course.  And our problems are not all solved. But we are legions ahead of Europe when it comes to accepting people of different races, cultures, ethnic backgrounds, social status, religion, etc. 
https://travelnoire.com/what-it-means-to-be-black-in-amsterdam (https://travelnoire.com/what-it-means-to-be-black-in-amsterdam)
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/12/black-pete-christmas-zwarte-piet-dutch/ (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/12/black-pete-christmas-zwarte-piet-dutch/)

Britain has its own problems.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/04/boris-johnson-urged-to-apologise-for-muslim-women-letterboxes-article (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/04/boris-johnson-urged-to-apologise-for-muslim-women-letterboxes-article)

Why do you deliberately confuse criticism of Trump with criticism of America?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 26, 2019, 10:10:51 pm
Robert, You;re conflating a number of things.  Lowering business tax rates does help the rich.  They own big shares.  But it also helps the rest of the country by increasing business.  So more jobs are created and salaries go up, which helps everyone.  Lower business taxes also means more income for regular investors who own stock, and increasing valuation of that stock for them as well, not just the rich.  Pension plans for teachers and other "regular" people invest in companies, individual stock ownership etc.  Look at where the stock market is. 

Where I do agree with you is that neither Republicans nor Democrats are doing anything about spending.  Politicians of all stripes don;t see a government program they don;t like or can;t support.  If it could buy them votes, well, they're for it.

Middle-class income has been stagnant for a generation. No rhetoric is going to change that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 26, 2019, 10:23:35 pm
There are approximately 58 black senators and representatives in Congress roughly 10% of the 535 total.  Blacks make up 14% of the total US population.  The last president was black and served and was elected twice.  Where's the racism?   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 26, 2019, 10:35:11 pm
Middle-class income has been stagnant for a generation. No rhetoric is going to change that.
That's true but not Trump's fault.  I believe going off the gold standard which causes inflation, higher taxes, deficit spending, has hurt.  Loss of jobs overseas has also hurt.  We've gone from the biggest creditor nation to the biggest debtor nation in the world.  Look what's happen to our photo industry due to digital, loss of film,  etc.  I'm sure there are people here who could tell us how they lost their career or have taken huge hits in salaries and gigs.  When I go to my photo club, the other members ask me where I buy film; where I get it developed.  It used to be on the corner.  Now I have to ship it to California or NYC.    America has a lot of competitors today that are driving down wages and our wealth.  I really don't know the answer except we're going to have to get use to having less in the future.    I'm retired.  A senior. A boomer.  So it's going to be our youth who have to figure it out and deal with the consequences.  Their parents have been greedy,  demanding stuff from the government beyond our means to pay for it.  There is no free lunch.  Your kids and mine are going to suffer.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 26, 2019, 10:36:47 pm
Of course Robert, you're Canadian so things are better up there.  But you're not immuned.   Canada depends a lot on America.  If we get a cold, you sneeze, as does most of the world.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 26, 2019, 10:38:39 pm
There are approximately 58 black senators and representatives in Congress roughly 10% of the 535 total.  Blacks make up 14% of the total US population.  The last president was black and served and was elected twice.  Where's the racism?

How many of those have an (R) by their name?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 26, 2019, 10:45:07 pm
How many of those have an (R) by their name?
Very few.  What's your point?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 26, 2019, 10:47:24 pm
Very few.  What's your point?

Don't you find the discrepancy curious?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 26, 2019, 10:48:14 pm
Don't you find the discrepancy curious?
No.  What's your point?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 26, 2019, 10:49:15 pm
Don't go there.   You're better than that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 26, 2019, 10:54:32 pm
Don't go there.   You're better than that.

Let me be clear - I'm not in the camp of "all Republicans are racist," or "all Trump supporters are racist."  I think both of those generalizations are unfair and harmful. I do think it's problematic that the deepest red parts of the nation are also some of the states with the highest black populations, but the lowest black Congressional representation.  Why? I'm not sure, but it's not great, we can probably agree.

In a larger sense, I do think that parts of the Trump platform play on racial and ethnic fears, and I do think it attracts some portion of the Republican base, and I wish y'all would speak up about it more.  I referenced Stephen Miller several posts back.  That guy has no business being anywhere near the corridors of power, and it doesn't reflect well on your party that he is.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 26, 2019, 11:07:06 pm
Let me be clear - I'm not in the camp of "all Republicans are racist," or "all Trump supporters are racist."  I think both of those generalizations are unfair and harmful. I do think it's problematic that the deepest red parts of the nation are also some of the states with the highest black populations, but the lowest black Congressional representation.  Why? I'm not sure, but it's not great, we can probably agree.

In a larger sense, I do think that parts of the Trump platform play on racial and ethnic fears, and I do think it attracts some portion of the Republican base. 


I understand your concern and there's a certain amount of truth.  Much of it is caused by democrat party traditionally calling everyone racists if they don;t support the "Black agenda", whatever that is.  So it drives people to the other side because everyone wants political protection.  If Democrats push them away, they go to the other party.  Of course then what happens is the other party, republican, may do things that appeases the concerns of some of their members.  It becomes a circle.   That's why playing the race card is so dangerous because it divides people along racial lines for political power.  Politicians use it for their own desire for power.  It's very hurtful to the country.  After Obama was elected, I was hopeful it would stop.  It actually got worse. 

There are other more practical reasons why blacks support democrats.  The democrat party has traditionally supported programs for the poor, workers, etc.  So if you;re poor, and its not only blacks but poor whites too, you're attracted to the democrat party.  The republican party has been the party of business and governmental restraint fiscally (no longer it seems).  So it's natural that 90+% of blacks vote democrat.  I think that's changing as black gain higher positions in business, do better economically as they are doing, and generally becoming more powerful and rich.  So they too look at fiscal responsibility differently.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 26, 2019, 11:39:24 pm
Warren will soon be going home to her teepee as she loses half her supporters in the last month.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/26/warren-nosedives-buttigieg-climbs-poll-074054

That leaves Biden with higher ratings all the more reason for Nancy to shut down the impeachment to avoid the Bidens getting called to testify about Ukraine and $50K a month salaries.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 27, 2019, 01:02:48 am
How many of those have an (R) by their name?

Smart people are generally a minority ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on November 27, 2019, 05:16:48 am
The tradition of 'zwarte Piet' has not the same meaning here that 'black face' has for Americans- It has a different background and goes centuries back...
For the vast majority of Dutch people it was not connected to any kind of racism. It had lost its connection to slavery and the character was adopted as part of a fairytale, but of course there was a connection.
By exposing it and giving much publicity to it, we now have to redefine the 'zwarte Piet' and so we do.
'Zwarte Piet' always climbs through chimneys to deliver presents to children, so that is why they are black and now they are played by people with strikes of black in the face instead of totaly black.

Like Bart I am not against Americans at all, but against Trumps behaviour and decisions as a President and before.
When you state that "the US are legions ahead of Europe when it comes to accepting people of different races"  i cannot agree.
We have no Klu Klux Klan, we have no cops that shoot black people in the back - without even a penalty. Europe has always been crowded with very different cultures that have to live together.
Yes there are problems with some nations of Europe that are so Christian they are afraid of moslims entering their country...
It is certainly not optimal, but not worse than the US. Living in Amsterdam I can say we are with a hundred and more nationalities  and we accept all gendertypes.



Which is the driver for Brexit, except there is not a whole lot Christian about Britain.

As I kinda suggested earlier on in this thread, racism is one thing, but xenophobia quite another.

Back in the day, British tv used to show a musical programme called the Black and White Minstrel Show. It consisted of some singers wearing what is today called blackface makeup. They sang sweet, gentle songs that pleased the majority of people watching, and I am pretty sure nobody gave race a thought: it was just a sentimental reference to twenties and thirties music and clubs etc. Viewers were left with a soporific feel-good factor that went well with the Ovaltine.

Race started to become promoted as ooh! and wow! with the advent of another tv show (the name of which I forget) where an old guy plays a low-class white character who is blatantly racist but is usually shown up as being very ignorant. My take on this is simple: race became an issue because some people in the public eye thought it would be a good idea and titillate viewers and raise viewing figures. What catches the public eye on tv ends up being part of the culture, way more widespread than before the promotion on air.

As for xenophobia: almost all of the organized crime that takes place on this island appears to be run by gypsy group's, Romanians and now also Russians. I am sure my watch thief was eastern European. The problem facing Britain re. these kinds of Europeans - or any other, for that matter - is that there seem to be no stiff penalties in place. Any foreign person caught and convicted of crime should face immediate deportation, regardless of circumstances, dependents or any other sob story attached. Problem solved.

There is also no doubt that different ethnic groups tend to take over neighbourhoods, forcing house prices lower simply because people other than the new group don't want to live next door to the new lot. Rightly or wrongly, you can't fight reality and how people feel, though you might and probably do legislate about how, in an ideal world, you might like them to behave.

Fear of Moslems is based as much on fear of religious massacre as anything else, something both real and in the news daily. This does not imply that all Moslems are likey to turn around and shoot you or blow you up, but the fear has been implanted by the acts of those who do and will. Shit sticks, as they say. That more Moslems get killed by Moslems than does any other type of person is small comfort for those non-Muslims who do get killed in trains, at concerts, in clubs, at work. The logic that drives the fear and hatred for them is simple: if they are not here they cannot harm us. That's hard to refute! If matters were taken in hand by the non-violent ones, the radicals shamed and hoofed out, that would be a very powerful statement to the people in whose land they live. You may well be born in a country, but that doesn't mean you share its values. And that regardless of background.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on November 27, 2019, 07:01:41 am
There are approximately 58 black senators and representatives in Congress roughly 10% of the 535 total.  Blacks make up 14% of the total US population.  The last president was black and served and was elected twice.  Where's the racism? ]

http://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/

    African Americans are incarcerated in state prisons at a rate that is 5.1 times the imprisonment of whites. In five states (Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, and Wisconsin), the disparity is more than 10 to 1.

    In twelve states, more than half of the prison population is black: Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Maryland, whose prison population is 72% African American, tops the nation.

    In eleven states, at least 1 in 20 adult black males is in prison.

    In Oklahoma, the state with the highest overall black incarceration rate, 1 in 15 black males ages 18 and older is in prison.

    States exhibit substantial variation in the range of racial disparity, from a black/white ratio of 12.2:1 in New Jersey to 2.4:1 in Hawaii.

    Latinos are imprisoned at a rate that is 1.4 times the rate of whites. Hispanic/white ethnic disparities are particularly high in states such as Massachusetts (4.3:1), Connecticut (3.9:1), Pennsylvania (3.3:1), and New York (3.1:1).


This is not about a hundred ultra right people shouting out loud,  but about a structural problem in the whole USA.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2019, 07:08:46 am
http://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/

    African Americans are incarcerated in state prisons at a rate that is 5.1 times the imprisonment of whites. In five states (Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, and Wisconsin), the disparity is more than 10 to 1.

    In twelve states, more than half of the prison population is black: Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Maryland, whose prison population is 72% African American, tops the nation.

    In eleven states, at least 1 in 20 adult black males is in prison.

    In Oklahoma, the state with the highest overall black incarceration rate, 1 in 15 black males ages 18 and older is in prison.

    States exhibit substantial variation in the range of racial disparity, from a black/white ratio of 12.2:1 in New Jersey to 2.4:1 in Hawaii.

    Latinos are imprisoned at a rate that is 1.4 times the rate of whites. Hispanic/white ethnic disparities are particularly high in states such as Massachusetts (4.3:1), Connecticut (3.9:1), Pennsylvania (3.3:1), and New York (3.1:1).


This is not about a hundred ultra right people shouting out loud,  but about a structural problem in the whole USA.

What do your statistics have to do with racism?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on November 27, 2019, 07:12:42 am
What do your statistics have to do with racism?

And you said  I  was in denial?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 27, 2019, 07:20:06 am
That's true but not Trump's fault.  I believe going off the gold standard which causes inflation, higher taxes, deficit spending, has hurt.  Loss of jobs overseas has also hurt.  We've gone from the biggest creditor nation to the biggest debtor nation in the world.  Look what's happen to our photo industry due to digital, loss of film,  etc.  I'm sure there are people here who could tell us how they lost their career or have taken huge hits in salaries and gigs.  When I go to my photo club, the other members ask me where I buy film; where I get it developed.  It used to be on the corner.  Now I have to ship it to California or NYC.    America has a lot of competitors today that are driving down wages and our wealth.  I really don't know the answer except we're going to have to get use to having less in the future.    I'm retired.  A senior. A boomer.  So it's going to be our youth who have to figure it out and deal with the consequences.  Their parents have been greedy,  demanding stuff from the government beyond our means to pay for it.  There is no free lunch.  Your kids and mine are going to suffer.

I didn't blame Trump. What has become known as neo-liberalism (Reagan+Thatcher) has helped rich people a lot and has more or less gutted the middle-class. Where I do fault Trump is that he said he was going to fix this long-term structural problem, or more precisely, lots of people inferred that he was going to do that. I am saying that is not even remotely true.

You write "America has a lot of competitors today that are driving down wages and our wealth." I don't understand your point, I thought competition was good. Anyway, it was corporate economic policy to destroy unions and promote globalism. Are you now saying that the US cannot compete against the rest of the world?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 27, 2019, 07:21:39 am
Of course Robert, you're Canadian so things are better up there.  But you're not immuned.   Canada depends a lot on America.  If we get a cold, you sneeze, as does most of the world.

Where does this non-sequitur come from? It's the equivalent of a school yard taunt, "Oh yeah, my dad is bigger than your dad."

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2019, 07:25:01 am
And you said  I  was in denial?
You made the jump from statistics to racism, not me.  Prove it.  This is just more playing the race card.  Enough already.  You know, most black criminals do criminal acts against other black people in black neighborhoods.  Are you suggesting that blacks who are law abiding who are a majority do not want police protection and criminals to go to jail?  Are you suggesting that most black criminals in jail are innocent, that their trials were staged, that the jurors, black and white, 12 out of 12, all found them guilty while they were actually innocent.  It's your kind of charges of racism that drives the country in dividing us up rather than addressing the causes and looking for solutions for the social problems we have. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2019, 07:31:09 am
Where does this non-sequitur come from? It's the equivalent of a school yard taunt, "Oh yeah, my dad is bigger than your dad."


It was a follow-up to my reply #1733.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2019, 07:38:13 am
And you said  I  was in denial?
Oh I just realized I should forgive your error because you're Dutch and live 3000 miles away.  All your read is the liberal America media's viewpoints which spout the race card of things here in America and you believe everything you read.  Why would you see things differently?  You guys still think America is like it was before our Civil war of 1861. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 27, 2019, 07:45:56 am
And you said  I  was in denial?


I could easily post a few of stats showing how many more men are incarcerated then women.  Would this imply that the police are inherently sexist against men? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2019, 07:57:01 am
I didn't blame Trump. What has become known as neo-liberalism (Reagan+Thatcher) has helped rich people a lot and has more or less gutted the middle-class. Where I do fault Trump is that he said he was going to fix this long-term structural problem, or more precisely, lots of people inferred that he was going to do that. I am saying that is not even remotely true.

You write "America has a lot of competitors today that are driving down wages and our wealth." I don't understand your point, I thought competition was good. Anyway, it was corporate economic policy to destroy unions and promote globalism. Are you now saying that the US cannot compete against the rest of the world?
Robert I'm not sure what you mean by neo-liberalism helping the rich and hurting the poor.  How does that work? I do feel and described earlier how lower taxes for business that Trump and COngress implemented helps America and everyone who lives here - rich and poor and the middle class.

Competition within the country is good.   It lowers prices making our money go further which makes us wealthier.  It weeds out marginal producers creates excellence in products.  Wealth doesn;t disappear but increases.  It stays within the country as it's moved around from poor producers and those that do a better job.  However, competition from without moves some wealth out of the country.  It also lowers cost.  After all when you have foreigners working for $3 an hour to produce goods, it makes our dollars go further so we can afford very expensive cameras for example that would cost twice as much if manufactured domestically.  The downside is many workers here get displaced, lose their employment or wind up in marginal low paying service jobs.  This was how Trump won in the swing states when traditional Democrats lost faith with their party and figured that Trump could do better. 


On the other hand, foreign competition means that their countries are open to our exports as well.  So we can sell Boeing planes to countries around the earth, a huge benefit to our wealth and jobs for Americans.  I think the biggest issue is the huge amount of flux with business when it;s done internationally.  It create pockets of disadvantaged that has to addressed in some manner.   No one wants to see fellow Americans suffer. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 27, 2019, 07:57:56 am
Let me be clear - I'm not in the camp of "all Republicans are racist," or "all Trump supporters are racist."  I think both of those generalizations are unfair and harmful. I do think it's problematic that the deepest red parts of the nation are also some of the states with the highest black populations, but the lowest black Congressional representation.  Why? I'm not sure, but it's not great, we can probably agree.

In a larger sense, I do think that parts of the Trump platform play on racial and ethnic fears, and I do think it attracts some portion of the Republican base, and I wish y'all would speak up about it more.  I referenced Stephen Miller several posts back.  That guy has no business being anywhere near the corridors of power, and it doesn't reflect well on your party that he is.

There is a common misnomer that if an ethnic group gains political representation that economic success will follow.  This is a false premise, first proved by the Irish in the late 1800s and currently by the black community. 

If you look at all ethnic groups that came to this country, with the exception of the Irish, they all gained economic success first and then went into politics.  It is not the case that you need political representation to be successful as a group, which is still evident today by Japanese Americans who have almost no political representation but are extremely successful. 

Furthermore, it actually appears that the direct opposite happens.  The Irish tried to short cut their success by engaging heavily in politics.  However it actually took them a couple of generations more than everyone else to gain economic success. 

(FYI, if you don't believe, many studies of this have been conducted on this.  Thomas Sowell has researched and written on this.) 

Now why this seems to happen, I can not say.  But political representation seems to have little, or maybe even the opposite effect, on the success of an ethnic group when they are poverty stricken then what people think it should. 

Now, insofar as Republicans having almost no black support, it really comes down who is going to be the first one, or two, losers?  Blacks vote Dem 96% of the time, so to gain any support from them, Republicans would need to invest a lot of time and money.  However, even if they do, the first couple people who try will only get marginal support.  It will not be until the 5th or 6th one that it starts to pay off.  On top of that, blacks are a small minority and you don't really need their support to win.  So, if you are one of the first candidates thinking about this, the question is do I spend a lot of my time and money to try to get only a small amount of support or do I put that time and money in a place that will have a greater return? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2019, 07:59:11 am
Robert: Oops.  I again forgot you're Canadian.   But the things I mentioned in my post #1754 go for Canada as well. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2019, 08:06:51 am
There is a common misnomer that if an ethnic group gains political representation that economic success will follow.  This is a false premise, first proved by the Irish in the late 1800s and currently by the black community. 

If you look at all ethnic groups that came to this country, with the exception of the Irish, they all gained economic success first and then went into politics.  It is not the case that you need political representation to be successful as a group, which is still evident today by Japanese Americans who have almost no political representation but are extremely successful. 

Furthermore, it actually appears that the direct opposite happens.  The Irish tried to short cut their success by engaging heavily in politics.  However it actually took them a couple of generations more than everyone else to gain economic success. 

(FYI, if you don't believe, many studies of this have been conducted on this.  Thomas Sowell has researched and written on this.) 

Now why this seems to happen, I can not say.  But political representation seems to have little, or maybe even the opposite effect, on the success of an ethnic group when they are poverty stricken then what people think it should. 
What happens is you depend on your job from political connections rather than entrepreneurialism.  In NYC, you'd go to Irish run Tammany Hall back when to find work or get a job in government rather than in the street where you had to fight with other business people and private workers to succeed .  Owners eat better than their workers and bring in more wealth to their communities. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2019, 08:07:54 am
What happens is you depend on your job from political connections rather than entrepreneurialism.  In NYC, you'd go to Irish run Tammany Hall back when to find work or get a job in government rather than in the street where you had to fight with other business people and private workers to succeed .  Owners eat better than their workers and bring in more wealth to their communities. 

Hunter Biden anyone? :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 27, 2019, 11:10:26 am
I understand your concern and there's a certain amount of truth.  Much of it is caused by democrat party traditionally calling everyone racists if they don;t support the "Black agenda", whatever that is.

I didn't hear much protest from Republicans when the 3 female members of Congress, AKA "The Squad", were told to go back to where they came from, a common racial euphemism.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2019, 11:36:27 am
I didn't hear much protest from Republicans when the 3 female members of Congress, AKA "The Squad", were told to go back to where they came from, a common racial euphemism.

It's not a racial comment but rather one of nationality and immigration and ignorance of American ways.  What the expression is saying is, If you don;t like it here in America the way we do things, then go back from where you came.  It's a dismissive put down that in effect reminds them they are a foreigner and acting like an ignorant immigrant who hasn't learned the ways of America.  It can also is used against people who are the same color and background as you are when you disagree with their viewpoints.    It was a comment my friends and I would use against each other when I was a kid.  The idea being that they are acting like an ignorant immigrant even though they're not an immigrant.   I couldn;t expect you to understand American English idiomatic expressions.  But your understanding of it is wrong based on the Democrats deliberate misuse and misinterpretation of words.  They make everything into a racial comment when they aren't.  It's an example of the race card.

I'm sure you have expressions that are negative about immigrants in your country as well. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 27, 2019, 11:39:09 am
What do your statistics have to do with racism?

Can you seriously ask that question? This is almost the definition of racism--people being treated differently because of their skin color and ethnicity.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2019, 11:47:59 am
Can you seriously ask that question? This is almost the definition of racism--people being treated differently because of their skin color and ethnicity.
Your logic is misinformed. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 27, 2019, 12:02:05 pm
Your logic is misinformed.

Sigh.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 27, 2019, 12:27:30 pm
It's not a racial comment but rather one of nationality and immigration and ignorance of American ways.  What the expression is saying is, If you don;t like it here in America the way we do things, then go back from where you came.  It's a dismissive put down that in effect reminds them they are a foreigner and acting like an ignorant immigrant who hasn't learned the ways of America.  It can also is used against people who are the same color and background as you are when you disagree with their viewpoints.    It was a comment my friends and I would use against each other when I was a kid.  The idea being that they are acting like an ignorant immigrant even though they're not an immigrant.   I couldn;t expect you to understand American English idiomatic expressions.  But your understanding of it is wrong based on the Democrats deliberate misuse and misinterpretation of words.  They make everything into a racial comment when they aren't.  It's an example of the race card.

I'm sure you have expressions that are negative about immigrants in your country as well.

Oh, come on. Everyone knows what he meant and so do you.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on November 27, 2019, 12:40:42 pm
Race started to become promoted as ooh! and wow! with the advent of another tv show (the name of which I forget) where an old guy plays a low-class white character who is blatantly racist but is usually shown up as being very ignorant.

It was called Till Death Us Do Part, Rob. Starred Warren Mitchell as Alf Garnett and was renowned, in those far-off and innocent days, as much for his frequent use of the swear word "bloody" as for his racism and xenophobia.

If I recall correctly, Garnett's son-in-law was played by Cherie Blair's father.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 27, 2019, 01:05:51 pm
Can you seriously ask that question? This is almost the definition of racism--people being treated differently because of their skin color and ethnicity.

Correlation does not imply causation.  One of the main tenants of Sociology. 

Say it with me now, "Correlation does not imply causation." 

There, now that we have that out of the way, a social study showing statistical disparities related to peoples races does not mean that racism had anything to with the disparities.  You need to do a little more research to get to that point. 

Making that assumption is the same exact way anti-vaxxers came up with the idea that vaccines cause autism.  This is literally exactly how the anti-vax movement started. 

Another example, women only make 10.4% of the prison population.  I guess that means the criminal justice system is sexist against men.  Oh wait, oops, that's right, correlation does not imply causation.  My bad. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2019, 02:04:29 pm
Oh, come on. Everyone knows what he meant and so do you.
So you know what I meant too, I suppose.   I guess I'm just one of Hillary's deplorables.  You know every time you play the race card you remind lots of people just how hateful and insulting the left really is.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 27, 2019, 02:33:21 pm
It's not a racial comment but rather one of nationality and immigration and ignorance of American ways.  What the expression is saying is, If you don;t like it here in America the way we do things, then go back from where you came.  It's a dismissive put down that in effect reminds them they are a foreigner and acting like an ignorant immigrant who hasn't learned the ways of America.  It can also is used against people who are the same color and background as you are when you disagree with their viewpoints.    It was a comment my friends and I would use against each other when I was a kid.  The idea being that they are acting like an ignorant immigrant even though they're not an immigrant.   I couldn;t expect you to understand American English idiomatic expressions.  But your understanding of it is wrong based on the Democrats deliberate misuse and misinterpretation of words.  They make everything into a racial comment when they aren't.  It's an example of the race card.

I'm sure you have expressions that are negative about immigrants in your country as well.

No, that was pretty much a racist comment, Alan, and Bart has the idiomatic understanding exactly right.   As I said, I don't believe all conservatives/Republicans/Trump voters are racists in the slightest. But some are, and some of Trump's public actions play to that.  This is one instance that certainly did.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 27, 2019, 02:38:15 pm
Correlation does not imply causation.  One of the main tenants of Sociology. 

Say it with me now, "Correlation does not imply causation." 

There, now that we have that out of the way, a social study showing statistical disparities related to peoples races does not mean that racism had anything to with the disparities.  You need to do a little more research to get to that point. 

Making that assumption is the same exact way anti-vaxxers came up with the idea that vaccines cause autism.  This is literally exactly how the anti-vax movement started. 

Another example, women only make 10.4% of the prison population.  I guess that means the criminal justice system is sexist against men.  Oh wait, oops, that's right, correlation does not imply causation.  My bad.

Of course you have to go a layer deeper, but no one here is writing a thesis ;)  Thing is, you don't have to go THAT much deeper at all if you're trying to ferret out evidence of institutional racism, anecdotal counter-examples like Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson etc. aside.   

As for your question about how whether or not the criminal justice system is biased against men?  Well, yes, it does seem to be. (https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx)  Do you need me to dig up studies showing institutional disparities in criminal sentencing for minorities, or disparities in hiring equally qualified candidates?   I mean, you know I can, but do you really not believe it?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 27, 2019, 02:41:54 pm
Also, back on topic, "Rudy?  Yeah.. he did some lawyer stuff for me, but I have a lot of lawyers.  The BEST lawyers.  I really don't know any of them that well." (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-giuliani-ukraine-call-impeachment-hearing-a9220851.html)

Will no one rid him of this meddlesome mayor??

 ;D :o ::)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 27, 2019, 03:12:03 pm
Of course you have to go a layer deeper, but no one here is writing a thesis ;)  Thing is, you don't have to go THAT much deeper at all if you're trying to ferret out evidence of institutional racism, anecdotal counter-examples like Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson etc. aside.   

As for your question about how whether or not the criminal justice system is biased against men?  Well, yes, it does seem to be. (https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx)  Do you need me to dig up studies showing institutional disparities in criminal sentencing for minorities, or disparities in hiring equally qualified candidates?   I mean, you know I can, but do you really not believe it?

Sure, no one is writing a thesis, but that does not excuse them from ignoring basic scientific norms on research, listing a whole bunch of stats and jumping to causation.  Like I said, this is the mentality that created the anti-vaxxer movement. 

Additionally, whenever I dig deeper into this I find two different kinds of opinions. 

Those on the left who insist that it is all about racism, or simply dont want to have the difficult conversation, or those whom list racism as one of many causes but with the primary causes being mainly cultural issues, such as a significant increase in the rate of single parent households (which have been shown, across all cultures, as being detrimental to the social development of a child), amongst other things of course. 

So, if we really want to have this conversation and discuss racism as it pertains to certain societal issues, then you better be fine with talking about cultural issues as well that can both be a net positive for a group (like with Asian-Americans) or a net negative with others. 

I'm all for honest dialect, but that has to go both ways, and the left today wants nothing of it.  Buttigieg was crucified, by the left, yesterday for saying that minority children in poor neighborhoods often don't see the value in education since they have no positive role models to look up to, which is true.  Any teacher will tell you this. 

I just cant see why anyone would actually contest this and call him a lying motherf#@&er for it.  Really, I never thought I would be defending Buttigieg from the left. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 27, 2019, 03:20:45 pm
Also, back on topic, "Rudy?  Yeah.. he did some lawyer stuff for me, but I have a lot of lawyers.  The BEST lawyers.  I really don't know any of them that well." (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-giuliani-ukraine-call-impeachment-hearing-a9220851.html)

Will no one rid him of this meddlesome mayor??

 ;D :o ::)

Not a surprise, not that I am justifying it, I was just expecting this sooner or later. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2019, 03:41:42 pm
No, that was pretty much a racist comment, Alan, and Bart has the idiomatic understanding exactly right.   As I said, I don't believe all conservatives/Republicans/Trump voters are racists in the slightest. But some are, and some of Trump's public actions play to that.  This is one instance that certainly did.
Wrong.  I used the expression exactly as I described.  If an immigrant comes here and disrespects America, then they should go back where they came from.  It's got nothing to do with race.  If a Muslim immigrated to the Netherlands and disrespected the Dutch and the Netherlands, I would expect Dutch citizens to feel similarly.  Who needs unpatriotic people among us.  It's one thing if they were born here.  You have to put up with their hatred.  But if they came here looking to be Americans, then they should show some gratitude and appreciation and loyalty.  Otherwise who needs them.  They should go back where they came from.  Now what Trump said and meant, I don;t know.  I'm not getting in his head only describing my understand of the idiom. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2019, 03:43:57 pm
Not a surprise, not that I am justifying it, I was just expecting this sooner or later. 
What did Rudy do that could land him in jail?  There may be political fallout.  But what legal jeopardy is he in?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 27, 2019, 03:45:25 pm
Way to drain the swamp!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-interior-department-revolving-door_n_5ddbf08ee4b00149f720e179 (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-interior-department-revolving-door_n_5ddbf08ee4b00149f720e179)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 27, 2019, 03:53:57 pm
Wrong.  I used the expression exactly as I described.  If an immigrant comes here and disrespects America, then they should go back where they came from.  It's got nothing to do with race.  If a Muslim immigrated to the Netherlands and disrespected the Dutch and the Netherlands, I would expect Dutch citizens to feel similarly.  Who needs unpatriotic people among us.  It's one thing if they were born here.  You have to put up with their hatred.  But if they came here looking to be Americans, then they should show some gratitude and appreciation and loyalty.  Otherwise who needs them.  They should go back where they came from.  Now what Trump said and meant, I don;t know.  I'm not getting in his head only describing my understand of the idiom.

I was referring to Trump’s usage, not your explanation.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 27, 2019, 04:12:26 pm
Can you seriously ask that question? This is almost the definition of racism--people being treated differently because of their skin color and ethnicity.

Pleaseeeeeeee!!!

Nobody is treated differently because they belong to a group with a different skin color, but because they belong to a group that is disproportionately criminal.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2019, 04:14:05 pm
I was referring to Trump’s usage, not your explanation.
I went back and checked what he said.  See below.  It's not racist but exactly as I described it to mean.  The mistake he made though was that only one of the four were foreigners originally.  But the meaning was as I described.  Now you may not agree with his accusation.  You may feel that they are loyal and I can see where people are upset calling congresswomen those names.  I don;t like it either to attack congresswomen as they were elected by their consituency.  Just as Trump was elected by his voters.  But the comment was not racist but rather nationalistic.  There's a difference.  Trouble is the Democrats and left turn every comment into a racist trope.  They play the race card so often, they can't see that there can be other things driving people's opinions.  We can't have a conversation about anything without it turning into an argument about race. 

"“So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter, “now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run.”

Mr. Trump added: “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done.”"
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 27, 2019, 04:24:02 pm
Pleaseeeeeeee!!!

Nobody is treated differently because they belong to a group with a different skin color, but because they belong to a group that is disproportionately criminal.

And why do you suppose that group is considered "disproportionately criminal?"  And if, in fact, they are, what makes them that way?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 27, 2019, 04:25:54 pm
I went back and checked what he said.  See below.  It's not racist but exactly as I described it to mean.  The mistake he made though was that only one of the four were foreigners originally.  But the meaning was as I described.  Now you may not agree with his accusation.  You may feel that they are loyal and I can see where people are upset calling congresswomen those names.  I don;t like it either to attack congresswomen as they were elected by their consituency.  Just as Trump was elected by his voters.  But the comment was not racist but rather nationalistic.  There's a difference.  Trouble is the Democrats and left turn every comment into a racist trope.  They play the race card so often, they can't see that there can be other things driving people's opinions.  We can't have a conversation about anything without it turning into an argument about race. 

"“So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter, “now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run.”

Mr. Trump added: “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done.”"


You're not addressing the obvious - why did he assume/believe that the three American women were foreigners?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2019, 04:32:59 pm
And why do you suppose that group is considered "disproportionately criminal?"  And if, in fact, they are, what makes them that way?
Maybe we should just leave race discussions for another topic.  It's only going to create a lot of hard feelings and argument and isn't directly related to impeachment. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 27, 2019, 04:33:28 pm
No, that was pretty much a racist comment..

Please, James!

I’ve been recently told that I am a Johnny-come-lately ( referring to my recent citizenship) by a guy who flaunted his family’s 100-year status, I was told to go the f&$k back where I came from. He is a black alum from my business school. I didn’t reciprocate the insults and we turned out to be friends shortly after that. Not everything is racism, even if it looks like one.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2019, 04:41:32 pm
You're not addressing the obvious - why did he assume/believe that the three American women were foreigners?
Except for AOC who also grew up in my Bronx, I also thought at least two maybe three of the four were immigrants.  But that's all beside the point.  Read the words he said.  They speak of foreigners who come here telling America what to do from countries that are so screwed up that's why they came here in the first place.  They're here a few years and can tell us everything that's wrong with us.    Now I don;t think he should have used those words.  But again, they're nationalistic words not racist.  Muslim is not a race.  Puerto Rican is not a race. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 27, 2019, 04:47:19 pm
Your logic is misinformed.

How so?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 27, 2019, 05:24:43 pm
Please, James!

I’ve been recently told that I am a Johnny-come-lately ( referring to my recent citizenship) by a guy who flaunted his family’s 100-year status, I was told to go the f&$k back where I came from. He is a black alum from my business school. I didn’t reciprocate the insults and we turned out to be friends shortly after that. Not everything is racism, even if it looks like one.

Well, I'm an SAR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_the_American_Revolution), so y'all can BOTH go back ;)

And yes, I agree - everything isn't racism, and FWIW I also agree that when some people DO claim everything is, they do a great disservice to what actually is racism.   But that doesn't mean that *nothing* is racism either, and I think it's critical that when you see a distinctive *correlation* (that's for Joe ;) ) you need to go back and see if there's some causation that's related to the overwhelmingly obvious distinction, and why that might be the case. 

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 27, 2019, 05:29:53 pm
Maybe we should just leave race discussions for another topic.  It's only going to create a lot of hard feelings and argument and isn't directly related to impeachment.

Fair enough... And speaking of, here's something that relates to a point I made earlier about how in thrall Trump is to (metaphorically speaking) bomb-throwing commentators and firebrands, and then this pops up today.   This guy (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-official-who-suggested-dropping-nuclear-bombs-on-afghanistan-now-responsible-for-arms-control-issues/2019/11/27/235f2976-10af-11ea-a533-90a7becf7713_story.html?utm_campaign=politics_pm&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=Newsletter&wpisrc=nl_politics-pm&wpmm=1) is a mucky-muck at State dealing with arms control.   

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2019, 06:17:37 pm
Well, I'm an SAR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_the_American_Revolution), you y'all can BOTH go back ;)

And yes, I agree - everything isn't racism, and FWIW I also agree that when some people DO claim everything is, they do a great disservice to what actually is racism.   But that doesn't mean that *nothing* is racism either, and I think it's critical that when you see a distinctive *correlation* (that's for Joe ;) ) you need to go back and see if there's some causation that's related to the overwhelmingly obvious distinction, and why that might be the case. 


True story.  My grandmother on my mother's side came from Eastern Europe in the early 1900's from some small town that no longer exists either in Poland or Russia depending on what century you;re talking about.  The territory kept moving back and forth depending whose armies were more powerful.  She never really learned English and didn't get naturalized like her husband did.  Yearly, she had to file papers with the government as an alien. 

After her husband died, my father Ben who worked in the post office would help her file.  Every year she would call him up right before it was due worried sick that my father would not file the papers in time.  "Benny," she would scream at him in a panic. "You got to file the papers before they send me back."  Of course she never had anything to worry about.  At least I don;t think so.  Plus they wouldn't know where to send her.  Her home town was long gone.  She fortunately died before my father so he was able to file until her death.  She was often a pain in the neck.  If my dad had died first, I think the rest of the family would have skipped filing the papers and let the government return her.  :)


Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2019, 06:33:43 pm
Well, I'm an SAR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_the_American_Revolution), you y'all can BOTH go back ;)

And yes, I agree - everything isn't racism, and FWIW I also agree that when some people DO claim everything is, they do a great disservice to what actually is racism.   But that doesn't mean that *nothing* is racism either, and I think it's critical that when you see a distinctive *correlation* (that's for Joe ;) ) you need to go back and see if there's some causation that's related to the overwhelmingly obvious distinction, and why that might be the case. 


I agree.  It's like the boy who cried wolf.  After a while everyone ignores it who's not affected directly even when it's real.  And when the race card is played with a wide brush, it alienates the very people who also want racism to stop but they're accused also of racism when they're not.  It drives them away from helping.  It's a terrible charge and demeaning to be labeled as such when it's not true.  People become afraid about talking about real issues and ways to help because whatever they say might be called racist and often is.  So they close their eyes totally, shrug their shoulders and walk away from the whole deal.  Sometimes they react in kind and strike back but wouldn't if the politicians would stop riling up everyone.  The race card is terribly destructive and hurts everyone except the politicians who use it to gain power.  There the ones who make me sick.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 28, 2019, 04:33:09 am
https://babylonbee.com/news/reanimated-che-guevara-announces-2020-run-quickly-criticized-as-too-moderate

Che Guevara Announces 2020 Run, Democrats Quickly Criticize As 'Too Moderate'

Quote
Democrats pointed out that while Guevara was a mass murderer, he really needs to specifically come out as allowing murder up to and including the moment of birth if he's going to be accepted as a mainstream Democratic candidate. They also demonstrated that his brand of totalitarianist terror was a fine starting point, but he needs to show his willingness to silence anyone who even seems to slightly disagree with the left if he's going to get any traction.

"I just looked up the Wikipedia article on Che," Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted while she was supposed to be working. "I don't see anything about him addressing climate change and wanting to destroy an entire economy based on wild-eyed apocalyptic predictions. I might have to throw away my Guevara T-shirts, to be honest."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 28, 2019, 09:06:06 am
You can put me down as an "enabler," Bart. Here are some of the things my vote has enabled: https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments. As James Carville said in 1992: "It's the economy, stupid."
Breaking Radio Silence to address the Big Lie that continues to be perpetrated.  Here is the GDP quarterly growth data from just wen Obama took office to the most recent quarter.  You can see that thee continued to be a dip as the country came out of the Great Recession and then the line continues upward at a steady pace.  there has been NO great leap forward since President Trump took office and the 'humongous' tax cut that was enacted a couple of years ago has not resulted an major growth despite what the President's advisors might want you to think.  Real data is often inconvenient and often disregarded by this Administration.  the Administration has also trumpeted a lot of deregulation but much of that was already underway before the President took office (certainly the FDA stuff that they trumpet was being worked on during the last two years of the Obama Administration; rule-making takes a while to do).

EDIT:  I've attached a better GDP graph showing the dates in question.  While I am not taking part in any future discussions regarding the Impeachment of the President, I do plan on posting links and graphs that will correct misstatements by those who do post.  Truth is a valuable commodity and there is much too little of it on this thread.  As the chart notes, growth in GDP takes place regardless of who is president.  things would have been markedly improved had an appropriate stimulus been put in place following the Great Recession.

I will conclude this post by noting that someone does not know the meaning of the word perpetrated. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on November 28, 2019, 09:56:03 am
You’re right, Alan. The improvements in the economy are all due to Obama: because his term finally ended and Hillary lost.

Why do you think black support for Trump has risen well above support for any previous Republican, making the Democrat thrust toward the presidency even more feeble than it otherwise would have been? (Though considering the present Democrat lineup it was awfully feeble to begin with.) Black unemployment is lower than it’s been since record-keeping began. Wages are rising because there are more jobs available than job-seekers. Yes, the economy was bound to improve after the recession. That’s how things always have worked. In fact, that's how we know a recession has ended. But Obama couldn’t really hack consistent economic growth of 2%. Trump has kicked it up to over 4%, though I thoroughly disagree with his tariffs and think it could well be 5% without them.

But I’m not surprised to see you jump on the “Obama really was the one who did it” bandwagon, Alan. In fact I’m surprised you didn’t jump sooner. Happily, those with a brain understand that this is bullshit. They’re the ones who will speak during next year’s election. Here again are my predictions: (1) Trump (or at least a Republican if Trump chooses not to run) will get a second term. (2) Republicans will take back the House. (3) Republicans will hang on to the Senate.

In the meantime your “big lie” about Obama continues to be perpetrated, though I’m not sure you can “perpetrate” a lie on a continuing basis. Maybe you mean “perpetuate?” That’s the right word for the big lie that the recovery was due to Obama.

Oh, and why did you post this? Don’t you remember? You swore with an arm wave that you’d never speak to me again.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 28, 2019, 10:31:36 am
Happy Thanksgiving Day everyone -  Americans and our overseas friends as well.  Today we celebrate and give thanks for all we have despite the arguments and problems we all face in life.  There's a lot we all can be thankful for.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 28, 2019, 12:08:57 pm
Happy Thanksgiving Day everyone -  Americans and our overseas friends as well.  Today we celebrate and give thanks for all we have despite the arguments and problems we all face in life.  There's a lot we all can be thankful for.

Happy Thanksgiving to you too, Alan!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 28, 2019, 01:33:52 pm
Happy Thanksgiving to all!

I am grateful to have the ability and opportunity to freely agree or disagree with all of you, left or right. This is such a valuable trait that those who enjoy it by birth often take it for granted.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 28, 2019, 01:46:45 pm
Happy Thanksgiving to all!

I am grateful to have the ability and opportunity to freely agree or disagree with all of you, left or right. This is such a valuable trait that those who enjoy it by birth often take it for granted.

+1
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on November 28, 2019, 01:50:06 pm
+2
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 28, 2019, 02:34:50 pm
Happy Thanksgiving to all!


To you as well :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 28, 2019, 09:48:57 pm
+3

Just got done cooking and entertaining.  Time for the real fun!   ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 29, 2019, 03:01:14 am
In the meantime...

After spending 13 hours in the economy class, even with a chef among the crew (Turkish Airlines), I thought it is a torture. Sixteen hours in a bare-bones military plane must be something else. In particular when haters are gonna hate, no matter what you did.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 29, 2019, 03:07:53 am
And some Thanksgiving humor ;)

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 29, 2019, 08:02:53 am
In the meantime...

After spending 13 hours in the economy class, even with a chef among the crew (Turkish Airlines), I thought it is a torture. Sixteen hours in a bare-bones military plane must be something else. In particular when haters are gonna hate, no matter what you did.
If Obama went to Afghanistan they'd be talking about how caring and brave and dedicated he is all day yesterday and today.  The press has been like this for decades - anti-Republican, pro-Democrat, pro-liberal.  That's why there is such a positive reaction to Trump's calling them "fake news".  He's only reflecting what many American have known for decades. Unfortunately, headlines count.  The left always has a leg up because of it and the country and world only get a distorted view of American politics.  The world see us through the distorted glass of a biased press.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on November 29, 2019, 09:55:14 am
I will conclude this post by noting that someone does not know the meaning of the word perpetrated.

Quite true, Alan, but I'm surprised you'd admit it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 29, 2019, 09:55:50 am
The first thing I'd claim is that I am young, thin, rich, and handsome.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on November 29, 2019, 10:02:26 am
The first thing I'd claim is that I am young, thin, rich, and handsome.

When, actually, you're none of those things. . . Old, fat, poor, and ugly?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 29, 2019, 11:22:21 am
When, actually, you're none of those things. . . Old, fat, poor, and ugly?

Thank you for your kind and intelligent response.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on November 29, 2019, 11:29:12 am
Just asking, Peter. Didn't you see the question mark? A question mark looks like this: "?"
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 29, 2019, 03:46:31 pm
Why can’t we replace all those commie and jihady ungrateful immigrants and non-patriotic “Americans” with Asians from Hong Kong?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on November 29, 2019, 04:17:44 pm
They are wasting their time and efforts.

Everybody knows HK is China. End of story.

Rob

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on November 29, 2019, 10:36:24 pm
Hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving.  This was just the warm up and doesn't include the second table.  We just finished and I'm still recovering.
 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 01, 2019, 12:09:47 am
A new hope for Democrats:

https://www.cnet.com/news/baby-yoda-the-mandalorian-trending-higher-on-social-media-than-democratic-candidates/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0a

Quote
Baby Yoda averages 1,671 social interactions per story, Axios reports, compared with 850 for Bernie Sanders, 839 for Joe Biden and 600 for Pete Buttigieg.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 02, 2019, 02:13:40 pm
If Obama went to Afghanistan they'd be talking about how caring and brave and dedicated he is all day yesterday and today.  The press has been like this for decades - anti-Republican, pro-Democrat, pro-liberal.  That's why there is such a positive reaction to Trump's calling them "fake news".  He's only reflecting what many American have known for decades. Unfortunately, headlines count.  The left always has a leg up because of it and the country and world only get a distorted view of American politics.  The world see us through the distorted glass of a biased press.

Denigrating the press is a time-honoured tactic of demagogues, despots and dictators.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 02, 2019, 02:56:14 pm
Denigrating the press is a time-honoured tactic of demagogues, despots and dictators.

To the dedicated true believer, everything is gospel, even when it's patently not.

One thing Trump has pulled off: he has managed to devalue and debase British political electioneering even further by providing the easy call of fake news, opening the gates to all the lying statements, claims, promises and contradictions that politicos always had to be aware of putting out in the past because they might be challenged. Now, they have the Trumpian catch-all: fake news. No reality check required, just the chanted slogan.

What truly pisses me off, as with the Brexit technique, is that generally, Brits no longer seem to analyse anything that is political. They read the party manual when they can, or buy into the shortened version heard on the news, and that's the sale made.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 03, 2019, 09:22:31 am
Denigrating the press is a time-honoured tactic of demagogues, despots and dictators.

How soon we forget, or choose to overlook. 

AP FACT CHECK: Obama doesn’t always tell the straight story (https://apnews.com/ffc60235c26c470c9047e0da6ff19f95/AP-FACT-CHECK:-Obama-doesn%2527t-always-tell-the-straight-story)

"Trump may use extraordinary rhetoric to undermine trust in the press, but Obama arguably went farther — using extraordinary actions to block the flow of information to the public.
The Obama administration used the 1917 Espionage Act with unprecedented vigor, prosecuting more people under that law for leaking sensitive information to the public than all previous administrations combined."

Trump may denigrate the press, but Obama actually persecuted them.  I ask you, which is more reminiscent of a dictatorship?  One of my biggest gripe with Obama is that fact that he constantly campaigned on having an open administration, the most open actually, but refused to pardon Snowden. 

Add to that, recently Bloomberg News stated that they would not investigate Bloomberg or any Democrat, but will continue to investigate Trump.  This, in flashing red lights, not only shows their bias but signals they have abandoned all journalistic ethics, and it is not like Bloomberg News is some minor company.  This received wide spread criticism from most press outlets, including former editors of Bloomberg News, except for our grey lady & paper of record.  Instead the New York Times criticized Trump for banning Bloomberg reporters from events (perhaps an overreach, but with such blatant bias and abandonment of ethics, perhaps justified) and implied a support of Bloomberg News.  I never thought I would loose complete confidence in the NYTs. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 03, 2019, 09:47:10 am
Joe, The last Republican the NY Times endorsed for president was Eisenhower in 1956.  That was 15 elections ago.  Their paper has always been biased to Democrats and the left but never so noticeably until recently.  Their bias against Trump is just a knee-jerk reaction like putting jam on toast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidential_election_endorsements_made_by_The_New_York_Times
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 03, 2019, 10:02:50 am
So now the French are undermining NATO and Trump comes to its rescue. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/politics/trump-nato-summit.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/politics/trump-nato-summit.html)

 I notice that EU NATO countries are contributing 60-70 billion more in their defence as required by the 2% agreement. All have increased their budget for 2019 except cheapskate Germany which has stayed the same and Canada which has gone down.   What's with Canada?   Greece has gone down but they're over the 2% already and doing what they promised.  Trump's pressure  a couple of years ago on NATO countries about their not meeting their obligations  has paid off.  Of course the media won;t say anything about the extra money they're spending nor his defense of NATO.   He won't get credit for anything. 
https://www.euronews.com/2019/03/14/nato-pledge-which-european-countries-spend-over-2-of-gdp-on-defence (https://www.euronews.com/2019/03/14/nato-pledge-which-european-countries-spend-over-2-of-gdp-on-defence)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 03, 2019, 10:39:20 am
Joe, The last Republican the NY Times endorsed for president was Eisenhower in 1956.  That was 15 elections ago.  Their paper has always been biased to Democrats and the left but never so noticeably until recently.  Their bias against Trump is just a knee-jerk reaction like putting jam on toast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidential_election_endorsements_made_by_The_New_York_Times

It's quite astonishing to think about, especially if you consider some of the Dems since Ike.  Really, who could have supported Carter after his first term? ???

Michael Goodwin had a good piece this weekend on the demise of the NYTs, and journalism overall. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 03, 2019, 10:57:36 am
Joe, The last Republican the NY Times endorsed for president was Eisenhower in 1956.  That was 15 elections ago.  Their paper has always been biased to Democrats and the left but never so noticeably until recently.  Their bias against Trump is just a knee-jerk reaction like putting jam on toast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidential_election_endorsements_made_by_The_New_York_Times

So what’s the immediate reaction by <insert usual suspects here> to my “demagogues, despots and dictators” post? 

Why denigrating the press, of course!  No wonder I come here for the LOLs. :)

The Defense rests.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 03, 2019, 11:03:58 am
So what’s the immediate reaction by <insert usual suspects here> to my “demagogues, despots and dictators” post? 

Why denigrating the press, of course!  No wonder I come here for the LOLs. :)

The Defense rests.

Well actually, my immediate reaction was to point out Obama prosecuted journalists, whereas Trump just talks bad about them.  I would say that this is a movement in the right direction from what Obama implemented. 

Don't worry though, I'll forgive you for missing that and/or refusing to comment on it. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 03, 2019, 12:03:23 pm
I notice that EU NATO countries are contributing 60-70 billion more in their defence as required by the 2% agreement. All have increased their budget for 2019 except cheapskate Germany which has stayed the same and Canada which has gone down.   What's with Canada?   Greece has gone down but they're over the 2% already and doing what they promised.

I'm not sure whether the European NATO partners will meet the deadline and gradually move closer their pledge of dedicating 2% of their GDP on defense in time, in 2020. Instead of spending more than Russia, perhaps one needs to spend it more effectively, like putting more emphasis on Cyberwarfare and Drones than on traditional equipment.

Quote
Trump's pressure a couple of years ago on NATO countries about their not meeting their obligations has paid off.

No matter how often you repeat it, it remains bullshit and it's incorrect. The goal has been to gradually grow to 2% of GDP in 2020 since it was agreed upon, under President Obama. Trump had little to do with it, other than proving to be an unreliable partner (which motivated to continue increasing the spending). The level of US military spending is also a subsidy to the US defense industry, instead of spending it on road maintenance or alternative energy, or affordable health care. It's a choice, not gospel.

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_06/20190625_PR2019-069-EN.pdf
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 03, 2019, 03:13:06 pm
... Trump had little to do with it, other than proving to be an unreliable partner (which motivated to continue increasing the spending)...

You realize you are contradicting yourself in a single sentence?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 03, 2019, 03:19:52 pm
I'm not sure whether the European NATO partners will meet the deadline and gradually move closer their pledge of dedicating 2% of their GDP on defense in time, in 2020. Instead of spending more than Russia, perhaps one needs to spend it more effectively, like putting more emphasis on Cyberwarfare and Drones than on traditional equipment.

No matter how often you repeat it, it remains bullshit and it's incorrect. The goal has been to gradually grow to 2% of GDP in 2020 since it was agreed upon, under President Obama. Trump had little to do with it, other than proving to be an unreliable partner (which motivated to continue increasing the spending). The level of US military spending is also a subsidy to the US defense industry, instead of spending it on road maintenance or alternative energy, or affordable health care. It's a choice, not gospel.

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_06/20190625_PR2019-069-EN.pdf (https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_06/20190625_PR2019-069-EN.pdf)


Exactly my point.  Trump threatened to pull out of NATO if EU NATO did not move up its expenditures on defense which most are now doing.  Obama complained as well that Europe wasn;t doing enough.  This isn't competition between our presidents.  Both wanted you do do more.   It was Europe that hadn't been the dependable partners not the US.  Europe is rich and can afford it.  This isn't 1947 with the Iron Curtain and an impoverished Europe. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 03, 2019, 03:34:36 pm
You realize you are contradicting yourself in a single sentence?

There is no contradiction. 'Little to do' is not the same as 'nothing to do' with it.

If you read the NATO report that I linked to, there was a gradual increase of expenditures since 2012. That has nothing to do with Trump, at all.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 03, 2019, 04:31:44 pm
There is no contradiction. 'Little to do' is not the same as 'nothing to do' with it.

If you read the NATO report that I linked to, there was a gradual increase of expenditures since 2012. That has nothing to do with Trump, at all.
They've been treading water.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on December 03, 2019, 05:49:56 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/03/macron-clashes-with-erdogan-over-anti-isis-kurdish-fighters
Quote
...
The French president asked how it was possible to be a member of the Nato alliance and for Turkey to purchase the Russian S-400 air defence system. “Technically it is not possible,” he said.

Macron, in common with most Nato states’ leaders, maintains that a Russian defence system inside Nato will expose its military hardware, including the F-35 fighter jets, to Russian military intelligence.
Pressed by a reporter about whether the US was going to sanction Turkey for buying the S-400 as the US Congress was demanding, Trump said he was looking at the issue.
He then claimed, incorrectly, that Turkey had been forced into looking at the S-400 because Barack Obama had refused to let Turkey buy the US patriot defence system. “Turkey for a long period of time wanted very much to buy the Patriot system,” Trump said. Obama, he said, “wouldn’t sell” it.
In fact the Obama administration offered the weapon to Turkey repeatedly but Erdoğan refused because the US deal did not include the Patriot’s underlying technology.
...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 04, 2019, 08:44:14 pm
It looks like 75% of the law professors asked about the impeachment relevance think that Mr. Trump clearly violated the constitution in unprecedented ways...

But I assume that the usual whiners will claim that they aren't objective about the situation? ;)

Which is of course akin to saying that they have no ethical values and just let their supposed political inclination drive their expert opinion. The funny thing is that doubting the honesty of the higher form of legal expertise in the US is basically saying that nobody in the US can be trusted... which is a philosophical suicide of the worst kind in that you end up having to claim that the country you love has absolutely no value whatsoever just for the sake of promoting your own political bias.

Unless of course you agree with their expert opinion and finally admit that Trump indeed violated the constitution in a major way.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 04, 2019, 11:45:45 pm
It looks like 75% of the law professors asked about the impeachment relevance clearly think that Mr. Trump clearly violated the constitution in unprecedented ways...

But I assume that the usual whiners will claim that they aren't objective about the situation? ;)

Which is of course akin to saying that they have no ethical values and just let their supposed political inclination drive their expert opinion. The funny thing is that doubting the honesty of the higher form of legal expertise in the US is basically saying that nobody in the US can be trusted... which is a philosophical suicide of the worst kind in that you end up having to claim that the country you love has absolutely no value whatsoever just for the sake of promoting your own political bias.

Unless of course you agree with their expert opinion and finally admit that Trump indeed violated the constitution in a major way.

Cheers,
Bernard

75% of what?  Who picked them?  What does it mean?  What did other say about it?  The fact is Democrats have been trying to impeach the president since the day he was inaugurated three years ago.  They've been looking for something, anything,  to try to pin a crime on him but have only come up with political hijinks, maybe.  Even if he's guilty of it., it doesn;t rise to an impeachable offence.  It's all about politics.  Even the lawyers who claim this or claim that are politically motivated.  Lawyers are use to taking sides and lying through their teeth.  That's what they do. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 05, 2019, 03:58:34 am
It looks like 75% of the law professors asked about the impeachment relevance clearly think that Mr. Trump clearly violated the constitution in unprecedented ways...

But I assume that the usual whiners will claim that they aren't objective about the situation? ;)

Which is of course akin to saying that they have no ethical values and just let their supposed political inclination drive their expert opinion. The funny thing is that doubting the honesty of the higher form of legal expertise in the US is basically saying that nobody in the US can be trusted... which is a philosophical suicide of the worst kind in that you end up having to claim that the country you love has absolutely no value whatsoever just for the sake of promoting your own political bias.

Unless of course you agree with their expert opinion and finally admit that Trump indeed violated the constitution in a major way.

Cheers,
Bernard

Logic never trumps catechism.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 05, 2019, 04:41:12 am
It looks like 75% of the law professors asked about the impeachment relevance clearly think that Mr. Trump clearly violated the constitution in unprecedented ways...

With a claim like this, it is customary to provide a source. Never mind that it resembles the 98% certainty that Hillary would win on the day of the election.

Whether the constitution is violated is for the courts to decide, including the SCOTUS, not someone’s opinions, even if law professors. Never mind that professors in general are mostly loonie left. Impeachment is not a legal matter for the courts, but clearly political, decided by senators’ votes, i.e., laymen opinions.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 05, 2019, 10:25:05 am
With a claim like this, it is customary to provide a source. Never mind that it resembles the 98% certainty that Hillary would win on the day of the election.

Whether the constitution is violated is for the courts to decide, including the SCOTUS, not someone’s opinions, even if law professors. Never mind that professors in general are mostly loonie left. Impeachment is not a legal matter for the courts, but clearly political, decided by senators’ votes, i.e., laymen opinions.

That's a kind of pat on the back, in a way. If profs have bright minds... but then one man's loony is another man's hero.

;-)

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 05, 2019, 11:27:02 am
That's a kind of pat on the back, in a way. If profs have bright minds... but then one man's loony is another man's hero.

Profs tend to live in ivory towers, or model-worlds, as my Econ professor calls it. And yes, I am aware of the irony.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 05, 2019, 11:58:51 am
Profs tend to live in ivory towers, or model-worlds, as my Econ professor calls it. And yes, I am aware of the irony.

Then debate their arguments, the logic they use to arrive at a conclusion, if you can ...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 05, 2019, 12:36:07 pm
Their arguments have nothing to do with it, Bart. It's all "he said, she said." Not a single fact has been brought out in all of this crap. The Dems want to impeach Trump because they don't like him and because Hillary was supposed to win. That's the burden of their "arguments." In a normal trial, facts are what lead to a verdict. Not in this trial.

But I love it. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! The Dems have been doing it with a machine gun. This morning Wussy Nancy made her pitch, zig zagging all over the place in a voice that would put you to sleep. The Dems are gonna lose the house over this, and I think that's great!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on December 05, 2019, 02:26:44 pm
Now, Amazon is claiming that Trump killed their Pentagon deal.

Quote
Amazon.com Inc. claims it lost a Pentagon cloud contract valued at as much as $10 billion because of political interference by President Donald Trump, according to the judge overseeing the case.

“Plaintiff contends that the procurement process was compromised and negatively affected by the bias expressed publicly by the president and commander in chief Donald Trump against plaintiff,” Campbell-Smith said in a recording of a status hearing released Thursday by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington.

The judge’s comments were the first public confirmation that Amazon cited bias by Trump as grounds to overturn the award to Microsoft. Trump has long criticized Amazon founder Jeff Bezos on everything from the shipping rates his company pays the U.S. Postal Service to his personal ownership of what Trump calls “the Amazon Washington Post.”

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-suit-claims-trump-bias-175503990.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 05, 2019, 02:40:14 pm
Their arguments have nothing to do with it, Bart. It's all "he said, she said."

Huh? The interviews were about the legal aspects of the Constitution.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 05, 2019, 03:16:56 pm
Huh? The interviews were about the legal aspects of the Constitution.

They can argue about that all they want, Bart, but if they're actually going to impeach anyone -- especially the president -- they're going to have to come up with some provable offenses on his part. After more than two years of a crookedly established coup attempt on the part of a special prosecutor they were unable to do that. Now they're rattling their heads about what they heard from somebody else who heard it from somebody else, and pretending that's evidence. The House can have at it, but once the thing gets to the Senate they're dead in the water. The House will vote to impeach, though the Dems will lose the votes of some of their members from districts that went for Trump three years ago. Those Dems with shaky support will lose in the next election and the Republicans will take back the House, but for now the vote will be to impeach. On the other hand, since none of these idiots have been able to come up with an impeachable offense, there's a reasonable chance that the Senate will reject the impeachment out of hand and not even discuss it or vote on it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on December 05, 2019, 03:40:17 pm
They can argue about that all they want, Bart, but if they're actually going to impeach anyone -- especially the president -- they're going to have to come up with some provable offenses on his part. After more than two years of a crookedly established coup attempt on the part of a special prosecutor they were unable to do that. Now they're rattling their heads about what they heard from somebody else who heard it from somebody else, and pretending that's evidence. The House can have at it, but once the thing gets to the Senate they're dead in the water. The House will vote to impeach, though the Dems will lose the votes of some of their members from districts that went for Trump three years ago. Those Dems with shaky support will lose in the next election and the Republicans will take back the House, but for now the vote will be to impeach. On the other hand, since none of these idiots have been able to come up with an impeachable offense, there's a reasonable chance that the Senate will reject the impeachment out of hand and not even discuss it or vote on it.
So basically the constitutional scholars who testified yesterday don't have any idea what they are talking about?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 05, 2019, 03:41:33 pm
So basically the constitutional scholars who testified yesterday don't have any idea what they are talking about?

It's cute that you think Russ actually pays attention to what he's ranting about ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 05, 2019, 03:59:36 pm
So basically the constitutional scholars who testified yesterday don't have any idea what they are talking about?

Fab, you're missing the point. The point is that nobody has come up with actual offenses by Trump. Constitutional scholars can testify all they want to about what the Constitution says, but until the Democrats come up with impeachable offenses it's all head-rattling.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: EricV on December 05, 2019, 04:10:18 pm
It looks like 75% of the law professors asked about the impeachment relevance think that Mr. Trump clearly violated the constitution in unprecedented ways...
I believe 75% of the law professors invited to testify before the House were invited by Democrats.  I only heard part of what they said, but in the part I heard they hedged, saying only something like "if Congress concludes that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine for personal gain, then that is an impeachable offense".  They did not actually claim that Trump committed an offense, they only said that if he committed the offense, it would be impeachable.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 05, 2019, 05:59:03 pm
I believe 75% of the law professors invited to testify before the House were invited by Democrats.  I only heard part of what they said, but in the part I heard they hedged, saying only something like "if Congress concludes that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine for personal gain, then that is an impeachable offense".  They did not actually claim that Trump committed an offense, they only said that if he committed the offense, it would be impeachable.

If the president asked Ukraine to investigate its government and the Bidens for corruption because it appears there was corruption by the Bidens, then it's not impeachable even if there's political fallout in the president's benefit.  Otherwise a president, any president, who likewise legitimately directs a government agency to investigate something where there is associate political fallout, could be accused of an impeachable offense.   So a president would be prevented from operating in his constitutionally granted powers. 

In other words, if Biden wasn't running for president, would it have been proper for a president to call for his investigation because there appears to be some corruption going on and hold back money (quid-pro-quo) from the country until they agreed to investigate?  If there answer is yes, then there can be no violation of the constitution. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 05, 2019, 06:10:09 pm
At least in America, impeachment is done with decorum, more or less.  In France, they're rioting in the streets against President Macron.  He is probably jealous that he can't get impeached like Trump.  :)
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/05/785018695/national-strike-in-france-shuts-down-cities-over-macrons-pension-reform-plans
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 05, 2019, 06:17:33 pm
Biden's already dropping more in the newest California polls today.  What's going to happen when people start asking questions about him and his son;s involvement in the Ukraine fiasco once the impeachment trial begins in the senate. 
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-05/democrats-2020-race-california-poll

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: D Fuller on December 05, 2019, 09:49:13 pm
I believe 75% of the law professors invited to testify before the House were invited by Democrats.  I only heard part of what they said, but in the part I heard they hedged, saying only something like "if Congress concludes that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine for personal gain, then that is an impeachable offense".  They did not actually claim that Trump committed an offense, they only said that if he committed the offense, it would be impeachable.

That's not hedging. That's exactly their reason for being called: do help define what an impeachable offense would be, not to opine about whether one has been committed. The language of the constitution is archaic. Phrases like "high crimes and misdemeanors" meant something quite specific in the 1780s, but what tose phrases meant then is not self-evident now. It was not, in anyone's imagination, their job to determine--or even to opine about--whether an impeachable offense was committed.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 05, 2019, 10:05:50 pm
I believe 75% of the law professors invited to testify before the House were invited by Democrats.  I only heard part of what they said, but in the part I heard they hedged, saying only something like "if Congress concludes that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine for personal gain, then that is an impeachable offense".  They did not actually claim that Trump committed an offense, they only said that if he committed the offense, it would be impeachable.

Yes, you are correct.

They answered the question they were being asked.

What needs to be done next is to combine their clear answer with the obvious answers provided earlier by witnesses under oath that Trump indeed did what he is being accused of.

The logical result is the impeachment.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 05, 2019, 10:08:42 pm
If the president asked Ukraine to investigate its government and the Bidens for corruption because it appears there was corruption by the Bidens, then it's not impeachable even if there's political fallout in the president's benefit.  Otherwise a president, any president, who likewise legitimately directs a government agency to investigate something where there is associate political fallout, could be accused of an impeachable offense.   So a president would be prevented from operating in his constitutionally granted powers. 

In other words, if Biden wasn't running for president, would it have been proper for a president to call for his investigation because there appears to be some corruption going on and hold back money (quid-pro-quo) from the country until they agreed to investigate?  If there answer is yes, then there can be no violation of the constitution.

Alan,

You make me think of this man who keeps claiming that 1+1=3, hoping that after all the other sane people around him die he’ll finally be right...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 05, 2019, 10:09:17 pm
The law professors called by the Democrat opposition party, at least some of them, did opine that Trump committed an impeachable offense.  They acted like a jury listening to  evidence presented by the prosecution with no formal rebuttal or cross-examination.  Neither was the president allowed to call his own witnesses to defend himself.  It is a Star Chamber hearing where the prosecution is also the judge and jury.  The law professors should have their licenses to practice law revoked for allowing themselves to be sucked into a political lynching.   See how they condemned the president about 2/3 down the page.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/karlan-feldman-turley-gerhardt.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/karlan-feldman-turley-gerhardt.html)

We'll see how they'll squeal like stuck pigs when the Republicans who will run the Senate trial play the same games as the Democrats did in the House.    Then you'll hear them complain about how one-sided the trial was.  All phonies. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 05, 2019, 10:14:44 pm
Alan,

You make me think of this man who keeps claiming that 1+1=3, hoping that after all the other sane people around him die he’ll finally be right...

Cheers,
Bernard
The Bidens may be guilty of what the Democrats are calling the president guilty of.  Bribery.  VP Biden's son receive $50K a month for a no show job in Ukraine and his father got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired for investigating the company his son was working for.  1+1=2. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 05, 2019, 11:09:39 pm
The law professors called by the Democrat opposition party, at least some of them, did opine that Trump committed an impeachable offense.  They acted like a jury listening to  evidence presented by the prosecution with no formal rebuttal or cross-examination.  Neither was the president allowed to call his own witnesses to defend himself.  It is a Star Chamber hearing where the prosecution is also the judge and jury.  The law professors should have their licenses to practice law revoked for allowing themselves to be sucked into a political lynching.   See how they condemned the president about 2/3 down the page.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/karlan-feldman-turley-gerhardt.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/karlan-feldman-turley-gerhardt.html)

We'll see how they'll squeal like stuck pigs when the Republicans who will run the Senate trial play the same games as the Democrats did in the House.    Then you'll hear them complain about how one-sided the trial was.  All phonies.

Again, more circular thinking from you Alan.

As I predicted your own bias according to which everyone acts according to political motives is shaping your views of the world and confirming your bias in the kind of endless loops that sends planes crashing to the ground.

In the process you are calling your own country corrupt to the core without even realizing it.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 05, 2019, 11:35:26 pm
Again, more circular thinking from you Alan.

As I predicted your own bias according to which everyone acts according to political motives is shaping your views of the world and confirming your bias in the kind of endless loops that sends planes crashing to the ground.

In the process you are calling your own country corrupt to the core without even realizing it.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard, You don;t understand the adversarial relationship.  It exists in legal applications as well in political situations.  It's biased but that doesn't make it corrupt.  You expect a prosecutor to provide jurors with his side of the issue.  The defense provides the opposite side and the jurors decide.  Likewise in political forums like Congress or parliament.  Adversarial relations are normal, not corrupt.  It only becomes corrupt when the standards of fair play, a level playing field,  are removed like in a dictatorship.   We see that happening currently in a Democrat controlled House regarding impeachment.  We may see it it in a Republican controlled Senate during a trial, although the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who's supposed to act non-politically, will preside.  If too many games are played by either side, the voters will get their say in the matter during an election.  So they are the ultimate deciders of fairness and will decide if anyone oversteps the bounds of acting too corrupt.  Additionally, some complain a biased press corrupts the process as well.  Hopefully, the people see through its bias.  But I'm not convinced if that as of yet. 

The American system of government is probably less corrupt than most systems because of its built-in divisions of authority between the president, Congress and the courts with voters having the final say.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 05, 2019, 11:47:41 pm
The Bidens may be guilty of what the Democrats are calling the president guilty of.  Bribery.  VP Biden's son receive $50K a month for a no show job in Ukraine and his father got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired for investigating the company his son was working for.  1+1=2.

I don’t know of a single serious analysis that claims that this is remotely what happened. Why do you keep repeating it?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 05, 2019, 11:58:17 pm
James,  Here's VP Joe Biden bragging about how he threatened Ukraine officials that the president (Obama) would withhold money for Ukraine unless they fired their prosecutor, exactly what the Democrats accuse Trump of doing.  It's biased that the press doesn't have this in the news every day.  Well, the Republicans will get their chance when the trial is held in the Senate.  Here's the transcript of what Biden said.  You can see the video when you click on the link.

"JOE BIDEN, 23 JANUARY 2018: And that is I’m desperately concerned about the backsliding on the part of Kiev in terms of corruption. They made—I mean, I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. 

(Laughter.)

I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.

Well, there’s still—so they made some genuine substantial changes institutionally and with people. But one of the three institutions, there’s now some backsliding."

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 06, 2019, 06:40:39 am
I believe 75% of the law professors invited to testify before the House were invited by Democrats.  I only heard part of what they said, but in the part I heard they hedged, saying only something like "if Congress concludes that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine for personal gain, then that is an impeachable offense".  They did not actually claim that Trump committed an offense, they only said that if he committed the offense, it would be impeachable.

Bravo and thank you.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 06, 2019, 08:07:45 am
If I was Buttigieg right now, I'd be happier then a kid in a candy store. 

Lets face it, Biden is done!  He and Hunter will be called to testify, and regardless if what he did was legal, it reeks of cronyism, and the American people are tired of cronyism in politics.  This, combined with his ever increasing gaffs (such as sucking on his wife's finger during a campaign press event or talking about 7 year olds bouncing on his lap brushing his wet leg hairs down), his campaign is over. 

Then, since McConnell has already stated he will be making this a long trial and the trial will more then likely be January through March, all of the remaining strong Dem candidates, who are senators, will be pulled off the campaign trail during the most important part of the primary. 

One more thing, democrats really don't like billionaires telling them what to do. 

It is now Buttigieg's primary to loose. 

Of course Trump will benefit greatly from this as well. 

Fact is, the Senate will force the trail to follow the rules of evidence, which state no hearsay or conjecture.  This means, out of all the witnesses called by the Dems, only one witness will be able to testify during the trial, Sondland.  All others testified on hearsay and conjecture.  Then, with Trump calling Schiff and the whistleblower, and the Bidens, he will be able to present his case against a pretty weak case brought forth by the Dems.  Considering how the Dems have been reversing on the whistleblower, this testimony will play to the idea this was a Dem coup all along. 

This combined with the fact the Dems have not passed a single major piece of legislation will kill the Dems chances of keeping the house.  I know a lot of Union people, who typically vote for Dems, that voted for Trump last time around, and all of whom are pissed the USMCA bill is just collecting dust on Pelosi's desk for months now. 

They should have voted for a censure, and then got legislation passed so they have something to campaign on.  This would have put the Republicans between a rock and a hard place.  If the Republicans voted no, they would look like hypocrits, and if they voted yes, they would have felt Trump's wrath, separated the party and been primaried.  Politically, censure was the winning play; impeachment is the loosing play. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 06, 2019, 08:28:44 am
Bravo and thank you.


Lawyers are always cagey with their pronouncements; they don't want to risk blame of prejudice, or error, so they wait for events to unfold for them, and then pounce. As they will.

Don't give yourself a premature congratulation.

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 06, 2019, 08:33:00 am
the American people are tired of cronyism in politics.   

Then, since McConnell has already stated he will be making this a long trial and the trial will more then likely be January through March, all of the remaining strong Dem candidates, who are senators, will be pulled off the campaign trail during the most important part of the primary. 
Weird that Mrs. Mitch McConnell, aka Elaine Chao, got plum Board of Director positions that paid big money for no expertise other than being Mrs. Mitch McConnell.  there is also the inconvenient fact of her family's shipping company getting preferential treatment.  There are other examples that can be cited as well, Wilbur Ross among them.

Quote
Fact is, the Senate will force the trail to follow the rules of evidence, which state no hearsay or conjecture.  This means, out of all the witnesses called by the Dems, only one witness will be able to testify during the trial, Sondland.  All others testified on hearsay and conjecture.  Then, with Trump calling Schiff and the whistleblower, and the Bidens, he will be able to present his case against a pretty weak case brought forth by the Dems.  Considering how the Dems have been reversing on the whistleblower, this testimony will play to the idea this was a Dem coup all along. 
Any statement on witnesses is just conjecture.  I will defer to the lawyers about whether the whistleblower can be compelled to testify in person (and of course he/she is totally irrelevant to the case at this point in time.  We also don't know if the move to a trial in the Senate whether any of those who have refused to testify will be compelled to do so.  If John Bolton shows up to present evidence things may turn out in a way that nobody can anticipate.  Additionally, nobody knows what the Impeachment points are at this point.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 06, 2019, 09:06:30 am
Weird that Mrs. Mitch McConnell, aka Elaine Chao, got plum Board of Director positions that paid big money for no expertise other than being Mrs. Mitch McConnell.  there is also the inconvenient fact of her family's shipping company getting preferential treatment.  There are other examples that can be cited as well, Wilbur Ross among them.
Any statement on witnesses is just conjecture.  I will defer to the lawyers about whether the whistleblower can be compelled to testify in person (and of course he/she is totally irrelevant to the case at this point in time.  We also don't know if the move to a trial in the Senate whether any of those who have refused to testify will be compelled to do so.  If John Bolton shows up to present evidence things may turn out in a way that nobody can anticipate.  Additionally, nobody knows what the Impeachment points are at this point.

Thing about McConnell, you may know this, I may know this, but his actions are not getting the same amount of scrutiny as Biden's or Trump's.  So, really, you're beating a horse that's not going anywhere. 

Agree with you about Bolton; he could totally change things up for either side.  He is the wildcard. 

An added point on the impeachment points.  I have to agree with Turley (who by all intents and purposes is a democrat) that you cant say a president is not above the law and then not be able to show what laws he broke.  So I am interested in seeing exactly what the points are. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 06, 2019, 09:54:49 am
At least in America, impeachment is done with decorum, more or less.  In France, they're rioting in the streets against President Macron.

An alternative is a guilotine, or an assasination like on John F. Kennedy .
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 06, 2019, 10:10:55 am
If the president asked Ukraine to investigate its government and the Bidens for corruption because it appears there was corruption by the Bidens, then it's not impeachable even if there's political fallout in the president's benefit.

Which is the whole point you keep missing, only an announcement of an investigation was requested (and the text for the announcement was provided), and the announcement was planned to be broadcast on CNN. on Fareed Zakaria's "Global Public Square". The sole purpose was to create doubt about Biden's credibility as a political opponent.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 06, 2019, 11:05:29 am
Fact is, the Senate will force the trail to follow the rules of evidence, which state no hearsay or conjecture.

The Republicans may want to brush up their understanding of what "hearsay" is.

Quote
This combined with the fact the Dems have not passed a single major piece of legislation will kill the Dems chances of keeping the house.  I know a lot of Union people, who typically vote for Dems, that voted for Trump last time around, and all of whom are pissed the USMCA bill is just collecting dust on Pelosi's desk for months now.
 

Time to compare with the height of the pile of legislation on Moscow Mitch's desk...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 06, 2019, 11:54:33 am
The Republicans may want to brush up their understanding of what "hearsay" is.
 

Time to compare with the height of the pile of legislation on Moscow Mitch's desk...

Hearsay: information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

I think it is pretty clear Bart.  None of the witnesses called, with the exception of Sondland, spoke about any direct conbversations with Trump.  They were either recounting what they heard from someone, or conjecture.  Those individuals will not be allowed to testify. 

Second, there might be a pile of legislation on McConnells desks, just like with Pelosi, but unlike with Pelosi, the Republicans actually passed bills in the last few years.  Pelosi has not even though they campaigned that they could work with the other side to get stuff done.  They have nothing to campaign on whereas the republicans do, such as tax cuts. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 06, 2019, 11:59:06 am
Bravo and thank you.
Slobo, The three lawyers did take a position and said the president was guilty and deserved to be impeached.  See my post #1846.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 06, 2019, 02:16:44 pm
Weird that Mrs. Mitch McConnell, aka Elaine Chao, got plum Board of Director positions that paid big money for no expertise other than being Mrs. Mitch McConnell.  there is also the inconvenient fact of her family's shipping company getting preferential treatment.  There are other examples that can be cited as well, Wilbur Ross among them.
Any statement on witnesses is just conjecture.  I will defer to the lawyers about whether the whistleblower can be compelled to testify in person (and of course he/she is totally irrelevant to the case at this point in time.  We also don't know if the move to a trial in the Senate whether any of those who have refused to testify will be compelled to do so.  If John Bolton shows up to present evidence things may turn out in a way that nobody can anticipate.  Additionally, nobody knows what the Impeachment points are at this point.
No one cares about McConnell.  He isn't running for President and is not involved in the charges regarding the Ukraine.  Bidens is.  On both scores.

The whistleblower can be compelled because the Constitution supersedes laws by Congress.  The whistleblower has nexus to the impeachment charges.  It was his report that created the charges in the first place.  Therefore, the senate will have the right to set aside any congressional legislation that "protects" him and call him to testify.  So the Republicans will show that this guy is a political operative or at least favors Democrats; not good for proving guilt the president did anything wrong.   

Bolton could gum up the works for Trump.  That part is true. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 06, 2019, 02:23:09 pm
Which is the whole point you keep missing, only an announcement of an investigation was requested (and the text for the announcement was provided), and the announcement was planned to be broadcast on CNN. on Fareed Zakaria's "Global Public Square". The sole purpose was to create doubt about Biden's credibility as a political opponent.
The president didn't want Ukraine to renege on the investigation so wanted them to publicly announce they were going to do an investigation of their corruption.  To suppose your logic, it's just too much to impeach a president for something so inconclusive.  This isn't a parking ticket you;re talking about.  You want to reverse the election of a US president something that has never happened, and tell 65 million Americans their votes don;t count. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 06, 2019, 02:31:32 pm
The president didn't want Ukraine to renege on the investigation so wanted them to publicly announce they were going to do an investigation of their corruption.

Wrong again. The word corruption was not mentioned, only an announcement of an investigation was used as a bribe.

And by the way, the Congressionally approved aid is apparently still not fully released (something like 14% is still withheld) to a country at war with Russia. WHY?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 06, 2019, 02:31:36 pm
Hearsay: information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

I think it is pretty clear Bart.  None of the witnesses called, with the exception of Sondland, spoke about any direct conbversations with Trump.  They were either recounting what they heard from someone, or conjecture.  Those individuals will not be allowed to testify. 

Second, there might be a pile of legislation on McConnells desks, just like with Pelosi, but unlike with Pelosi, the Republicans actually passed bills in the last few years.  Pelosi has not even though they campaigned that they could work with the other side to get stuff done.  They have nothing to campaign on whereas the republicans do, such as tax cuts. 
+1 hearsay.  Of course, if the Dems can get someone who actual heard the president say that he wanted to investigate Biden to destroy him politically, then there could be a severe price to pay.  But I don't think there is more than the transcripts already show which is Trump wanted the Ukrainians to investigate corruption in their country including what the Bidens may have done. 

Frankly, I think the Republicans are making a mistake and should play up the Biden's corruption.  That would justify an investigation by the president just like the Democrats investigated the Trump campaign because there appeared to be some collusion with the Russians.  The Dems did it for political reasons.  But likewise, because there is a nexus to some violation of the law, they can justify what happened.  So similarly Trump could justify it regarding the Bidens.  If Trump isn;t above the law, neither is VP Biden. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 06, 2019, 02:32:51 pm
Wrong again. The word corruption was not mentioned, only an announcement of an investigation was used as a bribe.

And by the way, the Congressionally approved aid is apparently still not fully released (something like 14% is still withheld) to a country at war with Russia. WHY?

Investigate corruption.  Of course.  That's what Obama called for and that's what Trump called for.  You're playing word games.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 06, 2019, 02:33:58 pm
+1 hearsay.  Of course, if the Dems can get someone who actual heard the president say that he wanted to investigate Biden to destroy him politically, then there could be a severe price to pay.  But I don't think there is more than the transcripts already show which is Trump wanted the Ukrainians to investigate corruption in their country including what the Bidens may have done.

There was a whole group of people listening in on the call, all first hand witnesses.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 06, 2019, 02:39:05 pm
There was a whole group of people listening in on the call.
I said that. If the Dems can get someone to say that he asked the Ukrainians to investigate to destroy Biden, then he's in trouble.  But the transcript is out and it doesn;t say that.  So I don;t think that even people listening to what he said will come up with something different.  After all, the transcript says what he said.  People testifying can only say what they thought the president said which could be refuted by the transcript.  The Democrats are arguing they have the transcript that the whistleblower has no importance.  Well, they can't go back now and say the transcript isn;t valid.  They can't have it both ways.  UNless someone can be found to testify that off the record and not in the transcript, Trump said something condemning, there isn't anything more than the transcript.  It's what the Democrats are relying on to impeach.  Their interpretation. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 06, 2019, 02:43:48 pm
I said that. If the Dems can get someone to say that he asked the Ukrainians to investigate to destroy Biden, then he's in trouble.  But the transcript is out and it doesn;t say that.  So I don;t think that even people listening to what he said will come up with something different.  After all, the transcript says what he said.

And that's why it was attempted to hide it on a different server. The people who heard the actual call were upset by what they had witnessed.

The document that Trump released when he was caught, is not the full transcript.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 06, 2019, 02:51:42 pm
And that's why it was attempted to hide it on a different server. The people who heard the actual call were upset by what they had witnessed.

The document that Trump released when he was caught, is not the full transcript.
So if the transcript doesn;t have condemning evidence, what are the democrats impeaching on?  Are they just guessing he did wrong.  You impeach a president on what you think?  Sounds very political to me.  Not very legal. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 06, 2019, 02:52:32 pm
The Dems are rushing to judgment without evidence.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 06, 2019, 03:11:44 pm
And that's why it was attempted to hide it on a different server. The people who heard the actual call were upset by what they had witnessed.

The document that Trump released when he was caught, is not the full transcript.

We've gone over this before, several times.  It has been reported, even by the New York Times on more then one occasion before this whole impeachment thing started, that it became common practice in the Trump administration of putting information on secure servers due to the high number of leaks in the beginning of his presidency. 

If this was the only item kept in this server you might have a point.  But it was not. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 06, 2019, 03:16:04 pm
We've gone over this before, several times.  It has been reported, even by the New York Times on more then one occasion before this whole impeachment thing started, that it became common practice in the Trump administration of putting information on secure servers due to the high number of leaks in the beginning of his presidency. 

If this was the only item kept in this server you might have a point.  But it was not.

It was the only one that didn't routinely warrant such restricted access. Other calls with foreign leaders were not stored there.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 06, 2019, 03:19:56 pm
No wonder the Democrats want to impeach.  They have to mess him up somehow for the election.  Employment up substantially, unemployment down,  The Dow is up 300+ points today because of it. 

"The government reported Friday that payrolls increased by 266,000, easily besting the 187,000 estimate economists polled by Dow Jones had forecast. The unemployment rate ticked back down to 3.5%, matching an earlier 2019 level that at the time was the lowest since 1969."
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/06/heres-where-the-jobs-are-for-november-2019-in-one-chart.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/06/heres-where-the-jobs-are-for-november-2019-in-one-chart.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 06, 2019, 03:24:30 pm
It was the only one that didn't routinely warrant such restricted access. Other calls with foreign leaders were not stored there.

Are you sure about this?  What credible information/reporting is out there that suggests no other calls with foreign leaders were not stored there? 

I have not seen any that I can recall. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on December 06, 2019, 03:29:55 pm
Are you sure about this?  What credible information/reporting is out there that suggests no other calls with foreign leaders were not stored there? I have not seen any that I can recall.
I seem to recall that some (like his calls with Putin) but not all of his calls with foreign heads of state were kept on the secret server. We'll never know for sure. The White House is not cooperating in the investigation.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 06, 2019, 03:54:08 pm
I seem to recall that some (like his calls with Putin) but not all of his calls with foreign heads of state were kept on the secret server. We'll never know for sure. The White House is not cooperating in the investigation.
Who would cooperate with politicians of the opposite party who are trying to crucify you?   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on December 06, 2019, 04:05:39 pm
Who would cooperate with politicians of the opposite party who are trying to crucify you?
Legal obligation. Court recently ruled their is no "absolute immunity" for Executive Branch employees from testifying pursuant to Congressional subpoenas. Legislative branch has duty of oversight. Hence Don McGahn has to testify. There is no stay during the appeal. Second ground of impeachment is going to be obstruction of Congress. Nixon eventually had to give up the tapes.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 06, 2019, 04:38:21 pm
I seem to recall that some (like his calls with Putin) but not all of his calls with foreign heads of state were kept on the secret server. We'll never know for sure. The White House is not cooperating in the investigation.

Which is his right and anyone else for that matter. 

Anyone and everyone has the right to refuse a congressional subpoena.  Now, of course, congress can then take that person to court and the court can force that person to testify, and if he refuses afterwards, he will be guilty of obstruction.  But, until the refusal is challenged in the courts and the courts says that person must testify, there is nothing illegal about not testifying. 

This is where the Dems are going to shoot themselves in the foot, btw. 

Schiff has not yet challenged any refusal in the courts, so Trump can not be guilty of obstruction.  However, it seems that the Dems are going to charge him with obstruction anyway for this act.  Politically this will be fine until Biden is called to testify by the Senate and challenges the subpoena.  Then the Republicans can claim Biden is obstructing justice under the same logic the Dems are using for Trump. 

The Dems then have three choices.  First, they can say Biden is not obstructing, just practicing his right to challenge the subpoena.  But by doing so, it will negate their case that Trump is guilty of obstruction.  Second, they could save face and agree that Biden is guilty (although unlikely).  If they do, this will then create a plausible reason for the request for the investigation.  Or third, they can skirt the issue and give non-answers, such as "we think Biden should perhaps testify to clear things ups," not commenting on his guilt or innocents.  This though will leave the Republican talking point of his guilt of obstruction the only talking point out there.  With a little more time, this too will be massaged to create a plausible reason for the requested investigation.   

Like I said before, impeachment is a loosing play.  Censure would split the Republican party and created an electoral mess for them.  Impeachment though is splitting the Dems and will create a mess for those in purple districts. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on December 06, 2019, 04:44:44 pm
But, until the refusal is challenged in the courts and the courts says that person must testify, there is nothing illegal about not testifying.
Illegal activity is not inchoate until ruled on by a court.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 06, 2019, 04:50:36 pm
Illegal activity is not inchoate until ruled on by a court.

It is not obstruction to not testify until you are ordered to by the courts.  You are allowed to challenge subpoenas. 

The illegal activity, is this case, does not begin until there is refusal to follow a court order. 

The courts have not ruled on any challenges to subpoenas by Trump surrogates. 

As of matter of fact, the only subpoena that has been challenged that is now in court is Bolton's.  No other refusals have been brought to the courts by the house.  I don't even think the house brought Bolton's to the courts, but that Bolton went to the courts himself to see if he can testify, admittedly not a good sign if this is the case. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 06, 2019, 06:32:38 pm
Slobo, The three lawyers did take a position and said the president was guilty and deserved to be impeached.  See my post #1846.

Do you understand the difference btw a lawyer and a professor of law in the world’s top universities?

And no, contrary to what you are saying, they have not formulated any partisan opinion about Trump’s guilt. They have just explained what the law says. And it says that the deeds Trump is accused of are impeachable.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 06, 2019, 06:36:34 pm
It is not obstruction to not testify until you are ordered to by the courts.  You are allowed to challenge subpoenas. 

The illegal activity, is this case, does not begin until there is refusal to follow a court order. 

The courts have not ruled on any challenges to subpoenas by Trump surrogates. 

As of matter of fact, the only subpoena that has been challenged that is now in court is Bolton's.  No other refusals have been brought to the courts by the house.  I don't even think the house brought Bolton's to the courts, but that Bolton went to the courts himself to see if he can testify, admittedly not a good sign if this is the case.

Since common sense seems to be something you value highly, how do you typically judge people who try to escape testimony under oath?

Let me answer that for ya... you see them as having something to hide.

By far the easiest way to debunk a political plot if it were one would have been to accept the requests to testify and to just tell the truth. What’s to be afraid of?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 06, 2019, 06:56:12 pm
Since common sense seems to be something you value highly, how do you typically judge people who try to escape testimony under oath?

Let me answer that for ya... you see them as having something to hide.

By far the easiest way to debunk a political plot if it were one would have been to accept the requests to testify and to just tell the truth. What’s to be afraid of?

Cheers,
Bernard
You're assuming the impeachment hearing was fair, honest and above board.  Trump or anyone else would be a fool to testify in a hearing where the people in charge are your enemy, who act as prosecutor, judge and jury.  If Democrats in Congress had nothing to fear, then they would let Republicans bring their own witnesses to the impeachment hearing and allow certain cross-examination that they refused the Republicans to have.  Maybe Trump should go to Congress with a rope to make it even easier for the Democrats to hang him. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 06, 2019, 06:59:23 pm
Additionally, in America we understand that the accused, including presidents, don't have to prove themselves innocent.  It's up to the prosecutors to prove people guilty.  And the accused do not have to appear.  If Biden, either one, is called to testify in the Senate, what will be your argument if they refuse to testify?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 06, 2019, 07:07:01 pm
Do you understand the difference btw a lawyer and a professor of law in the world’s top universities?

And no, contrary to what you are saying, they have not formulated any partisan opinion about Trump’s guilt. They have just explained what the law says. And it says that the deeds Trump is accused of are impeachable.

Cheers,
Bernard
So Bernard, you agree with me that the professors said that Trump should be impeached.   They defended the Democrats position to impeach and opposed Trump. Would anyone expect these biased professors to say anything different since they were invited by the president's enemies, the Democrats,  to testify??  It's only politics.  Duh!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 06, 2019, 08:21:26 pm
Since common sense seems to be something you value highly, how do you typically judge people who try to escape testimony under oath?

Let me answer that for ya... you see them as having something to hide.

By far the easiest way to debunk a political plot if it were one would have been to accept the requests to testify and to just tell the truth. What’s to be afraid of?

Cheers,
Bernard

Common sense ...... no. 

Logic ... yes. 

Although you could argue that it is common sense that a person who does not want to testify is guilty, it certainly is not logical.  Actually it is referred to as the "presumption of guilt" fallacy, with fallacy being the key word there.  Presuming someone is guilty, especially if they do not choose to testify, is an universally logical fallacy that even the world court upholds. 

The problem is there have been lots of cases where someone does not testify only to be found undeniably innocent later on. 

And lets not forget that the Maranda rights state that everything can and will be used against you.  If it is obvious that a large portion of those coming after you have been seething for this moment, why give them anything?  ???  It is actually considered smart to to shut your mouth and lawyer up. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on December 06, 2019, 08:41:48 pm
Hearsay: information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

It's not easy to formulate a simple, comprehensive, non-technical definition of the hearsay rule (https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/) in U.S. federal procedure, but the basic idea is that, by default, the court will not admit as evidence the testimony of a witness regarding a statement the witness heard from a third party if the testimony is offered to prove the truth of the third-party statement.  However, there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule.

It is important to remember that an impeachment is not a criminal trial.  It is not judicial proceeding.  It is a legislative process that was designed to provide a check against abuse of power by the president, vice president, and other "civil officers" of the United States (e.g., federal judges, cabinet members and other appointive officials, etc.).

If hearsay evidence is offered during a Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, the presiding officer―U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts―would need to rule on whether the evidence is admissible.  I would expect Justice Roberts to be generally guided by the federal rules of evidence in situations such as this, but also for him to exercise considerable discretion in applying the rules, especially if the White House continues to prevent knowledgeable witnesses from testifying.  And since this would only be the third removal proceeding for a U.S. president, I think any attempt to predict how he would rule on any particular proffer of evidence amounts to pure conjecture.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 06, 2019, 08:59:51 pm
Seems Biden campaing is done even before it started. The culprit? No, not Ukraine. One word.

Joe Biden’s ‘No Malarkey!’ Tour ☘️

Malarkey...seriously?  Sounds like a word from a 1930s/40s B&W movie.🎥  He must be going after the 90-something Irish-American vote.  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 06, 2019, 09:39:46 pm
Seems Biden campaing is done even before it started. The culprit? No, not Ukraine. One word.

Joe Biden’s ‘No Malarkey!’ Tour ☘️

Malarkey...seriously?  Sounds like a word from a 1930s/40s B&W movie.🎥  He must be going after the 90-something Irish-American vote.  ;D ;D ;D

Biden's Popularity Skyrockets Among Coveted 1920s Working Class Demographic (https://babylonbee.com/news/bidens-popularity-skyrockets-among-americans-living-in-the-1920s)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 07, 2019, 12:35:38 am
So Bernard, you agree with me that the professors said that Trump should be impeached.   They defended the Democrats position to impeach and opposed Trump. Would anyone expect these biased professors to say anything different since they were invited by the president's enemies, the Democrats,  to testify??  It's only politics.  Duh!

No.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 07, 2019, 12:38:57 am
Common sense ...... no. 

Logic ... yes. 

Although you could argue that it is common sense that a person who does not want to testify is guilty, it certainly is not logical.  Actually it is referred to as the "presumption of guilt" fallacy, with fallacy being the key word there.  Presuming someone is guilty, especially if they do not choose to testify, is an universally logical fallacy that even the world court upholds. 

The problem is there have been lots of cases where someone does not testify only to be found undeniably innocent later on. 

And lets not forget that the Maranda rights state that everything can and will be used against you.  If it is obvious that a large portion of those coming after you have been seething for this moment, why give them anything?  ???  It is actually considered smart to to shut your mouth and lawyer up.

Why would there be something to give if you have nothing to hide?

Apologies Joe, I fail to see any logic in your statements. You can certainly come up with some sort of unknown falacy to justify just about anything. It doesn’t make it the most likely story.

The plain and simple story is that if they had nothing to hide it would be overwhelmingly in their interest to testify.

I applaud the intellectual effort to try to go around this, that’s good fun, but isn’t it ample time to concede to the obvious truth by now?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 07, 2019, 04:07:01 am
It is not obstruction to not testify until you are ordered to by the courts.  You are allowed to challenge subpoenas.

The illegal activity, is this case, does not begin until there is refusal to follow a court order.

That could be the case, I'll let lawyers decide that, but it's not in line with the oath of office, is it? To support and defend, is not the same as to frustrate the process.

Quote
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 07, 2019, 04:18:59 am
[...]
The problem is there have been lots of cases where someone does not testify only to be found undeniably innocent later on.

But the witnesses are not being indicted. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 07, 2019, 08:58:04 am
Why would there be something to give if you have nothing to hide?

Apologies Joe, I fail to see any logic in your statements. You can certainly come up with some sort of unknown falacy to justify just about anything. It doesn’t make it the most likely story.

The plain and simple story is that if they had nothing to hide it would be overwhelmingly in their interest to testify.

I applaud the intellectual effort to try to go around this, that’s good fun, but isn’t it ample time to concede to the obvious truth by now?

Cheers,
Bernard

That is not how the rule of law works.  You need to prove guilt, not innocents.  As of now, there is not proof of intent, which is necessary for the bribery (or what ever they call it).  And the obstruction charges are completely non-existent since the courts have not ruled on any challenges yet. 

The case is very weak, and even the Dems know it.  That is why you have Schiff saying things like, "we cant afford to wait for the facts to come out!"  Perhaps because the facts dont back up the claims.  And then you have other Dems insisting "hearsay evidence can be much better then direct evidence."  Much better, really, who would have thought. 

Also, let's not forget exactly how unscrupulous Schiff has been.  He made up his version of the phone conversation and read it, with out explaining it was a made up, to the country during congress.  He lied about not knowing the identity of the whistleblower, and if you actually believe him I have a very nice bridge to sell you real cheap too.  He was just caught spying on the phone records of political rivals and reporters who do not cover the impeachment favorably for Dems.  It is obvious how corrupt he is; why even work with him. 

But regardless of how you feel about Trump's guilt or innocents, look at it politically. 

You are a foreigner, so you certainly are not seeing the day to day status of the Democratic party, but it is completely fractured between the progressives and the moderates, and no one has the ability to unite them like Obama did.  I have a lot of Dems in my family, moderates and progressives, and they are at each others throats more then they are with me.  So this issue is only going to break up the party more, which is already evident with moderate Dems showing 2nd thoughts.  Add to that absolutely no republican support; as a matter of fact, unlike the Dems, this issue has completely united the Republicans, even never-Trumpers in the party.  Also, according to recent polling, there is a drop in support in the purple districts, and swing states, amongst independents.  Last, when this moves to the Senate, the Dems will be giving up control to the Republicans, and Cocaine Mitch's house horrors will go into full swing, whom (let's be honest) is a master strategist.  Everyone knows how the Senate will vote at the end of it, which has some Dems out there now saying that there is no limit to how many times you can impeach a president, and they will simply find something else after this is over.  (I can see that quote being quite the effective RNC campaign ad come next year.) 

It is going to be a political disaster, especially considering the Dems have no legislation to campaign on next year.  If you cant see this, then you are simply allowing your ideology to blind your logic.  But the thing is, censure would have accomplished the direct opposite.  It would have united Dems (at least on this), fractured the Republicans, and then given the Dems some time left over to pass legislation. 

Fractured parties don't win national elections, and the rift forming in the Democratic party is immense.  It's making me think of the McGovern campaign. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 07, 2019, 09:22:08 am
What would it say about US democracy if this had not been uncovered and Trump had been able to use the power of office to coerce another nation into causing political harm to one of his opponents? Do you think this is good thing? Do you think he should be allowed to get away with trying to do this? Do you really believe that protecting "your" guy is that important?

Just because you win an election doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.

The impression that is left is that Trump supporters don't actually want democracy. That's how it looks from the outside.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 07, 2019, 09:30:57 am
What would it say about US democracy if this had not been uncovered and Trump had been able to use the power of office to coerce another nation into causing political harm to one of his opponents? Do you think this is good thing? Do you think he should be allowed to get away with trying to do this? Do you really believe that protecting "your" guy is that important?

Just because you win an election doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.

The impression that is left is that Trump supporters don't actually want democracy. That's how it looks from the outside.

Sure, that would be a problem, but it has not been proven.  Only Sondland has given direct testimony and he did not provide evidence that that was the intent. 

But I'll throw it back at you.  What would you say if it turned out the Dems are doing this just because they do not like Trump or his policies?  Do you think it is appropriate to hold hostage the country with impeachment just because some people are upset with policy changes? 

The reason I ask is because many in congress campaigned solely on impeaching Trump and have been working towards this since day one.  So to say this does not look politically motivated is ridiculous. 

What if it turns out Schiff, and others, acted with malice and fabricated the whole thing in conjunction with the whistleblower?  Would you approve his impeachment or charges of treason against him? 

But you are still missing the point.  Politically the Dems are cutting off their nose to spite their face.  There is no support what so ever on the other side, which tells you this is purely political and will backfire spectacularly.  I only wonder, if Pelosi looses her speakership over this, will she resign like Newt Gingrich did? 

This whole thing is making me think of Gabriel García Márquez's Story of a Death Foretold.  Everyone knew Santiago Nasar was going to be murdered except Santiago Nasar, just like everyone knows the Dems are going to be killed politically over this except for the Dems. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 07, 2019, 10:03:09 am
Sure, that would be a problem, but it has not been proven.  Only Sondland has given direct testimony and he did not provide evidence that that was the intent. 

While that is true in terms of those who testified before the House Intelligence Committee, you and others cannot ignore the damning statement of Mullvaney who admitted on television to the quid pro quo.  Of course he tried to back track this later on when he realized that he had given the game away.  How this is used in the Articles of Impeachment remains to be seen.  None of us know what the Judiciary Committee will do with this and a lot of other information.  Maybe you and others don't see this as incriminating.  Some of us do and it is clearly not "second hand" information. 

As Speaker Pelosi said the other day, this is all about Russia.  Ukraine is their proxy.  BTW, there is still about $60M of aid to the Ukraine that still has not been delivered.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 07, 2019, 10:14:57 am
While that is true in terms of those who testified before the House Intelligence Committee, you and others cannot ignore the damning statement of Mullvaney who admitted on television to the quid pro quo.  Of course he tried to back track this later on when he realized that he had given the game away.  How this is used in the Articles of Impeachment remains to be seen.  None of us know what the Judiciary Committee will do with this and a lot of other information.  Maybe you and others don't see this as incriminating.  Some of us do and it is clearly not "second hand" information. 

As Speaker Pelosi said the other day, this is all about Russia.  Ukraine is their proxy.  BTW, there is still about $60M of aid to the Ukraine that still has not been delivered.

No, it was not a damning statement! 

The point Mullvaney was making, which he was pretty clear about in a follow up, was that quid pro quos are part of all foreign policy.  No country does for another without something being done for them.  That is how it works. 

I will admit that this whole strategy of Trump saying there was no QPQ is kind of dubious, but you still have not proven intent to hurt Biden solely for the 2020 election instead of just following up on pre-2016 election corruption.  And pretty much everything that has come out points to Trump being concerned with pre-2016 corruption. 

Insofar as some of you do, it is only democrats that do, and not even all of them.  Turley, a democrat, testified against doing this.  No republicans support this.  Unless you can get Bolton to testify that this was about 2020 election interference only and republicans get on board, this will be politically disastrous for the Dems. 

However, I just don't see how you will do this since the Dems will be basically handing full control of this process to the party that staunchly opposes it and are looking for blood. 

When Cocaine Mitch gets full control of the trial, he is going to make this into a horror show for the Dems, and everyone in his party is cheering him on right now.  Do you really think that is going to bode out well for the Dems?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 07, 2019, 10:22:34 am
As Speaker Pelosi said the other day, this is all about Russia.  Ukraine is their proxy.

Absolutely, Alan, as Mueller demonstrated conclusively after two years of bumbling around and 32 million dollars of taxpayer money down the drain because of Democrat anger over the fact that Hillary lost. What BS!

Nancy knows better, Alan, and you should too.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 07, 2019, 10:29:57 am
But the witnesses are not being indicted. 

Why would anyone trust Congressman Adam Schiff to treat them fairly?  You'd have to be out of your mind.  He'd twist anything you said into something to his and the democrats advantage not caring if he destroyed your life in the process. 


Then if they wanted to get you they'd twist what you said and try to destroy you and then you'd first have to hire a lawyer to defend yourself and watch your life savings go down the drain paying off your lawyer. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 07, 2019, 10:42:15 am
But the witnesses are not being indicted. 

Why would anyone trust Congressman Adam Schiff to treat them fairly?  You'd have to be out of your mind.  He'd twist anything you said into something to his and the democrats advantage not caring if he destroyed your life in the process. 


Then if they wanted to get you they'd twist what you said and try to destroy you and then you'd first have to hire a lawyer to defend yourself and watch your life savings go down the drain paying off your lawyer. 
It's not easy to formulate a simple, comprehensive, non-technical definition of the hearsay rule (https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/) in U.S. federal procedure, but the basic idea is that, by default, the court will not admit as evidence the testimony of a witness regarding a statement the witness heard from a third party if the testimony is offered to prove the truth of the third-party statement.  However, there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule.

It is important to remember that an impeachment is not a criminal trial.  It is not judicial proceeding.  It is a legislative process that was designed to provide a check against abuse of power by the president, vice president, and other "civil officers" of the United States (e.g., federal judges, cabinet members and other appointive officials, etc.).

If hearsay evidence is offered during a Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, the presiding officer―U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts―would need to rule on whether the evidence is admissible.  I would expect Justice Roberts to be generally guided by the federal rules of evidence in situations such as this, but also for him to exercise considerable discretion in applying the rules, especially if the White House continues to prevent knowledgeable witnesses from testifying.  And since this would only be the third removal proceeding for a U.S. president, I think any attempt to predict how he would rule on any particular proffer of evidence amounts to pure conjecture.
But Chris, most of the witness testimony so far would be considered hearsay and not admissible in a trial in the Senate. The witnesses just repeated what other people told them.  The other side cannot cross examine since the second parties never really heard or saw what happened.  That's classic hearsay testimony.  The Chief Justice would not allow that into evidence. 

That's why the so-called legal professors who claimed Trump is guilty and should be impeach are just politicians called by the Democrats.  They based their opinion on a lot of hearsay evidence.  There was no cross examination really and defense witness were not even called like the whistleblower or the Bidens, who would have to swear they didn't do anything that is corrupt.  People can argue this isn't a trial.  But they are hearings to determine someone's guilt.  That sounds like a a trial.   And the American people expect fairness in these things or they won't accept the conclusions seeing them for what they are - just politics. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 07, 2019, 10:53:44 am
That could be the case, I'll let lawyers decide that, but it's not in line with the oath of office, is it? To support and defend, is not the same as to frustrate the process.

The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

Bart.  You're mistaken.  You don't understand how the COnstitution works.  The founders of the constitution set up the whole process to make it frustrating.  All the checks and balances between the different branches were set in place to do exactly that. They feared governmental power.  So each branch has to be on-board to make government work.  They didn't want the process to be a roll over by any one branch.  They created an adversarial system.  Each branch, the executive (president), legislative, Congress and Judicial, are co-equal to each other.  Co-equal.  That means that each can defend its powers. Any one branch is not subservient to other branches. 

For example, Congress can make laws but the President can veto.  The president can make agreements with foreign nations.  But the Senate must agree to make it binding.  The president can pick justices for the courts.  But the Senate has to confirm.  Laws can be approved bu Congress and the president. But the Courts can declare them unconstitutional.  Judges can be impeached by COngress and removed from office.  So presidents are always defending their position and refusing to comply with Congressional demands.  President are entitled to do that.  That's not violating the constitution but rather protecting it from an overreaching Congress.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 07, 2019, 11:01:46 am
What would it say about US democracy if this had not been uncovered and Trump had been able to use the power of office to coerce another nation into causing political harm to one of his opponents? Do you think this is good thing? Do you think he should be allowed to get away with trying to do this? Do you really believe that protecting "your" guy is that important?

Just because you win an election doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.

The impression that is left is that Trump supporters don't actually want democracy. That's how it looks from the outside.

Aren't the democrats in the House of Representatives using the power of their office to go after the President politically using the appearance of Trump acting politically against the Bidens?  How is that different than what you accuse the president of?  After all, the VP isn;t above the law any more than the president is.  Shouldn't Biden be investigated for possible crimes as well considered what he and his son did in the Ukraine??  If it's OK for one side, it should be OK for the other.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 07, 2019, 11:06:58 am
While that is true in terms of those who testified before the House Intelligence Committee, you and others cannot ignore the damning statement of Mullvaney who admitted on television to the quid pro quo.  Of course he tried to back track this later on when he realized that he had given the game away.  How this is used in the Articles of Impeachment remains to be seen.  None of us know what the Judiciary Committee will do with this and a lot of other information.  Maybe you and others don't see this as incriminating.  Some of us do and it is clearly not "second hand" information. 

As Speaker Pelosi said the other day, this is all about Russia.  Ukraine is their proxy.  BTW, there is still about $60M of aid to the Ukraine that still has not been delivered.

We should only give them the $60 million if they agree to investigate the Bidens and make a public statement that they intend to do just that.  The Bidens shouldn't get away with corruption.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 07, 2019, 12:03:44 pm
Aren't the democrats in the House of Representatives using the power of their office to go after the President politically using the appearance of Trump acting politically against the Bidens?  How is that different than what you accuse the president of?

Trump involved a foreign power in his machinations, that's how.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 07, 2019, 12:42:12 pm
Trump involved a foreign power in his machinations, that's how.
Corruption doesn;t stop at our borders.  If a VP seems to be abusing his office to gain financial returns for his son, that should be investigated.  It's legal for an administration to ask a foreign power to investigate when an American commits a crime overseas that may have violated US law.   We do it all the time.  All countries do the same thing.  The fact that there may be political failout is Biden's problem no less than it was Trump's problem by making it seem to democrats in congress that he colluded with Russia. Neither the president or the VP is above the law.


Of course there are political overtones in both situations.  There's a appearance of it only being political in nature.  But there was a nexus to possible crime in both cases.  Biden should have kept his nose clean and told President Obama he had to recluse himself in dealing with corruption in the Ukraine.  After all, his son was working for one of Ukrainian companies that was being investigated for corruption.  Instead, Biden got involved and even pressed the Ukrainian government to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor.  That smells.  So he can;t now claim that he's being unfairly treated by the president.  He should have told Obama he couldn't get involved in the Ukrainian situation and recused himself. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 07, 2019, 03:08:30 pm
That is not how the rule of law works.  You need to prove guilt, not innocents.  As of now, there is not proof of intent, which is necessary for the bribery (or what ever they call it).  And the obstruction charges are completely non-existent since the courts have not ruled on any challenges yet. 

The case is very weak, and even the Dems know it.  That is why you have Schiff saying things like, "we cant afford to wait for the facts to come out!"  Perhaps because the facts dont back up the claims.  And then you have other Dems insisting "hearsay evidence can be much better then direct evidence."  Much better, really, who would have thought. 

Also, let's not forget exactly how unscrupulous Schiff has been.  He made up his version of the phone conversation and read it, with out explaining it was a made up, to the country during congress.  He lied about not knowing the identity of the whistleblower, and if you actually believe him I have a very nice bridge to sell you real cheap too.  He was just caught spying on the phone records of political rivals and reporters who do not cover the impeachment favorably for Dems.  It is obvious how corrupt he is; why even work with him. 

But regardless of how you feel about Trump's guilt or innocents, look at it politically. 

You are a foreigner, so you certainly are not seeing the day to day status of the Democratic party, but it is completely fractured between the progressives and the moderates, and no one has the ability to unite them like Obama did.  I have a lot of Dems in my family, moderates and progressives, and they are at each others throats more then they are with me.  So this issue is only going to break up the party more, which is already evident with moderate Dems showing 2nd thoughts.  Add to that absolutely no republican support; as a matter of fact, unlike the Dems, this issue has completely united the Republicans, even never-Trumpers in the party.  Also, according to recent polling, there is a drop in support in the purple districts, and swing states, amongst independents.  Last, when this moves to the Senate, the Dems will be giving up control to the Republicans, and Cocaine Mitch's house horrors will go into full swing, whom (let's be honest) is a master strategist.  Everyone knows how the Senate will vote at the end of it, which has some Dems out there now saying that there is no limit to how many times you can impeach a president, and they will simply find something else after this is over.  (I can see that quote being quite the effective RNC campaign ad come next year.) 

It is going to be a political disaster, especially considering the Dems have no legislation to campaign on next year.  If you cant see this, then you are simply allowing your ideology to blind your logic.  But the thing is, censure would have accomplished the direct opposite.  It would have united Dems (at least on this), fractured the Republicans, and then given the Dems some time left over to pass legislation. 

Fractured parties don't win national elections, and the rift forming in the Democratic party is immense.  It's making me think of the McGovern campaign.

You have absolutely not answered to my point.

If there is only one direct testimony it’s because the other guys who would confirm the story have refused to testify under oath.

And this further reinforces the strong suspicion that they are refusing to testify because they have major things to hide.

I am sorry, but you refusing to admit this casts a clear doubt about the honesty of your opinions.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 07, 2019, 03:25:27 pm
Aren't the democrats in the House of Representatives using the power of their office to go after the President politically using the appearance of Trump acting politically against the Bidens?  How is that different than what you accuse the president of?  After all, the VP isn;t above the law any more than the president is.  Shouldn't Biden be investigated for possible crimes as well considered what he and his son did in the Ukraine??  If it's OK for one side, it should be OK for the other.   

Political infighting is normal. Using the power of the state to benefit you personally is not.

I know that you understand this, stop pretending that you don't.

As I (and others) have said before, if Biden did something wrong, then sure, go after him too, what do I care about Biden. But whether or not Biden did anything wrong is immaterial. If Trump really thought Biden was dirty, he had plenty of investigative power and agencies at his disposal, all he had to do was do it.


Btw, I see from his statements at the NATO talks that Trump thinks that the oil in Syria or anywhere else is his. Do you not have a problem with this? Why not?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 07, 2019, 03:47:49 pm
Thanks, Barack Hussein Obama!

“Muhammad makes list of top 10 baby names in the US for the first time“

One more reason to re-elect Trump (if we ever needed more)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on December 07, 2019, 03:54:22 pm
Trump's latest conspiracy theory:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/07/politics/trump-americans-flushing-toilets-intl/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/07/politics/trump-americans-flushing-toilets-intl/index.html)

I guess Trump's followers believe this is a real and pressing problem for the American people. Anyone here flushing their toilet 10-15 times instead of once?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 07, 2019, 04:03:36 pm
With low flow toilets it's usually at least twice. But the greens will tell you that every time you flush you're saving water, so that's a good deal.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 07, 2019, 04:39:29 pm
I have to keep and use a plunger once or twice a week because the toilet gets stuffed up.  These 1 gallon per flush toilets don't work right.  I have to time my flushes and flush two or three times every time I go as I use them to avoid them getting stuffed.  What a revolting situation it is.  Where I live in the northeast, we don;t have a water problem.  Maybe in the west.  But not here.  When I worked for NYC school division, they did a survey to replace all the 5 gpf toilets and urinals with 1 gpf units.  After doing a survey, we calculated hundreds of millions to be spent to replace the units.  It would have saved maybe 1% of the daily water used in NYC, not worth doing.   I retired and I'm not sure if they actually did the project or not.  They're just as stupid here in NJ where I moved.

The nearby mall have urinals that don;t use water.  Don;t ask.  What a smell. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on December 07, 2019, 04:41:12 pm
So not 10-15 flushes instead of once.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 07, 2019, 04:45:34 pm
Political infighting is normal. Using the power of the state to benefit you personally is not.

I know that you understand this, stop pretending that you don't.

As I (and others) have said before, if Biden did something wrong, then sure, go after him too, what do I care about Biden. But whether or not Biden did anything wrong is immaterial. If Trump really thought Biden was dirty, he had plenty of investigative power and agencies at his disposal, all he had to do was do it.


Btw, I see from his statements at the NATO talks that Trump thinks that the oil in Syria or anywhere else is his. Do you not have a problem with this? Why not?
Just curious if you complained when Obama used the IRS to go after political opponents?  How about when the Democrats went after TRump for colluding with the Russians where people like you accused him of treason?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 07, 2019, 04:46:27 pm
So not 10-15 flushes instead of once.
Read my post.  It's in plain English.  Nothing fancy. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 07, 2019, 04:46:51 pm
You have absolutely not answered to my point.

If there is only one direct testimony it’s because the other guys who would confirm the story have refused to testify under oath.

And this further reinforces the strong suspicion that they are refusing to testify because they have major things to hide.

I am sorry, but you refusing to admit this casts a clear doubt about the honesty of your opinions.

Cheers,
Bernard

No it does not. 

Schiff has proven himself to be incredibly corrupt.  He made up his own version of the phone call and only admitted to it when he was called out outside of congress, selectively leaked info to the press, refused to even allow certain lines of questioning, lied about not knowing the whistleblower after it came out his staff worked with the WB full 12 weeks before this whole thing started, and is now spying on republican lawmakers and conservative reporters. 

There is no reason I can think to cooperate with him.  He is running a kangaroo court that already determined the verdict.  Anything Trump would have done would have been spun by Schiff regardless of how innocent it was. 

Provide a fair arbitrator and you'll have a different opinion from me, but Schiff was far from fair.  He residing over the hearings help a lot with half the country becoming disillusioned with the inquir. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 07, 2019, 04:50:41 pm
No it does not. 

Schiff has proven himself to incredibly corrupt.  He made up his own version of the phone call, selectively leaked info to the press, refused to even allow certain lines of questioning, lied about not knowing the whistleblower, and is now spying on republican lawmakers and conservative reporters. 

There is no reason I can think to cooperate with him.  He is running a kangaroo court. 
Joe, you know you'd be crazy to take legal advice from anyone here.  You'd wind up in jail quicker than Flynn.  Even Trump's own lawyer didn;t know to keep his mouth shut and wound up getting three years.  What bozos.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 07, 2019, 05:24:23 pm
Trump's latest conspiracy theory:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/07/politics/trump-americans-flushing-toilets-intl/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/07/politics/trump-americans-flushing-toilets-intl/index.html)

I guess Trump's followers believe this is a real and pressing problem for the American people. Anyone here flushing their toilet 10-15 times instead of once?

In his signature fashion, he exhagerates. It is more like 5-6 times. I just caught myself doing it exactly that many times recently, on a toilet that had those two positions that are supposed to save water.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 07, 2019, 07:53:20 pm
Some of y’all apparently need to have a look at your diets ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 07, 2019, 07:58:25 pm
No it does not. 

Schiff has proven himself to be incredibly corrupt.  He made up his own version of the phone call and only admitted to it when he was called out outside of congress, selectively leaked info to the press, refused to even allow certain lines of questioning, lied about not knowing the whistleblower after it came out his staff worked with the WB full 12 weeks before this whole thing started, and is now spying on republican lawmakers and conservative reporters. 

There is no reason I can think to cooperate with him.  He is running a kangaroo court that already determined the verdict.  Anything Trump would have done would have been spun by Schiff regardless of how innocent it was. 

Provide a fair arbitrator and you'll have a different opinion from me, but Schiff was far from fair.  He residing over the hearings help a lot with half the country becoming disillusioned with the inquir.

Yes, it absolutely does.

And you’ve seemingly gone full Trump.  Sad.  You may not realize it, but you continually give a pass (or slight mention) to Trump’s behavior while you declare less egregious Dem behavior to be unacceptable to you.   

Ponder that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on December 07, 2019, 08:10:00 pm
In his signature fashion, he exhagerates. It is more like 5-6 times. I just caught myself doing it exactly that many times recently, on a toilet that had those two positions that are supposed to save water.

Almost as bad as in Cuba.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 07, 2019, 09:14:58 pm
No it does not. 

Schiff has proven himself to be incredibly corrupt.  He made up his own version of the phone call and only admitted to it when he was called out outside of congress, selectively leaked info to the press, refused to even allow certain lines of questioning, lied about not knowing the whistleblower after it came out his staff worked with the WB full 12 weeks before this whole thing started, and is now spying on republican lawmakers and conservative reporters. 

There is no reason I can think to cooperate with him.  He is running a kangaroo court that already determined the verdict.  Anything Trump would have done would have been spun by Schiff regardless of how innocent it was. 

Provide a fair arbitrator and you'll have a different opinion from me, but Schiff was far from fair.  He residing over the hearings help a lot with half the country becoming disillusioned with the inquir.

What does that have to do with anything?

He could be the devil himself, he will still ask questions and get answers from people under oath. And these answers will confirm that Trump did or didn't do what he is accused of (we already have at least one clear testimony that he did...).

Refusing to testify conveys the clear message that you have something to hide.

You realize that, by your logic, a president will never get impeached right? Since the process is by definition led by the party not being in office, you will always claim it is political (I assume whether it' a Republican or Democrat president being accused)... and this claim will always push you to refuse to testify, rendering the current impeachment process (defined by Republicans... you've got to love the irony) useless. Which is unconstitutional because the great founders have clearly made ground for the possibility of an impeachment.

You claim you love logic, I hope that you will have the honesty with yourself, if not with me, to acknowledge that you are caught in circular thinking.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 07, 2019, 09:33:55 pm
What does that have to do with anything?

He could be the devil himself, he will still ask questions and get answers from people under oath. And these answers will confirm that Trump did or didn't do what he is accused of (we already have at least one clear testimony that he did...).

Refusing to testify conveys the clear message that you have something to hide.

You realize that, by your logic, a president will never get impeached right? Since the process is by definition led by the party not being in office, you will always claim it is political (I assume whether it' a Republican or Democrat president being accused)... and this claim will always push you to refuse to testify, rendering the current impeachment process (defined by Republicans... you've got to love the irony) useless. Which is unconstitutional because the great founders have clearly made ground for the possibility of an impeachment.

You claim you love logic, I hope that you will have the honesty with yourself, if not with me, to acknowledge that you are caught in circular thinking.

Cheers,
Bernard

Not true.  Clinton was impeach and Nixon would have been because both parties in COngress saw real impeachable actions by the presidents.  With TRump, it's been all about Democrats finding something for the last three years to make an impeachment stick.  That's political and has nothing to do with wrongdoing.  It's just politics.  Hopefully the people will see it as such, as least the independents. 

Regarding speaking when  you're not guilty.  Prosecutors are not your friends.  They're not interested in fairness, only in getting you to be found guilty.  That's why you should keep your mouth shut even when you're innocent.  Any lawyer will advise their client not to testify if it can be avoided.  General Flynn whose life has been destroyed because he willingly spoke to the FBI, may now get off because the prosecutors in his case withheld information that the FBI believe what he said.  Obviously they twisted everything around in order to get him to say something bad about the president, which he didn't.  So they punished him and now he's destroyed financially and his health has been broken, a man who served this country for over thirty years.  They kept exculpatory information from the court that would have cleared him, an improper and illegal action on their part.  That's why you don't talk to these people.  They're not your friends even if you're innocent. 

Testifying before congress ism worse.  The politicians there are only there to make speeches to make you look guilty and stupid.  Those kind of things cannot happen in a real trial.  Judges would stop it.  So even i\f you're innocent, the Democrats in this case would make your testimony look like you're guilty as sin.  Arguing that these people are guilty is just a Democrat ploy to make you look guilty even without testifying.  It just show you how unfair they will be if you are stupid enough to actually testify in front of them.  Stay home and watch TV where other people are going to look like fools up there. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 07, 2019, 09:37:05 pm
Almost as bad as in Cuba.
Well, there, it's just bad plumbing.   :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 07, 2019, 09:42:04 pm
The only thing the impeachment of Clinton shows is that Democrats have a higher understanding of their duty to respect the intent of the founders. Instead of attempting to prevent the process at every step of the way.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 07, 2019, 09:54:09 pm
Political infighting is normal. Using the power of the state to benefit you personally is not.

I know that you understand this, stop pretending that you don't.

As I (and others) have said before, if Biden did something wrong, then sure, go after him too, what do I care about Biden. But whether or not Biden did anything wrong is immaterial. If Trump really thought Biden was dirty, he had plenty of investigative power and agencies at his disposal, all he had to do was do it.


Btw, I see from his statements at the NATO talks that Trump thinks that the oil in Syria or anywhere else is his. Do you not have a problem with this? Why not?
Trump never said Syrian oil is ours. As usual, the press interprets his words in a negative way.  He means that we won;t let ISIS grab it, that we'll protect it.  We don't need Syrian oil.   Nor would we take it.  You're insulting him and us.   We're the world's largest producer of oil here at home in the USA.  Did we take Iraqi oil when we conquer that country?   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 07, 2019, 10:01:00 pm
The only thing the impeachment of Clinton shows is that Democrats have a higher understanding of their duty to respect the intent of the founders. Instead of attempting to prevent the process at every step of the way.

Cheers,
Bernard

No.  You're wrong.  Again.  Clinton was found guilty of lying under oath.  His license to practice law was taken away from him because he perjured himself.

In the Nixon case, which you didn;t respond to, Republicans were the ones who told Republican President Nixon that he had to resign because Republicans were going to vote to impeach him.  That's not happening with Trump because this impeachment is all political.  The Democrats have been trying to impeach him for three years without any crime.  They've been on a witch hunt.  Republicans understand their phoniness.  It's only Democrats who want to impeach showing how weak their case for impeachment really is.  This was not true in the Nixon and Clinton situation although personally, I didn't;lt think Clinton should be impeached even for perjury because he was lying about cheating on his wife, lying which is understandable if illegal.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 08, 2019, 02:58:03 am
No.  You're wrong.  Again.  Clinton was found guilty of lying under oath.  His license to practice law was taken away from him because he perjured himself.

In the Nixon case, which you didn;t respond to, Republicans were the ones who told Republican President Nixon that he had to resign because Republicans were going to vote to impeach him.  That's not happening with Trump because this impeachment is all political.  The Democrats have been trying to impeach him for three years without any crime.  They've been on a witch hunt.  Republicans understand their phoniness.  It's only Democrats who want to impeach showing how weak their case for impeachment really is.  This was not true in the Nixon and Clinton situation although personally, I didn't;lt think Clinton should be impeached even for perjury because he was lying about cheating on his wife, lying which is understandable if illegal.   

Ok, I acknowledge I was wrong on Clinton.

But... wait... to be able to lie under oath... he had to have accepted to testify right?

Is there something in the law that forces a president to testify or was that a voluntary move?

If it’s the latter we have indeed obvious evidence that the Democrats, starting with a President himself, had a behaviour much more respectful of the intent of the founders.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 08, 2019, 04:33:52 am
Some of y’all apparently need to have a look at your diets ;)


Diets, and plumbing.

I hate these two-position flush mechanisms. They are in almost every toilet it has been my misfortune to have to use when out of the house, and hey, even there, one of the loos employs them. The half-button on the right is supposed to give a light flush and the other the full dose. It sometimes works and sometimes not. I have to wait until the water has stopped running just to be sure that the button has settled properly and is not just pretending. If I don't wait, I can later discover that the water has been running away for hours.

The other loo employs the original system, which consists of a pull-up knob that slowly falls down to its normal resting place when the water level permits. It's a cinch to fix whenever it goes arwry, whereas the two-part release of the other is a nighmare of lousy logic that often reminds me of LuLa discussion.

Waddya gonna do?

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 08, 2019, 09:13:57 am
Another great example of the failed "drain the swamp" policy!!   Medicare chief Seema Verna requested that taxpayers reimburse her for $47K for items stolen from an SUV that took her to a speech (left unsaid is why anyone would be so foolish to leave such valuable items that included an Ivanka Trump pendant in a car).  The property was not insured and the government ended up reimbursing for only $2K (a real bargain).  https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/07/medicare-chief-asked-taxpayers-to-cover-stolen-jewelry-077761    This is on top of the over $2M she wanted to spend on public affairs consultants to "burnish her brand."



Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 08, 2019, 09:21:53 am
Another great example of the failed "drain the swamp" policy!!   Medicare chief Seema Verna requested that taxpayers reimburse her for $47K for items stolen from an SUV that took her to a speech (left unsaid is why anyone would be so foolish to leave such valuable items that included an Ivanka Trump pendant in a car).  The property was not insured and the government ended up reimbursing for only $2K (a real bargain).  https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/07/medicare-chief-asked-taxpayers-to-cover-stolen-jewelry-077761    This is on top of the over $2M she wanted to spend on public affairs consultants to "burnish her brand."





Alan I'm not defending stupidity.  Why anyone would have $47K in uninsured jewelry on a trip is bizarre.  She should have included it with her home insurance as a rider.  But the $2K the government reimbursed was not for the jewelry but for other things.  It's standard governmental policy to reimburse government workers for stolen things if they were stolen on an official government trip.  The article didn't say what the loss was for.  But if it included a laptop and other similar stuff, $2K seems reasonable and reimbursement seems appropriate.  You seem to be making a federal case out of it.  Oh, it is a federal case. :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 08, 2019, 01:30:12 pm
Just curious if you complained when Obama used the IRS to go after political opponents?  How about when the Democrats went after TRump for colluding with the Russians where people like you accused him of treason?

You're assuming I take you at your word that Obama did that. Why wasn't he impeached at that time then if it was so well known.

When did I accuse Trump of treason? WTF are you talking about, making stuff up again.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 08, 2019, 01:38:13 pm
Trump never said Syrian oil is ours. As usual, the press interprets his words in a negative way.  He means that we won;t let ISIS grab it, that we'll protect it.  We don't need Syrian oil.   Nor would we take it.  You're insulting him and us.   We're the world's largest producer of oil here at home in the USA.  Did we take Iraqi oil when we conquer that country?

Here's the news item I saw, pretty damning quotes. OTOH, I am beginning to doubt he understands what he is saying most of the time, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/donald-trump-syria-oil-kurdish-turkey-trudeau-1.5387900 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/donald-trump-syria-oil-kurdish-turkey-trudeau-1.5387900), which would normally be worrying, but it's the new normal now for the US President to say batshit crazy things.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 08, 2019, 05:58:27 pm
Ok, I acknowledge I was wrong on Clinton.

But... wait... to be able to lie under oath... he had to have accepted to testify right?

Is there something in the law that forces a president to testify or was that a voluntary move?

If it’s the latter we have indeed obvious evidence that the Democrats, starting with a President himself, had a behaviour much more respectful of the intent of the founders.

Oh, please, Bernard, your desire to twist the facts to fit your narrative has become comical. Clinton didn’t “accept” to testify or did it voluntarily during the impeachment process. He was impeached for lying under oath in an earlier sexual harassment case. It was a civil case brought by one of his many paramours. In that case, he was deposed under oath. Not during impeachment.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 08, 2019, 06:14:01 pm
Oh, please, Bernard, your desire to twist the facts to fit your narrative has become comical. Clinton didn’t “accept” to testify or did it voluntarily during the impeachment process. He was impeached for lying under oath in an earlier sexual harassment case. It was a civil case brought by one of his many paramours. In that case, he was deposed under oath. Not during impeachment.

OK, got it, thanks.

I guess we understand clearly now why Trump will never accept to testify on the current case during the impeachment hearings... ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 08, 2019, 06:58:17 pm
You're assuming I take you at your word that Obama did that. Why wasn't he impeached at that time then if it was so well known.

When did I accuse Trump of treason? WTF are you talking about, making stuff up again.
Obama was smarter than Trump.  He knew to keep direct fingerprints off of the crime.  His administration blamed overzealous employees of the IRS for doing the dirty deed. 

Sorry for saying you called Trump a traitor.  I confused you with most Democrats and Trump haters who did.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 08, 2019, 07:02:32 pm
Here's the news item I saw, pretty damning quotes. OTOH, I am beginning to doubt he understands what he is saying most of the time, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/donald-trump-syria-oil-kurdish-turkey-trudeau-1.5387900 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/donald-trump-syria-oil-kurdish-turkey-trudeau-1.5387900), which would normally be worrying, but it's the new normal now for the US President to say batshit crazy things.
I told you he meant that America is protecting that oil from falling into the hands of our enemies like ISIS.  Looking for other meanings is the media pastime for looking for anything that they can twist into something negative about TRump.  Do you really think Trump is going to send oil trucks and ships into Syria to extract the oil and send it back to America?  No wonder you believe everything the press says.  Use a little discernment.  You're smarter than that. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 08, 2019, 07:07:49 pm
I told you he meant that America is protecting that oil from falling into the hands of our enemies like ISIS.

Didn't he say that ISIS had been defeated? Then why stay?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 08, 2019, 07:37:35 pm
Quote

Didn't he say that ISIS had been defeated? Then why stay?

We're staying in the Netherlands too.  Maybe Trump will steal your windmills.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 08, 2019, 08:36:14 pm
 ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 09, 2019, 08:34:11 am
Don’t be absurd.  I have it on good authority that they cause cancer.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 09, 2019, 09:09:38 am
Didn't he say that ISIS had been defeated? Then why stay?

The compass owns 360 degrees; why should a head of state be denied as many alternatives to reality and/or truth? As they say, it's always just a matter of degree.

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 09, 2019, 10:31:13 am
Well this is an inconvenient truth:  https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/12/08/sotu-meadows-full.cnn  Lengthy interview with Congressman Mark Meadows, one of the President's chief advocates in the house.  Dana Bash gets to the point with the following:

    BASH: You were in the majority in the House. You're on the committee that oversees this.
    Why didn't you investigate if it was so wrong then?

    MEADOWS: Well, one, I didn't -- I didn't know about it at the particular time.
    And when -- when you look at things, as things come up, you would...

    BASH: But it was public information.

    MEADOWS: What was public information?

    BASH: That Hunter Biden was on the board of this company.

    MEADOWS: Well, I -- I don't know about you. I'm -- I don't know that any of your viewers go and look through Burisma's notice that Hunter Biden was there.
    I think all of us can admit that we didn’t know that Hunter Biden was getting $50,000-plus a month from a corrupt Ukrainian company.

This is from a Congressman who was on the relevant committee that could do oversight and yet did not.  He flails with the lame excuse that this was not public information despite the fact that Hunter Biden's position was covered early on by a lot of mainstream and political media before they became "fake news."  This whole charade is too laughable and historians in the future will be scratching their heads in wonderment.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 09, 2019, 11:02:39 am
Well this is an inconvenient truth:  https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/12/08/sotu-meadows-full.cnn  Lengthy interview with Congressman Mark Meadows, one of the President's chief advocates in the house.  Dana Bash gets to the point with the following:

    BASH: You were in the majority in the House. You're on the committee that oversees this.
    Why didn't you investigate if it was so wrong then?

    MEADOWS: Well, one, I didn't -- I didn't know about it at the particular time.
    And when -- when you look at things, as things come up, you would...

    BASH: But it was public information.

    MEADOWS: What was public information?

    BASH: That Hunter Biden was on the board of this company.

    MEADOWS: Well, I -- I don't know about you. I'm -- I don't know that any of your viewers go and look through Burisma's notice that Hunter Biden was there.
    I think all of us can admit that we didn’t know that Hunter Biden was getting $50,000-plus a month from a corrupt Ukrainian company.

This is from a Congressman who was on the relevant committee that could do oversight and yet did not.  He flails with the lame excuse that this was not public information despite the fact that Hunter Biden's position was covered early on by a lot of mainstream and political media before they became "fake news."  This whole charade is too laughable and historians in the future will be scratching their heads in wonderment.


The president is responsible for foreign policy and implementing the laws of the US, not Congress.  Only the president could ask a foreign leader to investigate and use the hammer of withholding foreign aid to get them to comply.  Who's negotiating with Xi?  With Kim? With NATO leaders?  With Iran? With the Ukrainian president?   For example it is the president who has the power to impose trade sanctions on Iran and tariffs on China and European countries, not Congress.  What Congress should be doing is passing the USMCA trade bill with Canada and Mexico. The fact is Congress is out to lunch most of the time.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 09, 2019, 12:27:53 pm
The president is responsible for foreign policy and implementing the laws of the US, not Congress.  Only the president could ask a foreign leader to investigate and use the hammer of withholding foreign aid to get them to comply.  Who's negotiating with Xi?  With Kim? With NATO leaders?  With Iran? With the Ukrainian president?

Let me guess; Rudy Giuliani?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 09, 2019, 12:33:15 pm
Let me guess; Rudy Giuliani?
????
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 09, 2019, 01:08:53 pm
The president is responsible for foreign policy and implementing the laws of the US, not Congress.  Only the president could ask a foreign leader to investigate and use the hammer of withholding foreign aid to get them to comply.  Who's negotiating with Xi?  With Kim? With NATO leaders?  With Iran? With the Ukrainian president?   For example it is the president who has the power to impose trade sanctions on Iran and tariffs on China and European countries, not Congress.  What Congress should be doing is passing the USMCA trade bill with Canada and Mexico. The fact is Congress is out to lunch most of the time.

I'm not at all sure what your response has to do with what Alan G. wrote. You behave a lot like politicians do, just keep re-stating memorized talking points regardless of the current topic.

But let me see if I can summarize. Congress is out to lunch. All of the normal media is fake. Foreigners are all ignorant and have no right to voice an opinion. I can't remember if you ever said anything about the Senate. So, Trump is the only person who knows what's going on, is he?

You don't actually believe in democracy, do you?

I'm not sure if you ever responded to the idea that if Trump really thought that the Bidens had done something wrong, then why hadn't he acted by asking one of the many security/investigative departments at his disposal to look into things? They, at least, have to obey his orders. Trying to either ask or coerce a foreign power to do this on his behalf is so fraught with peril that it is a particularly dumb way to go about it, seems to me.

And as an aside, did Trump show any interest in Biden before Biden started his Presidential bid? If he really thought that Biden was crooked, he had at least two years or so to get someone to look into it. Did he?

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 09, 2019, 03:14:56 pm
I'm not at all sure what your response has to do with what Alan G. wrote. You behave a lot like politicians do, just keep re-stating memorized talking points regardless of the current topic.

But let me see if I can summarize. Congress is out to lunch. All of the normal media is fake. Foreigners are all ignorant and have no right to voice an opinion. I can't remember if you ever said anything about the Senate. So, Trump is the only person who knows what's going on, is he?

You don't actually believe in democracy, do you?

I'm not sure if you ever responded to the idea that if Trump really thought that the Bidens had done something wrong, then why hadn't he acted by asking one of the many security/investigative departments at his disposal to look into things? They, at least, have to obey his orders. Trying to either ask or coerce a foreign power to do this on his behalf is so fraught with peril that it is a particularly dumb way to go about it, seems to me.

And as an aside, did Trump show any interest in Biden before Biden started his Presidential bid? If he really thought that Biden was crooked, he had at least two years or so to get someone to look into it. Did he?


Robert, You;re all over the place.  I did respond to Alan G's comment.  The congressman doesn't have the authority to do what the President did.  In any case, what Congress does or doesn;t do has nothing to do with the president.  He's his own man and has his own responsibilities and authorities. 

Additionally, in July 2019, he asked the new president of Ukraine who was looking for foreign aid from us to investigate Ukrainian corruption in general and included Biden as well.  Zelensky was just inaugurated on May 20,  2019.   He campaigned on getting the corruption cleaned up in Ukraine having beat the incumbent Poroshenko.  Trump wanted him to clean up the corruption just as President Obama had demanded from the previous Ukrainian president. 

If it was Eric Trump who was getting paid $50K a month from a corrupt corporation and VP TRump got the prosecutor investigating his son;s company fired by threatening to withhold foreign aid, which is what VP Biden did, you would be demanding an investigation of the VP and his kid for corruption.   But since Biden is your guy, you act like he's innocent like the driven snow.  Meanwhile, you see nothing wrong with Democrats playing politics by investigating the president for three years looking for crimes.  It seems only potential Republican crimes should be investigated.  But Democrats should get a pass for their potential corrupt activities. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 09, 2019, 03:25:43 pm
... I'm not sure if you ever responded to the idea that if Trump really thought that the Bidens had done something wrong, then why hadn't he acted by asking one of the many security/investigative departments at his disposal to look into things?...

Already asked (by you), and already answered (by Chris Kern), post #1234
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 09, 2019, 03:51:10 pm
Already asked (by you), and already answered (by Chris Kern), post #1234
In any case, since the "corruption" was done in the Ukraine by a Ukrainian corporation and Ukrainian officials and business people, it would need Ukrainian cooperation and investigators to investigate.  The FBI can't investigate on their own in foreign nations. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 09, 2019, 04:01:26 pm
Already asked (by you), and already answered (by Chris Kern), post #1234
PS  I just read Chris's post.  I believe it does not apply in the Trump situation.  WIth Nixon, forces of the government under the president's control committed a burglary and then tried to hide that fact.  They broke into Democratic campaign headquarters, an illegal act.  They were not investigating anything that was a crime committed by the Democrats.  They were only seeking political information about the Democrats.

In the Trump case, there is an apparent corrupt act possibly committed by Biden and his son.  As such, asking a foreign government to investigate is perfectly legal even though there are associate political advantages to Republicans.  Biden can't hide from investigations because he's running for political office.  He's not above the law any more than the President can claim he's above the law if Congress is investigating apparent crimes on his part. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 09, 2019, 04:49:17 pm
Already asked (by you), and already answered (by Chris Kern), post #1234

Slobodan, I think that you and I really should try harder to get a life outwith this room...

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 09, 2019, 05:34:59 pm
If Trump is fully justified in his demands by Ukraine for an investigation, why did he keep it secret?  Why didn't he ask for a public investigation?

And why does he forbid release of any (subpoenaed) documentation about what did happen?

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on December 09, 2019, 05:35:49 pm
WIth Nixon, forces of the government under the president's control committed a burglary and then tried to hide that fact.  They broke into Democratic campaign headquarters, an illegal act.

You are conflating the Watergate burglary with the accusation of misuse of federal investigative agencies in the citation from one of the Nixon articles of impeachment (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132282.msg1138188#msg1138188) that I posted earlier.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 09, 2019, 05:39:03 pm
Slobodan, I think that you and I really should try harder to get a life outwith this room...

It is a windy world out there, my friend ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 09, 2019, 05:48:57 pm
If Trump is fully justified in his demands by Ukraine for an investigation, why did he keep it secret?  Why didn't he ask for a public investigation?

And why does he forbid release of any (subpoenaed) documentation about what did happen?



He didn't keep it secret?  He released the transcript when asked for it calling it "perfect" once his private conversation with Ukraine's president was made public by the whistleblower.  Before that, why would the president announce that he called for an investigation?  These are usually kept confidential.  Was the investigation of Trump campaign by the FBI kept secret for many months?   Why didn't Obama release to the public that Trump was being investigated?   Additionally, private conversations between the president and foreign leaders are not usually made public.  The president would never be able to make any deals if foreign leaders knew their private conversations with the president would become public.  That's not how things work.  Remember how everyone made a big deal about Trump's private conversation with Putin? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 09, 2019, 05:52:08 pm
You are conflating the Watergate burglary with the accusation of misuse of federal investigative agencies in the citation from one of the Nixon articles of impeachment (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132282.msg1138188#msg1138188) that I posted earlier.
I'm not sure what you mean or what the law requires.  Maybe you can expand on it?   Certainly, if an American politician is suspected of committing a crime, the FBI can investigate.  Numerous politicians have gone to jail.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 09, 2019, 06:02:49 pm
... WIth Nixon, forces of the government under the president's control committed a burglary and then tried to hide that fact.  They broke into Democratic campaign headquarters...

It wasn’t “forces of the government” that did the burglary, but people related to Nixon’s re-election campaign.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 09, 2019, 06:04:24 pm
He didn't keep it secret?  He released the transcript when asked for it calling it "perfect" once his private conversation with Ukraine's president was made public by the whistleblower.  Before that, why would the president announce that he called for an investigation?  These are usually kept confidential.  Was the investigation of Trump campaign by the FBI kept secret for many months?   Why didn't Obama release to the public that Trump was being investigated?   Additionally, private conversations between the president and foreign leaders are not usually made public.  The president would never be able to make any deals if foreign leaders knew their private conversations with the president would become public.  That's not how things work.  Remember how everyone made a big deal about Trump's private conversation with Putin?

None of which relates to or answers my question(s).

I'm beginning to agree with Rob.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 09, 2019, 06:05:08 pm
It wasn’t “forces of the government” that did the burglary, but people related to Nixon’s re-election campaign.
OK>  But I believe forces of the government (justice department) tried to hide that fact.  Didn't the AJ go to jail?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 09, 2019, 06:08:01 pm
None of which relates to or answers my question(s).

I'm beginning to agree with Rob.
I answered your first question. Fully.  I'm not familiar with your claim in the second question.  I would need more details from you.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 09, 2019, 06:39:57 pm
The more the Democrats go after Trump, the more people are going to ask what the Bidens were up too?  Maybe the Dems don't want Biden.  That;s why they don;t care if impeaching Trump will hurt Biden more.  Or, the press will continue to protect him.  But will the other Democrat candidates?  I don't get it. 

‘People have real questions about this’: Hunter-Ukraine questions cloud Biden tour
The former veep still hasn’t found a clear and cogent message when it comes to his son’s overseas business dealings

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/06/joe-hunter-biden-ukraine-2020-tour-077460 (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/06/joe-hunter-biden-ukraine-2020-tour-077460)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 09, 2019, 06:51:38 pm
So the initial investigation of the Trump campaign was OK.  But everything that followed was a deliberate attempt to keep the investigation going using all sorts of nefarious methods and misinformation to the FISA court to make the investigation legal subsequently.

Horowitz report is damning for the FBI and unsettling for the rest of us
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473709-horowitz-report-is-damning-for-the-fbi-and-unsettling-for-the-rest-of-us (https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473709-horowitz-report-is-damning-for-the-fbi-and-unsettling-for-the-rest-of-us)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 09, 2019, 08:37:11 pm
So the initial investigation of the Trump campaign was OK.  But everything that followed was a deliberate attempt to keep the investigation going using all sorts of nefarious methods and misinformation to the FISA court to make the investigation legal subsequently.

Horowitz report is damning for the FBI and unsettling for the rest of us
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473709-horowitz-report-is-damning-for-the-fbi-and-unsettling-for-the-rest-of-us (https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473709-horowitz-report-is-damning-for-the-fbi-and-unsettling-for-the-rest-of-us)

Well, no, not exactly.  But you'll get zero argument from me that the FISA process, secret courts with little or no oversight, and poor, negligent, or outright fabricated "evidence" are a larger institutional issue that was a problem long before Donald Trump.

FWIW, I've had a problem with this process since it was instituted under the PATRIOT Act in a knee-jerk reaction to terrorism, had a problem with it when Obama promised to address the issues and didn't, and still have a problem with it.     
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 09, 2019, 08:57:25 pm
Well, no, not exactly.  But you'll get zero argument from me that the FISA process, secret courts with little or no oversight, and poor, negligent, or outright fabricated "evidence" are a larger institutional problem that was a problem long before Donald Trump.

FWIW, I've had a problem with this process since it was instituted under the PATRIOT Act in a knee-jerk reaction to terrorism, had a problem with it when Obama promised to address the issues and didn't, and still have a problem with it.     
Frankly, I can see them doing this kind of dangerous investigation for the average guy.  Everything gets rubber stamped and moved along in the process. No one is really watching the store.   But this case concerned a presidential candidate and president inaugurated to office. All the so-called errors, fabrications, and misapplications seem suspicious.  You'd think meticulous care would have been taken to make sure everything was above board.  But then I'm being naive because there were obviously political machinations going on.  People decided to fudge it so it so the investigation would continue. 

So now, everyone is legitimately concerned that Trump is investigating Biden for political reasons only.  They want to impeach him over it.  Yet, what was done to Trump was actually worse and caused a two year investigation damaging him, the presidency and the country in general. 

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 10, 2019, 06:53:00 am
Slobodan, I think that you and I really should try harder to get a life outwith this room...

:-)

I think we need one of these for LuLa:
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 10, 2019, 10:50:36 am
I think we need one of these for LuLa:

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 10, 2019, 12:37:07 pm
In what has to be one of the stranger comments from our President, the following statement came out this morning from @realDonaldTrump, "I don’t know what report current Director of the FBI Christopher Wray was reading, but it sure wasn’t the one given to me. With that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI, which is badly broken despite having some of the greatest men & women working there!"

Sounds like the President was up late last night reading the over 300 page report!!!  I don't think the 'Fox and Friends' group would have read it.  I wonder how long FBI director Wray will be in his job.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 10, 2019, 12:44:19 pm
In what has to be one of the stranger comments from our President, the following statement came out this morning from @realDonaldTrump, "I don’t know what report current Director of the FBI Christopher Wray was reading, but it sure wasn’t the one given to me. With that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI, which is badly broken despite having some of the greatest men & women working there!"

Sounds like the President was up late last night reading the over 300 page report!!!  I don't think the 'Fox and Friends' group would have read it.  I wonder how long FBI director Wray will be in his job.

Best to negotiate a good pension and get the hell as far away as possible.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on December 10, 2019, 12:45:27 pm
I think we all know that Trump didn't read the IG report.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 10, 2019, 03:46:52 pm
Is Trump going to be requested to testify?
Is he going to accept?
Is he going to lie under oath?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 10, 2019, 04:16:30 pm
It won't make a damned bit of difference, Bernard. The House will impeach him, with or without his testimony, the Senate will refuse to convict him, and he'll be reelected next year in December -- if he chooses to run. If not, another Republican will be elected. There's not a single sane candidate on the left. You can argue about Trump's sanity. You even can claim he hasn't improved the economy beyond anyone's expectations. But if you do that, the facts will demonstrate that you're either ignorant or a liar -- or possibly both.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 10, 2019, 05:17:39 pm
Is Trump going to be requested to testify?
Is he going to accept?
Is he going to lie under oath?

Can you be more specific? What would you like him to testify about? What kind of question would you ask him that would trick him or force him to lie under oath?

- Mr. President, did you use your office for personal gain?
- No
- Mr. President, did you use Ukraine aid to harm your political opponent?
- No

Then what?

I am sure that you et al would consider such answers “lying under oath,” but that’s not how these things work. You can’t prove that those are lies, as yes or no answers to the above questions are simply opposing political opinions, not facts.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on December 10, 2019, 05:27:19 pm
In the meantime, Michael Bloomberg is preparing for his act.

Quote
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg is at the COP25 climate conference in Madrid. He says he's there for a simple reason: "I am here because President Trump is not."

https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/im-here-because-trump-isnt-bloomberg-at-idRCV007L84
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on December 10, 2019, 05:38:44 pm
...
So now, everyone is legitimately concerned that Trump is investigating Biden for political reasons only.  They want to impeach him over it.  Yet, what was done to Trump was actually worse and caused a two year investigation damaging him, the presidency and the country in general.

Both the issues concern the quality and purity of the election system in the US; It is only logical it was investigated, whoever was President.
Normaly the justice department starts an inquiry not the president and there has to be valid reason to start it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 10, 2019, 05:42:25 pm
I dont know how anyone can take this seriously after today. 

For the last two months, I have had to listen to all democratic politicians insist that Trump was guilty of an illegal quid pro quo, which then turned into extortion and bribery (because it worked better with focus groups).  And if any conservative or independent or even objective democrat, such as Jon Turley, said that the burden of proof was not met for those crimes, the Dems branded that person as a foolish ideologue who just was not paying attention.  Literally, bribery was forced down the country's throat for two months, and then ... poof. 

There were no charges of bribery nor extortion nor illegal quid pro quo this morning.  Instead, we got two absolute absurdities. 

The first, abuse of power, that was so vaguely defined that literally any action taken by a president that could potential benefit him politically but that you have a disagreement with on policy could be massaged to fit.  Take for example Obama removing troops from the middle east in 2012.  This was clearly done to benefit his re-election campaign and it had some objectively real consequences that threatened our national security, such as the creation of ISIS, albeit after the election.  Should Obama had been impeached over this? 

The second, obstruction, which can not have legally happened yet.  Everyone, including the president, has the right to challenge a subpoena in court.  It is only until after a judge tells you to testify and you refuse, that you are guilty of obstruction.  In Trump's case, not a single challenge has been ruled on yet, which mean obstruction could not have happened yet.  By defining that obstruction takes place merely by refusing to testify, even if no court has ruled on the case, means pretty much every past president was guilty of obstruction.  Obama did not play along with congress on the IRS or the Fast & Furious hearings.  Should he have been impeached? 

I am not one to hap hazardously hit "all republican" when I vote, but after this. 

The fact is this whole thing is a political farce being use to not only damage Trump, but to also help build the case to agrue that, if Trump is re-elected, that the election was illegitimate.  Nadler was on Meet the Press over the weekend and pretty much stated as much. 

When the Dems, in 2016, insisted that Trump would not except the election results if he lost and how that action would damage the country, I agreed with them.  I now still feel that if a political party does not except the results of an election, it is still a damage to the country, even if the Dems do it as well.  The fact is the Dems have shown how willing they are to do so with Stacy Abrams, and it is a dangerous road to go down. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 10, 2019, 05:49:22 pm
Can you be more specific? What would you like him to testify about? What kind of question would you ask him that would trick him or force him to lie under oath?

I suspect you could ask him literally anything and he'd lie, oath or no oath.  It's in his nature ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 10, 2019, 09:40:25 pm
I dont know how anyone can take this seriously after today. 

For the last two months, I have had to listen to all democratic politicians insist that Trump was guilty of an illegal quid pro quo, which then turned into extortion and bribery (because it worked better with focus groups).  And if any conservative or independent or even objective democrat, such as Jon Turley, said that the burden of proof was not met for those crimes, the Dems branded that person as a foolish ideologue who just was not paying attention.  Literally, bribery was forced down the country's throat for two months, and then ... poof. 

There were no charges of bribery nor extortion nor illegal quid pro quo this morning.  Instead, we got two absolute absurdities. 

The first, abuse of power, that was so vaguely defined that literally any action taken by a president that could potential benefit him politically but that you have a disagreement with on policy could be massaged to fit.  Take for example Obama removing troops from the middle east in 2012.  This was clearly done to benefit his re-election campaign and it had some objectively real consequences that threatened our national security, such as the creation of ISIS, albeit after the election.  Should Obama had been impeached over this? 

The second, obstruction, which can not have legally happened yet.  Everyone, including the president, has the right to challenge a subpoena in court.  It is only until after a judge tells you to testify and you refuse, that you are guilty of obstruction.  In Trump's case, not a single challenge has been ruled on yet, which mean obstruction could not have happened yet.  By defining that obstruction takes place merely by refusing to testify, even if no court has ruled on the case, means pretty much every past president was guilty of obstruction.  Obama did not play along with congress on the IRS or the Fast & Furious hearings.  Should he have been impeached? 

I am not one to hap hazardously hit "all republican" when I vote, but after this. 

The fact is this whole thing is a political farce being use to not only damage Trump, but to also help build the case to agrue that, if Trump is re-elected, that the election was illegitimate.  Nadler was on Meet the Press over the weekend and pretty much stated as much. 

When the Dems, in 2016, insisted that Trump would not except the election results if he lost and how that action would damage the country, I agreed with them.  I now still feel that if a political party does not except the results of an election, it is still a damage to the country, even if the Dems do it as well.  The fact is the Dems have shown how willing they are to do so with Stacy Abrams, and it is a dangerous road to go down.

1. Abuse of power: this corresponds to the previous claims of bribery/extortion/illegal quid pro quo. I am not sure what's not clear. Instead of boring us with several examples, they have grouped them into a single category encompassing the previously discussed deeds,
2. Obstruction: this is quite obviously the case since we have ample evidence that Trump prevented key witnesses to testify (we all know they would have confirmed the accusations). This is clearly not supportive of the on-going investigation and therefore not supportive of the intent of the founders of the US. As far as I know, the Supreme court was a lot tougher on Nixon.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 10, 2019, 09:45:35 pm
Can you be more specific? What would you like him to testify about? What kind of question would you ask him that would trick him or force him to lie under oath?

- Mr. President, did you use your office for personal gain?
- No
- Mr. President, did you use Ukraine aid to harm your political opponent?
- No

Well, the answers to these 2 questions would be yes if you don't want him to lie under oath.

But I agree with you that there would obviously be a better flow of questioning to reach this to conclusion.

I am glad to have just crossed 100 pages with this answer!

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 10, 2019, 09:59:43 pm
It won't make a damned bit of difference, Bernard. The House will impeach him, with or without his testimony,

Probably since it's the right thing to do. The suprising part will be that Republicans may vote against it despite the obvious evidence.

the Senate will refuse to convict him,

Probably since Republicans look at their political game as being more important that protecting the constitution of the US.

and he'll be reelected next year in December -- if he chooses to run.

Why on earth would anyone want to reelect Trump? Especially as a Republican? This guy is pissing all over most of the Republican values. Democrats are much more Republican than Trump.

If not, another Republican will be elected. There's not a single sane candidate on the left. You can argue about Trump's sanity. You even can claim he hasn't improved the economy beyond anyone's expectations. But if you do that, the facts will demonstrate that you're either ignorant or a liar -- or possibly both.

Arguing about Trump's sanity is a must for any sane person.

I agree that the win of another republican is the most likely scenario, and I don't mind at all... unless we have another Trump coming up.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 11, 2019, 03:23:57 am
... we all know...

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 11, 2019, 03:32:11 am
... Why on earth would anyone want to reelect Trump? Especially as a Republican?...

As an independent, i couldn't care less about the Republican Party. Especially it’s establishment that did everything they could to prevent Trump’s nomination.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 11, 2019, 08:33:30 am
Last night President Trump held his 20th campaign rally of the year, charging taxpayers again for travel and security for non-governmental business.  Make America Great Again!!!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 11, 2019, 08:41:44 am
Right, Alan. And, of course Obama never did that, nor did Clinton, to name just a couple earlier campaigners. What horse hockey!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 11, 2019, 01:13:21 pm
Can you be more specific? What would you like him to testify about? What kind of question would you ask him that would trick him or force him to lie under oath?

- Mr. President, did you use your office for personal gain?
- No
- Mr. President, did you use Ukraine aid to harm your political opponent?
- No

Then what?

I am sure that you et al would consider such answers “lying under oath,” but that’s not how these things work. You can’t prove that those are lies, as yes or no answers to the above questions are simply opposing political opinions, not facts.

Mr President, it's well known that you cheat at golf.  Why do you do that?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 11, 2019, 01:16:00 pm
1. Abuse of power: this corresponds to the previous claims of bribery/extortion/illegal quid pro quo. I am not sure what's not clear. Instead of boring us with several examples, they have grouped them into a single category encompassing the previously discussed deeds,
2. Obstruction: this is quite obviously the case since we have ample evidence that Trump prevented key witnesses to testify (we all know they would have confirmed the accusations). This is clearly not supportive of the on-going investigation and therefore not supportive of the intent of the founders of the US. As far as I know, the Supreme court was a lot tougher on Nixon.

Cheers,
Bernard

There is no bribery charge, no extortion charge, and no quid pro quo charge.  The Dems lost and, more or less, admitted defeat when they dropped these three charges that they insisted on so stringently Trump was guilty of committing, even as of two days ago. 

Barbara Tuchman once said, "satire is a wrapping of exaggeration around a core of reality."  So I'll leave this topic with a appropriately mordacious article illustrating the aggregate effect of the last two months. 

Trump's Popularity Surges After Nation Learns He May Have Obstructed Congress (https://babylonbee.com/news/trumps-popularity-rises-after-revelation-he-obstructed-congress)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 11, 2019, 03:43:09 pm
There is no bribery charge, no extortion charge, and no quid pro quo charge.  The Dems lost and, more or less, admitted defeat when they dropped these three charges that they insisted on so stringently Trump was guilty of committing, even as of two days ago. 

Barbara Tuchman once said, "satire is a wrapping of exaggeration around a core of reality."  So I'll leave this topic with a appropriately mordacious article illustrating the aggregate effect of the last two months. 

Trump's Popularity Surges After Nation Learns He May Have Obstructed Congress (https://babylonbee.com/news/trumps-popularity-rises-after-revelation-he-obstructed-congress)

An interesting supposition from an unknown site.

Meanwhile, the NYT, arguably possessing a little more veractity than "Babyon Bee", reports this:

As The Times reported last Saturday, incumbent presidents almost always benefit from a strong economy, and right now job growth is robust and average hourly earnings are up — but Trump’s poll numbers are not: “Instead of enjoying anything close to overwhelming popularity because of the economy, Mr. Trump’s national approval rating has remained low, dropping about two percentage points to 41 percent since the Ukraine story broke.’’

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/opinion/trump-impeachment.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 11, 2019, 03:57:58 pm
Something with a little more veracity, Newsweek. 

DONALD TRUMP BEATS EVERY DEMOCRAT FRONTRUNNER IN THREE KEY BATTLEGROUND STATES AMID IMPEACHMENT: POLL (https://www.newsweek.com/trump-beats-democrats-battleground-states-2020-poll-1476382)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on December 12, 2019, 07:48:37 am
While on the subject of politician's sons, Trump's son recently engaged in killing a protected and endangered sheep in Mongolia. He wasn't paid for it $50K, but that adventure must have cost him a similar amount.

Quote
During a summer 2019 hunting trip, Donald Trump Jr. killed a rare argali sheep. The Mongolian government issued him a hunting permit retroactively and he met with the country’s president.
...
“What are the chances the Mongolian government would’ve done any of that to someone who wasn’t the son of the United States’ president?” asked Kathleen Clark, a professor specializing in legal ethics at Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. She said that though Trump Jr. is not a government employee, he’s nonetheless politically influential, incentivizing foreign officials such as the Mongolian leader to treat him favorably out of a “desire on the part of a foreign government to curry favor with the president’s family.”

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-donald-trump-jr-went-to-mongolia-got-special-treatment-from-the-government-and-killed-an-endangered-sheep
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 12, 2019, 08:01:26 am
Did he kill it because the said sheep was going to testify in the impeachment hearing? After all, that bleating wouldn’t be much different from what we heard so far.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 12, 2019, 08:20:05 am
Best selling author (thanks to a humungous order of his book, "Triggered", by the Republican National Committee; perhaps these will be Christmas presents to the President's admirers) and scion of the Trump real estate fortune got special treatment from the Mongolian government.  Don Jr. bagged a rare argali sheep on a hunting expedition this past summer.  Inconveniently, the killing was done without the needed government issued permit.  Not to worry about Don Jr. somehow being locked up in a Mongolian yurt for this act of illegality.  He had a quick meeting with the President of Mongolia and then received the needed permit on September 2, after he had already left the country.  There is no word whether the trophy head is hanging in his house as the US government has no record of an import permit.

It's nice to get special favors and I'm sure that being son of the President had nothing to do with this.  A big shout out to the folks over at Pro Publica who doggedly continue to follow the Trump saga.  Let's hope for some dishy dirt on Ivanka Trump's relationship with Christopher Steele, he of the famous dossier.  The Pro Publica story and podcast are at:  https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-donald-trump-jr-went-to-mongolia-got-special-treatment-from-the-government-and-killed-an-endangered-sheep
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 12, 2019, 09:31:52 am
Did he kill it because the said sheep was going to testify in the impeachment hearing? After all, that bleating wouldn’t be much different from what we heard so far.

The sheep's testimony wouldn't matter anyway, Slobodan. Like a teenager's pimple, the "impeachment" is coming to a head. The Democrats will pass it on to the Senate, where it'll be pinched and the discharge will insure Trump's reelection.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on December 12, 2019, 09:53:28 am
Shooting a helpless animal is not exactly a heroic deed. If he is such a great marksman, he should enlist and help out in Syria or Afganistan.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 12, 2019, 11:52:06 am
Will it ever stop? I mean, the relentless and headless running around, hunting (pardon the pun) for a stickable impeachment charge? Quid pro quo, bribery, treason, abuse of power? And now, a sheep!? Really!?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on December 12, 2019, 12:34:21 pm
Trump looks quite content when surrounded by sheep. Mother Jones has kindly provided a picture with him and a cuddly flock.

(https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/20190405_trump_pets_2000.jpg?resize=990,556)

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/04/why-doesnt-donald-trump-own-any-sheep/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 12, 2019, 01:44:45 pm
Something with a little more veracity, Newsweek. 

DONALD TRUMP BEATS EVERY DEMOCRAT FRONTRUNNER IN THREE KEY BATTLEGROUND STATES AMID IMPEACHMENT: POLL (https://www.newsweek.com/trump-beats-democrats-battleground-states-2020-poll-1476382)

The Democrats wil have a closed convention after no one wins the nomination out right They will pick the candidate ro run against Trump not the voters.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 12, 2019, 02:22:20 pm
The Democrats wil have a closed convention after no one wins the nomination out right They will pick the candidate ro run against Trump not the voters.

Let me guess... Hillary? ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 12, 2019, 04:20:52 pm
Let me guess... Hillary? ;)
Maybe.  Let's face it.  The whole impeachment thing is about the Democrats not winning the 2016 election.   After not being able to use Russian collusion,  they have to settle on the Ukraine issue.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 12, 2019, 04:24:00 pm
While on the subject of politician's sons, Trump's son recently engaged in killing a protected and endangered sheep in Mongolia. He wasn't paid for it $50K, but that adventure must have cost him a similar amount.

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-donald-trump-jr-went-to-mongolia-got-special-treatment-from-the-government-and-killed-an-endangered-sheep

Well when Biden wins the presidency he could have the Mongolian government investigate the Trump's. You know the Deep state is at Deep work when they're killing animals without permits.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on December 12, 2019, 04:46:36 pm
The Democrats wil have a closed convention after no one wins the nomination out right They will pick the candidate ro run against Trump not the voters.

I still think that the two mayors on a joint ticket would have a good chance to beat Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on December 12, 2019, 04:50:59 pm
Trump tweeted today that a "big deal" with China is "getting very close".

Can he be trusted and should I get back into the stock market?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on December 12, 2019, 05:18:15 pm
Trump tweeted today that a "big deal" with China is "getting very close".

Can he be trusted and should I get back into the stock market?

Why in heaven's name would you be out of the stock market? Oh, I see, you listened to NYT's Paul Krugman, who said the stock market would collapse if Trump was going to be the president. How did that work out for you then?

The Dow was up 221 points today.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on December 12, 2019, 05:51:58 pm
Elizabeth Warren is hardly Jeremy Corbyn, but I suspect the Democratic Party leadership here in the States will take note of what can happen when you conduct an election with the wrong candidate at the top of the ticket.*  Of course, the same calculation may apply to the Republican leadership, with Trump currently polling only slightly over 40-percent, despite a strong economy.

(A couple of other notes, not relevant to this thread: based on the exit polls, it appears to me that the SNP swept the Scottish constituencies.  Might this be the beginning of the end of the United Kingdom?  And, by the way, what happened to the Liberal Democrats?)

―――
*For those of you who are unfamiliar with U.S. political terminology, "ticket" == ballot.  (Yes, I understand that British ballot formats are quite different from U.S. ballot formats.  "Virtual ballot"―does that make sense?)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on December 12, 2019, 06:18:39 pm
Why in heaven's name would you be out of the stock market? Oh, I see, you listened to NYT's Paul Krugman, who said the stock market would collapse if Trump was going to be the president. How did that work out for you then?
The Dow was up 221 points today.

Never listened to that gentleman. Actually, I am more a contrarian, seldom pay attention to the experts and influencers, and do my shopping when the crowds are selling. But I'd like to know when Trump gets off Bezos' case and AMZN starts moving up again.     
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 12, 2019, 09:24:16 pm
Trump is getting nothing from the Chinese.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 12, 2019, 10:29:02 pm
Trump is getting nothing from the Chinese.

Why should they compromise now with a US President who may not be there much longer when his successor, be it Democrat or Republican, will be more aligned with the traditional US values of open trade?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 12, 2019, 10:31:33 pm
As an independent, i couldn't care less about the Republican Party. Especially it’s establishment that did everything they could to prevent Trump’s nomination.

This is a great opportunity to ask you a question I have been longing to ask for a long time.

As an independent what are the core values you believe in and how is Trump embodying them?

Thanks.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on December 12, 2019, 11:13:58 pm
Never listened to that gentleman. Actually, I am more a contrarian, seldom pay attention to the experts and influencers, and do my shopping when the crowds are selling. But I'd like to know when Trump gets off Bezos' case and AMZN starts moving up again.   

So, you are currently not in the stock market but keep an eye on Amazon for what? To buy when they peak?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 13, 2019, 12:47:23 am
Why should they compromise now with a US President who may not be there much longer when his successor, be it Democrat or Republican, will be more aligned with the traditional US values of open trade?

Cheers,
Bernard

The Democrats three year effort to impeach him for political reasons has weakened his negotiation hand.  The Democrats have hurt America and other countries who suffer from unfair Chinese trade practices.       
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 13, 2019, 01:27:47 am
The Democrats three year effort to impeach him for political reasons has weakened his negotiation hand.  The Democrats have hurt America and other countries who suffer from unfair Chinese trade practices.     

Unfair Chinese trade practices? Seriously???

The Chinese economy wouldn’t be at 10% of its current power had US companies not massively invested in China... not to mention the fact that the US is more than happy to have China finance its colossal debt... that debt further increased thanks to the taxcuts that Trump gave to his super rich friends. And where does the money that China is investing in US debt come from? From taxes collected by trading with the US.

So in short, the US is avoiding to crumble under the interest of its own debt thanks to these “unfair trade practices” Trump seems so unhappy about.

It’s a bit more complex than that but I hope you’ve understood the core mechanism and what it means in terms of the incredible stupidity of Trump’s commercial war.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 13, 2019, 01:50:42 am
Countries that don't invent anything don't have to worry about Chinese theft of intellectual property. Even those countries have to turn over design details to do trade in China. Those Chinese predatory practices are intolerable and shouldn't be allowed. So fighting back is t he only way to stop them from doing it. I don't think that Trump has succeeded and he's basically folding up his tent because Democratic pressure due to impeachment and politics is forcing him to give up the fight.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 13, 2019, 03:07:28 am
... The Chinese economy wouldn’t be at 10% of its current power had US companies not massively invested in China...

One thing we could agree on.

Reminds me of a quote, attributed to Lenin, that capitalists would sell you the rope you could then use to hang them.

But it is a tough balancing act. You want other countries to become stronger economically so that they can buy your products, but not so strong as to become competitors  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on December 13, 2019, 06:47:38 am
(A couple of other notes, not relevant to this thread: based on the exit polls, it appears to me that the SNP swept the Scottish constituencies.  Might this be the beginning of the end of the United Kingdom?  And, by the way, what happened to the Liberal Democrats?)

Those are questions for another thread, as you observe, but briefly, probably not (the SNP has in the recent past held more than the 48 of the 59 Scottish seats that it now has) and nothing much (they lost one of their seats, which happened to be their leader's).

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on December 13, 2019, 07:15:57 am
... The Democrats have hurt America and other countries who suffer from unfair Chinese trade practices.     

Yes that were the Democrats...what I mean Obama!!! It is all his fault.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 13, 2019, 08:39:20 am
President Trump takes advantage of his bully pulpit (aka, Twitter) to go after............wait for it................Greta Thunberg.  Her 'crime' was being named Time's Person of the Year.  Said the President, "So ridiculous.  Greta must work on her Anger Management problem and then go to an old fashion movie with a friend!  Chill Greta! Chill!"  First Lady Melania Trump who has taken on bullying as a cause has no statement on the President's words against a 16 year old with Asperger's Syndrome.  Fortunately, Ms. Thunberg came back with a quick retort to the President and maybe, just maybe, the President is in need of some anger management therapy.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 13, 2019, 09:24:02 am
President Trump takes advantage of his bully pulpit (aka, Twitter) to go after............wait for it................Greta Thunberg.  Her 'crime' was being named Time's Person of the Year.  Said the President, "So ridiculous.  Greta must work on her Anger Management problem and then go to an old fashion movie with a friend!  Chill Greta! Chill!"  First Lady Melania Trump who has taken on bullying as a cause has no statement on the President's words against a 16 year old with Asperger's Syndrome.  Fortunately, Ms. Thunberg came back with a quick retort to the President and maybe, just maybe, the President is in need of some anger management therapy.

Although I do not condone Trump's twitter feed, I do feel that it was kind of ridiculous to name a 16 year old person of the year.  (Unless perhaps if she was an actual martyr for a noble cause, such as Anne Frank.)  No one at 16 has any clue of how anything truly works.  I mean really, how can you when you have only had the ability of abstract thought for just 2 or 3 years (basic human psychological development) and almost no meaningful life experiences.  Not to mention, it is more then likely the case that your opinions on major topics merely mirrors your parents at that age.  In her case, this is then compounded by the fact that she is protesting by skipping school, which surely is not adding to her intellect or understanding on the subject, not to mention sets a bad example. 

It was a foolish, yet obliviously political, pick, but not the most so.  If you feel climate change should have been the topic, a climate scientist with actual credentials and research experience who could articulate the subject matter would have been a better pick.  Picking a snarky 16 year old who just yells turns off more people, which is not a good thing considering the state of things. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 13, 2019, 09:28:56 am
Trump uses twitter to drive left-wingers crazy. It's not much of a drive.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on December 13, 2019, 10:31:46 am
News sources are reporting that the Republicans aren't going to call any witnesses at the trial in the Senate. No Joe Biden, no Hunter Biden, no whistleblower, no Adam Schiff. What a disappointment.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on December 13, 2019, 11:13:18 am
Although I do not condone Trump's twitter feed, I do feel that it was kind of ridiculous to name a 16 year old person of the year.  (Unless perhaps if she was an actual martyr for a noble cause, such as Anne Frank.)  No one at 16 has any clue of how anything truly works.  I mean really, how can you when you have only had the ability of abstract thought for just 2 or 3 years (basic human psychological development) and almost no meaningful life experiences.  Not to mention, it is more then likely the case that your opinions on major topics merely mirrors your parents at that age.  In her case, this is then compounded by the fact that she is protesting by skipping school, which surely is not adding to her intellect or understanding on the subject, not to mention sets a bad example. 

It was a foolish, yet obliviously political, pick, but not the most so.  If you feel climate change should have been the topic, a climate scientist with actual credentials and research experience who could articulate the subject matter would have been a better pick.  Picking a snarky 16 year old who just yells turns off more people, which is not a good thing considering the state of things.
It is not just about her.
Greta Thunberg represents the large group of teenagers around the world that find climate change a real endangering issue,
even important enough to strike from school to go demontrate for measures that will produce a better climate.
Young people can think really well, better than 70 + year old;  a lot of mathematicians have peaked very young.
Trumps tweet is that of an cynic old respectless man...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 13, 2019, 11:15:45 am
News sources are reporting that the Republicans aren't going to call any witnesses at the trial in the Senate. No Joe Biden, no Hunter Biden, no whistleblower, no Adam Schiff. What a disappointment.
I guess they figure the Biden's would refuse to appear so what's the point?  I thought it was better to do it the way a trump wants it done.    But maybe I'm wrong.   Then they'd have to call other witnesses and allow the Democrats to call theirs making more of a spectacle of it.   This way they could claim the whole thing is a farce and vote to dismiss the phoney charges.  The way Biden is doing in any case,  it may be better for  Trump to run against him anyway.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 13, 2019, 11:17:19 am
Yes, a disappointment indeed.  From a vindictive perspective, going for blood would surely be tempting.  I would love to see Schiff finally be under oath and have to answer questions about his role with the whistleblower.  I would also love to see his phone records published, especially if it showed he called the whistleblower. 

From a political perspective though, this may not be a good idea.  Support for impeachment is at the lowest it has been since this began and support amongst independents is dropping fast.  This is especially the case in swing states and districts, not to mention no one is really pay attention to it at this point, which is why the  Dems are fast tracking it.  Right now, all of the negativity around impeachment is falling squarely on the Dems. 

If the Senate republicans decide to make this a long trial, at some point this negativity will then be transferred to them and independents will then be asking, "if there is no there there, why are the Republicans spending so much time on it."  McConnell is probably right to make this short.  Now whether or not Trump will agree to this is yet to be seen. 

He may insist on making it painful for the Dems, but doing so could very well throw it back on him. 

However, even is this is a short trail, don't expect it to be good for Dems.  McConnell has already talked about following the federal rules on evidence, which does not allow hearsay.  The only fact witness called was Sondland, who did not give the Dems what they wanted.  Aside from a couple of experts, one called for each side, this is the only witness that may actually be allowed to testify. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on December 13, 2019, 11:19:12 am
News sources are reporting that the Republicans aren't going to call any witnesses at the trial in the Senate. No Joe Biden, no Hunter Biden, no whistleblower, no Adam Schiff. What a disappointment.

I suspect there will be extensive discussions between the White House and the Senate Republican leadership in the weeks prior to the start of a trial, but if the latter are confident of holding all or almost all of their members―a two-thirds supermajority is required for removal from office―not calling defense witnesses may be a sensible tactical and political decision.  Assuming the full House of Representatives approves the two articles of impeachment voted by its judiciary committee, Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the Senate trial.  At least, trying to call this particular list of witnesses would risk rulings by the chief justice not to admit their evidence on grounds of relevancy.  That would not only be a public relations embarrassment, but it would also tend to undermine the various arguments Trump's defenders have advanced that it was appropriate for Trump to ask the Ukrainian president to investigate the Bidens, that the "whistleblower" was a "deep state" plant, and that Adam Schiff conducted a biased investigation in the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 13, 2019, 11:23:45 am
It is not just about her.
Greta Thunberg represents the large group of teenagers around the world that find climate change a real endangering issue,
even important enough to strike from school to go demontrate for measures that will produce a better climate.
Young people can think really well, better than 70 + year old;  a lot of mathematicians have peaked very young.
Trumps tweet is that of an cynic old respectless man...

Nothing wrong with her activities or the rest of these teenagers.   But once a person, regardless of their age enters the political arena, they're open to criticism.   You can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 13, 2019, 11:26:37 am
It is not just about her.
Greta Thunberg represents the large group of teenagers around the world that find climate change a real endangering issue,
even important enough to strike from school to go demontrate for measures that will produce a better climate.
Young people can think really well, better than 70 + year old;  a lot of mathematicians have peaked very young.
Trumps tweet is that of an cynic old respectless man...

This is a falsity that came from the Vietnam protests and the chance that young actually got it right.  However, in the majority of cases, young people are horribly wrong.  The Vietnam protests was just a fluke that got it right. 

You really need to take the 10,000 foot view on this.  Can a person with no degree, no lab experience, no research experience really be able to argue on the issue?  Although this may be the case with mathematics, and computer science, which has very little to do with the real world and operate within self-defined artificial realities where you choose to believe independent axioms or not (and in which negating any axioms does not create an invalid mathematical system, only one that is different and unique) is completely different that needing to understand very real world complex interactions that rely on a lot of research and experiments. 

Ignoring this 10,000 foot view is why Elizabeth Holmes got away with her scam for so long.  People thought that since young people can revolutionize silicon valley, why not with medical science?  Because it takes years of knowledge and research and experiments to amass the intellectual base required to excel in this field.  You can't just create a new human body like you can a mathematical system. 

As noted in other threads, I am not a climate change denier and I do feel the climate is changing due to humans.  I however greatly disagree with the notion we should be using a snarky teenager who yells at people, while protesting by hanging out on her parent's yacht, as the face for change.  It is a pretty loosing strategy and certainly, and rightly so, opens up the legitimate case for criticism from climate change deniers. 

And as Alan just noted, the left's notion that Greta should be free of critique because she is a child just does not cut it.  She may be a child, but she is in the political sphere now, and open to receiving political harassment. 

Perhaps the biggest reason this is a loosing strategy is because, at some point, she will no longer be a child.  If we continue to use her as the face for climate change, we will eventually end up with a face of a person who is now an angry adult that has no degrees behind her name, and therefore no legitimacy. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on December 13, 2019, 12:06:32 pm
You really need to take the 10,000 foot view on this.  Can a person with no degree, no lab experience, no research experience really be able to argue on the issue?  Although this may be the case with mathematics, and computer science, which has very little to do with the real world and operate within self-defined artificial realities where you choose to believe independent axioms or not (and in which negating any axioms does not create an invalid mathematical system, only one that is different and unique) is completely different that needing to understand very real world complex interactions that rely on a lot of research and experiments. 

Ignoring this 10,000 foot view is why Elizabeth Holmes got away with her scam for so long.  People thought that since young people can revolutionize silicon valley, why not with medical science?  Because it takes years of knowledge and research and experiments to amass the intellectual base required to excel in this field.  You can't just create a new human body like you can a mathematical system. 

As noted in other threads, I am not a climate change denier and I do feel the climate is changing due to humans.  I however greatly disagree with the notion we should be using a snarky teenager who yells at people, while protesting by hanging out on her parent's yacht, as the face for change.  It is a pretty loosing strategy and certainly, and rightly so, opens up the legitimate case for criticism from climate change deniers. 

And as Alan just noted, the left's notion that Greta should be free of critique because she is a child just does not cut it.  She may be a child, but she is in the political sphere now, and open to receiving political harassment. 

Perhaps the biggest reason this is a loosing strategy is because, at some point, she will no longer be a child.  If we continue to use her as the face for climate change, we will eventually end up with a face of a person who is now an angry adult that has no degrees behind her name, and therefore no legitimacy.

I can see why you prefer Trump;
A 70 year old and still respectless man with    LAB experience? ... that knows everything - including everything about climate change and its causes and he does not need to consult anybody ( scientist) to know he has got it right

70 years of golf experience? and still not able to pay respect to a 16 year old or any other person because he himself would like to be Time's person of the year...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 13, 2019, 12:11:42 pm
Time's "Person of the Year" has been a joke for many years now. What difference does it make that a useless propaganda organ puts a 16 year-old tool of the crazy left on its cover? Who cares?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 13, 2019, 12:22:13 pm
I can see why you prefer Trump;
A 70 year old and still respectless man with    LAB experience? ... that knows everything - including everything about climate change and its causes and he does not need to consult anybody ( scientist) to know he has got it right

70 years of golf experience? and still not able to pay respect to a 16 year old or any other person because he himself would like to be Time's person of the year...

Ahhh, yes, nice ad hominem.  By the way, I play golf too.  Does that mean my opinion drops even more, since, you know, I share a hobby with the president? 

LOL  At least I'm not a hunter and have no chance of accidentally shooting a person in the face, so you cant lump me together with Cheney. 

And to then ignore the fact that I have come out, several times on this forum, in support of climate science is more of a refection of your skills then mine.  By the way, if you really want to talk about the left's strategy of using wind power and solar power, and whatever other rainbows sprout out of unicorns, all I just need to do is point Germany with their abject failure in decreasing emissions while at the same time greatly increasing the cost of energy. 

And the idea that I should elect individuals who want to completely change the entire economy to a system that has been proven to fail everywhere it was implemented, namely socialism, is kind of absurd.  Just like it is absolutely absurd to imply someone should vote only on one subject, as you just did here.  Get out there and resurrect some Blue Dog Dems who are pro-capitalist, and you could lure me back to your side. 

But getting back to the point, let's say little Greta was instead super interested in medical science and wanted to be a doctor.  She spent her days looking at medical books and was just as enthusiastic on the subject.  Would you abandon your medical doctor and start taking advice from her?  Would you feel it would be appropriate to use her as the face of medical science? 

You would have to be a fool to do so, in either case.  She would not have the necessary experience, even if she had a pretty expended knowledge base on anatomy, to qualify as a person to give medical advice.  And using her as the new face of doctors would greatly decrease the public standing of the profession. 

Same thing here.  Use a climate scientist with years of research to back his/her arguments to defend climate change and the need for action. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on December 13, 2019, 12:41:43 pm
Ahhh, yes, nice ad hominem.  By the way, I play golf too.  Does that mean my opinion drops even more, since, you know, I share a hobby with the president? 

LOL  At least I'm not a hunter and have no chance of accidentally shooting a person in the face, so you cant lump me together with Cheney. 

And to then ignore the fact that I have come out, several times on this forum, in support of climate science is more of a refection of your skills then mine.  By the way, if you really want to talk about the left's strategy of using wind power and solar power, and whatever other rainbows sprout out of unicorns, all I just need to do is point Germany with their abject failure in decreasing emissions while at the same time greatly increasing the cost of energy. 

And the idea that I should elect individuals who want to completely change the entire economy to a system that has been proven to fail everywhere it was implemented, namely socialism, is kind of absurd.  Just like it is absolutely absurd to imply someone should vote only on one subject, as you just did here.  Get out there and resurrect some Blue Dog Dems who are pro-capitalist, and you could lure me back to your side. 

But getting back to the point, let's say little Greta was instead super interested in medical science and wanted to be a doctor.  She spent her days looking at medical books and was just as enthusiastic on the subject.  Would you abandon your medical doctor and start taking advice from her?  Would you feel it would be appropriate to use her as the face of medical science? 

You would have to be a fool to do so, in either case.  She would not have the necessary experience, even if she had a pretty expended knowledge base on anatomy, to qualify as a person to give medical advice.  And using her as the new face of doctors would greatly decrease the public standing of the profession. 

Same thing here.  Use a climate scientist with years of research to back his/her arguments to defend climate change and the need for action.

Sorry i am not trying to offend you, but i just do not agree with your points...
It might help not to call every opinion a politcial one- i do not think left vs right at all.
your idea of socialism is a caricature - even the US under Trump is a mix of Socialism and Capitalism.
Paying tax is a kind of socialism- needed to get certain things done, like building roads.
When looking at alternatives for fossil fuel; Wind and solar energy are already economically concurring with fossil fuel in many fields.
Even more if you calculate the pollution fossil fuels produce. No unicorns and rainbows needed.






Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 13, 2019, 01:14:13 pm
Sorry i am not trying to offend you, but i just do not agree with your points...
It might help not to call every opinion a politcial one- i do not think left vs right at all.
your idea of socialism is a caricature - even the US under Trump is a mix of Socialism and Capitalism.
Paying tax is a kind of socialism- needed to get certain things done, like building roads.
When looking at alternatives for fossil fuel; Wind and solar energy are already economically concurring with fossil fuel in many fields.
Even more if you calculate the pollution fossil fuels produce. No unicorns and rainbows needed.

Advanced studies on the economics of wind and solar do not show them being economically viable alternatives.

I have gone over this before.  It has been shown in nearly every circumstance, that when wind and solar start supplying around 12% of the power supply, the viability of them drop significantly and the overall price for energy starts to raise.  If you look at Germany, which gets about 23% of their power from wind and solar (with around 50% capacity of production), electricity cost is nearly three times that of France.

The only two real life cases of this not being the case is in TX and AZ.  With TX, the natural gas boom has greatly decreased the price of natural gas, which is offsetting the increase in cost from solar/wind.  In AZ, the fact that nearly 80% of the state is owned by the Federal government, the cost of land for solar and wind farms, which is a huge part of the cost, is extremely low and those farms can be located near major metro areas, decreasing the need for long distance lines, another major cost.  Neither of these cases can be applied to anywhere else though, especially in Europe. 

Even in the case of solar panels on house roof, it is twice as expensive to get electricity from roofing panels then from solar farms.  On top of that, increase in urbanization means the roof space per capita is greatly decrease in time, eliminating this as a viable alternative.  Not to mention, roof panels would never be able to supply the needed power for commercial usage. 

Furthermore, even if you ignore the direct cost of solar/wind, the indirect cost of storing is extremely high as well.  All batteries loose at least 20% of energy when you store energy with in them to extract later, but could be as high as 40%.  On top of that, the shear amount of batteries, which are expensive, you would need to make this work is huge, which would cause even more damage due to the drastic increase in mining necessary to get the raw materials.  CA has been trying to lead here, but still has less then 6 minutes of battery usage in the entire state, even if you count every single battery in the state (like those in flashlights).  Also, all other energy storage solutions have enormous pit falls, such as the idea of storing water in dam like structures.  Here, the obvious problem is you need an area to build an dam like structure, and there are limited areas to build such things.  On top of that, you need to use fresh water and only 1% of the world's water is fresh water, so it is a limit resource. 

The only solution that could be an alternative is nuclear.  Unlike wind and solar, it uses very little land.  As an environmentalist, one of the biggest gripes I have with wind/solar the shear amount of land you need, all of which is destroyed.  Nuclear is very different.  Nuclear fuel is incredibly power dense, so you don't need to use a lot of it per capita.  Nuclear waste is completely self contain.  Unlike wind or solar, it can produce energy on demand and a plant can operate 80+% of the time.  Best case, solar and wind only produce energy 30% of the time.  Additionally, unlike geothermal where you need geothermal vents nearby to use, nuclear can be implemented anywhere. 

Overall I hear the left demonize nuclear (with the exception of Bill Gates, but I cant invest in his company yet), whereas the right does not, albeit some are afraid of it.  So I will vote for where the workable solution is, and until the left starts excepting nuclear as the only main alternative, it's not there. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on December 13, 2019, 02:34:37 pm
Advanced studies on the economics of wind and solar do not show them being economically viable alternatives.

I have gone over this before.  It has been shown in nearly every circumstance, that when wind and solar start supplying around 12% of the power supply, the viability of them drop significantly and the overall price for energy starts to raise.  If you look at Germany, which gets about 23% of their power from wind and solar (with around 50% capacity of production), electricity cost is nearly three times that of France.

The only two real life cases of this not being the case is in TX and AZ.  With TX, the natural gas boom has greatly decreased the price of natural gas, which is offsetting the increase in cost from solar/wind.  In AZ, the fact that nearly 80% of the state is owned by the Federal government, the cost of land for solar and wind farms, which is a huge part of the cost, is extremely low and those farms can be located near major metro areas, decreasing the need for long distance lines, another major cost.  Neither of these cases can be applied to anywhere else though, especially in Europe. 

Even in the case of solar panels on house roof, it is twice as expensive to get electricity from roofing panels then from solar farms.  On top of that, increase in urbanization means the roof space per capita is greatly decrease in time, eliminating this as a viable alternative.  Not to mention, roof panels would never be able to supply the needed power for commercial usage. 

Furthermore, even if you ignore the direct cost of solar/wind, the indirect cost of storing is extremely high as well.  All batteries loose at least 20% of energy when you store energy with in them to extract later, but could be as high as 40%.  On top of that, the shear amount of batteries, which are expensive, you would need to make this work is huge, which would cause even more damage due to the drastic increase in mining necessary to get the raw materials.  CA has been trying to lead here, but still has less then 6 minutes of battery usage in the entire state, even if you count every single battery in the state (like those in flashlights).  Also, all other energy storage solutions have enormous pit falls, such as the idea of storing water in dam like structures.  Here, the obvious problem is you need an area to build an dam like structure, and there are limited areas to build such things.  On top of that, you need to use fresh water and only 1% of the world's water is fresh water, so it is a limit resource. 

The only solution that could be an alternative is nuclear.  Unlike wind and solar, it uses very little land.  As an environmentalist, one of the biggest gripes I have with wind/solar the shear amount of land you need, all of which is destroyed.  Nuclear is very different.  Nuclear fuel is incredibly power dense, so you don't need to use a lot of it per capita.  Nuclear waste is completely self contain.  Unlike wind or solar, it can produce energy on demand and a plant can operate 80+% of the time.  Best case, solar and wind only produce energy 30% of the time.  Additionally, unlike geothermal where you need geothermal vents nearby to use, nuclear can be implemented anywhere. 

Overall I hear the left demonize nuclear (with the exception of Bill Gates, but I cant invest in his company yet), whereas the right does not, albeit some are afraid of it.  So I will vote for where the workable solution is, and until the left starts excepting nuclear as the only main alternative, it's not there.

You must realize that we are only at the starting point of this green economy; The period of the first airoplane or FORD so to speak; It seems you only can think of a faster carriage with more horses, not knowing what a car is.

Many problems you mention - like energy storage, are just a matter of time to be tackled; Already viable ideas are tested; In our country we are building some energy stores with plain salt, no mining needed.
I find solar farms to be interesting only in desert area's because of the wasted space; in urban areas all roofs should be solar roofs; prices of solarpanels have dropped by 50% the last years and will be dropping more.
IKEA even sells them - after 7 years you have earned the investment back and the panels work at least 25 years.
(decentralizing energysupply has also some benefits)
The problem with nuclear power is that in that case the cost of nuclear waste storage and the dismantling of such a reactor is always left out of the economic equation. Not to mention when something goes really wrong.
I am not saying that we can tackle all energy needs with wind and solar, but a lot of them. Also we are learning to make our energy slurping devices much more efficient. We waste a lot of energy.
To move around our-80KG-selves, we drag along a car of 2000KG powered by gasoline; How stupid that sounds.

The use of nuclear energy might be an option in the case of a Thorium plant; I read that the US had stopped the development of this type of nucleair plant in the 1960 because it was not providing nucleair material for warheads.
But this type is one of the savest, having a passive cooldown system that always works in case of failure. Also the nucleair waste is only radiating 300 years after use, instead of 10.000 years with plutonium.( that is also 3x more scarce)
Of coarse the real sollution for our energy hungry (space) intentions has to come from nucleair fusion. But there is no reason to believe that will come to us soon.

At the moment the Chinese are investing a lot of money in green energy; They look 50 years ahead instead of 4, and know it is the only solution to create a future China where you can live.
In Europe we are at the start of a green deal; we all have to find out what will become of that, but the intention is there and a lot of money will be invested in it.
In 2050 Europe has to be climate neutral. A lot of positive thinking crazy people here; that is a good start. You need that otherwise you stay stuck with burning carbon things.

PS don't start again about left and right please... not everything is persé political oriented. Disengage.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 13, 2019, 03:03:04 pm
You must realize that we are only at the starting point of this green economy; The period of the first FORD so to speak; It seems you only can think of a faster carriage with more horses, not knowing what a car is.

Many problems you mention - like energy storage, are just a matter of time to be tackled; Already viable ideas are tested.
If you put solar panels on all the roofs, making them solar roofs you have already tackled one big area problem you mentioned. (decentralizing energysupply has some benefits)
The problem with nuclear power is that in that case the cost of nuclear waste storage and the dismantling of such a reactor is always left out of the economic equation. Not to mention when something goes really wrong.
I am not saying that we can tackle all energy needs with wind and solar, but a lot of them. Also we are learning to make our energy slurping devices much more efficient. We waste a lot of energy.
To move around our-80KG-selves, we drag along a car of 2000KG powered by gasoline; How stupid that sounds.

The Chinese are investing a lot of money in green energy; They look 50 years ahead instead of 4, and know it is the only solution to create a future China where you can live.
In Europe we are at the start of a green deal; we all have to find out what will become of that, but the intention is there and a lot of money will be invested in it.
In 2050 Europe has to be climate neutral. A lot of positive thinking crazy people here; that is a good start. You need that otherwise you stay stuck with burning carbon things.

All physicists that I have listened on the topic of increasing efficiency of solar wind power all agree we are far past the point of diminishing returns.  Wind and solar has been around for decades, but only just started to be implemented due to higher fuel costs in the last decade.  Increases in efficiency will be minimal unless a new technology is developed.  Not to mention there is the large downside that neither wind nor solar produce energy on demand. 

Insofar as alternate storage devices, none of them have been proven to work on a large scale.  Maybe there is some hope here, but since wind/solar are so energy dilute and intermittent, if we can not get those to work, none of that really matters. 

If you disagree, please show me examples of countries that have greatly increased their wind and solar reliance with prices going down.  Like I said, I only know of TX and AZ, and in each case there is a factor outside of the wind/solar economy that can not be replicated in other geographies which made that happen.  Whereas with nuclear, Franc gets 96% of their electricity from it and they have fairly low electricity prices.  Energy runs the economy; if the price goes up, GDP will be greatly effected. 

Insofar as your car issue, increases in urbanization is handling that issue more effectively then changes in energy production.  And as I stated before, when people start living in apartment building, solar roof panels start to loose their advantage.  Large single family houses is where that makes sense.  I dont know what it is like where you are, but suburbia is loosing it appeal. 

With nuclear power, when something goes really wrong, often the effects are not nearly as bad as it is made out to be.  With Chernobyl, all of the initial deaths were caused by the explosion and fire, and only about 120 deaths are estimated to have had happened from exposure with nearly all happening long after the fact from thyroid cancer.  With Fukushima, the only cause of death was from mass hysteria from a not needed evacuation. 

The Chinese do invest a lot in nuclear as well. 

Kind of off topic, but I am a little weary on China though.  As with all urbanized countries, their birth rate is below the 2.1 children per female needed to maintain the population, plus they are very restrictive on immigration and the one child policy created a situation where there are many more males in prime age then female, all of which will bring a crash in their population in the next decade or two.  Darrel Bricker and John Ibbitson have some interesting research on this.  I would say, better to look to India then China, at least with investments.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 13, 2019, 03:49:42 pm
The Democrats three year effort to impeach him for political reasons has weakened his negotiation hand.  The Democrats have hurt America and other countries who suffer from unfair Chinese trade practices.     

Your ability to deform facts to have them fit your political agenda is impressive.

Pretty much every word in your sentence departs from reality.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 13, 2019, 05:24:19 pm
I guess they figure the Biden's would refuse to appear so what's the point?  I thought it was better to do it the way a trump wants it done.    But maybe I'm wrong.   Then they'd have to call other witnesses and allow the Democrats to call theirs making more of a spectacle of it.   This way they could claim the whole thing is a farce and vote to dismiss the phoney charges.  The way Biden is doing in any case,  it may be better for  Trump to run against him anyway.

Or, more realistically, they know that Biden would be found to be innocent of any of the fantasy crimes the Republicans have been daydreaming about. Which would have further confirmed the fact that what Trump is accused of can only be true.

The smart play of the Democrats would be to have Biden testify. How great would that not be? I can imagine the Republican clan shaking at this thought.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 13, 2019, 05:34:29 pm
All physicists that I have listened on the topic of increasing efficiency of solar wind power all agree we are far past the point of diminishing returns.  Wind and solar has been around for decades, but only just started to be implemented due to higher fuel costs in the last decade.  Increases in efficiency will be minimal unless a new technology is developed.  Not to mention there is the large downside that neither wind nor solar produce energy on demand. 

Insofar as alternate storage devices, none of them have been proven to work on a large scale.  Maybe there is some hope here, but since wind/solar are so energy dilute and intermittent, if we can not get those to work, none of that really matters. 

If you disagree, please show me examples of countries that have greatly increased their wind and solar reliance with prices going down.  Like I said, I only know of TX and AZ, and in each case there is a factor outside of the wind/solar economy that can not be replicated in other geographies which made that happen.  Whereas with nuclear, Franc gets 96% of their electricity from it and they have fairly low electricity prices.  Energy runs the economy; if the price goes up, GDP will be greatly effected. 

Insofar as your car issue, increases in urbanization is handling that issue more effectively then changes in energy production.  And as I stated before, when people start living in apartment building, solar roof panels start to loose their advantage.  Large single family houses is where that makes sense.  I dont know what it is like where you are, but suburbia is loosing it appeal. 

With nuclear power, when something goes really wrong, often the effects are not nearly as bad as it is made out to be.  With Chernobyl, all of the initial deaths were caused by the explosion and fire, and only about 120 deaths are estimated to have had happened from exposure with nearly all happening long after the fact from thyroid cancer.  With Fukushima, the only cause of death was from mass hysteria from a not needed evacuation. 

The Chinese do invest a lot in nuclear as well. 

Kind of off topic, but I am a little weary on China though.  As with all urbanized countries, their birth rate is below the 2.1 children per female needed to maintain the population, plus they are very restrictive on immigration and the one child policy created a situation where there are many more males in prime age then female, all of which will bring a crash in their population in the next decade or two.  Darrel Bricker and John Ibbitson have some interesting research on this.  I would say, better to look to India then China, at least with investments.

Joe,

About Fukushima, I was there, you have no idea what you are talking about... yet you are talking about it with a great degree of confidence...

There was no mass histeria and even less a mas histeria that caused people to die. Evacuation was obviously needed although people didn’t want to evacuate.

I don’t disagree about the value of well designed and state ran nuclear power though. Fukushima has been the obvious proof that private operators cannot deal with the consequences of accidents and there is no reason why citizens should let them ripe the benefits without dealing with the actual costs. A sound society must be built on accountability.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 13, 2019, 05:44:22 pm
Or, more realistically, they know that Biden would be found to be innocent of any of the fantasy crimes the Republicans have been daydreaming about. Which would have further confirmed the fact that what Trump is accused of can only be true.

The smart play of the Democrats would be to have Biden testify. How great would that not be? I can imagine the Republican clan shaking at this thought.

Cheers,
Bernard

Not really. 

Biden testifying would (edit, could) certainly hurt him, even though it was not illegal.  It is pretty obvious, or that is the perception, Hunter was selling White House access; there is no way around this.  This is technically not illegal to do with foreign companies, but still not a good look.  Same thing with the Chinese firm, and Biden really has some explaining to do about it.  It is like the Hillary email thing, if she had owned up to it and apologized, it would not have become such a big issue. 

The growing fear on the Republican side is if they bring Joe Biden in to testify, he can then talk about his other son who was dying of cancer at the time the Hunter thing was going on.  This could then garner sympathy from public and the Hunter issue fades away.  Biden has already put this strategy into effect with a recent interview. 

The interview on its own is not enough to squash the issue though (and he going to have to own up to it or loose).  But being grilled by Senate republicans could, which is not what the republicans want. 

To be honest though, I cant see any of this being an issue with the Dem primary.  I feel it is going to be a contested convention, and in that situation, it benefits the Dems to pick someone who is not even in the race.  Why?  Well if it is contested, by the time it makes it to the summer, each candidate's group will be so entrenched with hating the other candidates, picking someone is currently running is guaranteed to alienate more than half the party.  And then say hello to Hillary again. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 13, 2019, 05:47:02 pm
Joe,

About Fukushima, I was there, you have no idea what you are talking about... yet you are talking about it with a great degree of confidence...

There was no mass histeria and even less a mas histeria that caused people to die. Evacuation was obviously needed although people didn’t want to evacuate.

I don’t disagree about the value of well designed and state ran nuclear power though. Fukushima has been the obvious proof that private operators cannot deal with the consequences of accidents and there is no reason why citizens should let them ripe the benefits without dealing with the actual costs. A sound society must be built on accountability.

Cheers,
Bernard

From Wiki, "A May 2012 United Nations committee report stated that none of the six Fukushima workers who had died since the tsunami had died from radiation exposure. According to a 2012 Yomiuri Shimbun survey, 573 deaths have been certified as "disaster-related" by 13 municipalities affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

 It was the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986,[10] and the radiation released exceeded official safety guidelines. Despite this, there were no deaths caused by acute radiation syndrome. Given the uncertain health effects of low-dose radiation, cancer deaths cannot be ruled out.[11] However, studies by the World Health Organisation and Tokyo University have shown that no discernible increase in the rate of cancer deaths is expected." 

And why does it always have to be state-run?  It is not like state run entities are incapable of disaster.  Chernobyl was state run.  And since when were companies not being held accountable?  The last major energy screw up in the USA was the BP oil spill.  They were ordered to pay out $5.5B; that sounds like a pretty serious dose of accountability. 

And are government run entities always held accountable?

PS. I don't want to highjack this topic with energy talk.  So in 2040, we can converse again and see if (A) we are running on wind/solar power, (B) running on nuclear, or (C) still running on fossil fuels.  I highly doubt it will be A, hoping it will be B, but feel it will probably be C. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 13, 2019, 08:54:45 pm
I'l be happy if I am just alive in 2040.   Any fuel will be perfectly ok to me. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 13, 2019, 09:12:57 pm
Not really. 

Biden testifying would (edit, could) certainly hurt him, even though it was not illegal.  It is pretty obvious, or that is the perception, Hunter was selling White House access; there is no way around this.  This is technically not illegal to do with foreign companies, but still not a good look.  Same thing with the Chinese firm, and Biden really has some explaining to do about it.  It is like the Hillary email thing, if she had owned up to it and apologized, it would not have become such a big issue. 

Answer me this - it's a totally honest question, and I truly don't know the answer (and am genuinely curious).  Why is this such a problem for Biden, when half of Trump's campaign team was neck-deep in Russian influence (forget about "collusion" - I'm just talking about acknowledged, publicly know work like what Manafort was doing)?  And why does Hillary's email issue matter, when it's widely acknowledged that Trump, Pompeo, Sondland etc. have been continuously loose with communications security protocols?

Basically, I don't think anyone denies that Trump (and let's restrict it to these two issues for the sake of clarity) and his team do everything Hunter Biden is being accused of with regard to foreign entanglements, and everything HRC was accused of ("lock her up!!!") on a more frequent and less secure basis.

So why is this such a killer for Biden/Hillary but a nonissue for Trump?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 14, 2019, 12:13:54 am
Answer me this - it's a totally honest question, and I truly don't know the answer (and am genuinely curious).  Why is this such a problem for Biden, when half of Trump's campaign team was neck-deep in Russian influence (forget about "collusion" - I'm just talking about acknowledged, publicly know work like what Manafort was doing)?  And why does Hillary's email issue matter, when it's widely acknowledged that Trump, Pompeo, Sondland etc. have been continuously loose with communications security protocols?

Basically, I don't think anyone denies that Trump (and let's restrict it to these two issues for the sake of clarity) and his team do everything Hunter Biden is being accused of with regard to foreign entanglements, and everything HRC was accused of ("lock her up!!!") on a more frequent and less secure basis.

So why is this such a killer for Biden/Hillary but a nonissue for Trump?
James that's a great question.  Let me answer it with a question.   Why can the Democrats spend 2 1/2 years looking to impeach the president accusing him and his sons of using his office fir monetary gain,  without proof or  charges other than their own,  yet Trump can't play the same political games going after Democrat political leaders like Biden and his son who appear to have use Biden's office for monetary gain? At worse, this is all political hijinks.  Not something we impeach presidents or vice presidents for.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 14, 2019, 07:44:42 am
Answer me this - it's a totally honest question, and I truly don't know the answer (and am genuinely curious).  Why is this such a problem for Biden, when half of Trump's campaign team was neck-deep in Russian influence (forget about "collusion" - I'm just talking about acknowledged, publicly know work like what Manafort was doing)?  And why does Hillary's email issue matter, when it's widely acknowledged that Trump, Pompeo, Sondland etc. have been continuously loose with communications security protocols?

Basically, I don't think anyone denies that Trump (and let's restrict it to these two issues for the sake of clarity) and his team do everything Hunter Biden is being accused of with regard to foreign entanglements, and everything HRC was accused of ("lock her up!!!") on a more frequent and less secure basis.

So why is this such a killer for Biden/Hillary but a nonissue for Trump?

With Biden, I would say it is an issue because Hunter was trying to increase his wealth with these positions by selling access.  Joe Biden may of or may of not have been directly aware of Hunter's true purpose with these positions, but the idea Joe Biden never spoke to Hunter about his positions or his work is laughable.  There is no decent father in the world that would not talk to his son about his work, especially if he is pulling in over half a million a year.  So this starts to seem more like a scandal because it is obvious Joe Biden is not being 100% truthful.  Until he owns up to it and a comes clean, it will continue to be an issue.   

The Hillary email issue would not have been a issue if she just owned up to it and apologized as well.  For months she insisted she did nothing wrong, but the law clearly stated otherwise.  Then to try and hide any wrong doing, she had her servers scrubbed clean and had her staff destroy cell phones with hammers (because you know, this is how everyone gets rid of their old cell phones).  That is what made it an issue.  It could have been done and over with in February, but her denials stretched it out. 

With the Trump team's influence with Russia, Obama spent years saying we need better relations with Russia and ostracized Romney for suggesting otherwise.  Obama normalized relations with Russia, and normalized the idea of better relations to the country, and the only thing that really changed that was the Ukraine issue.  The only problem for those who are now screaming the anti-Russia messaging is that no one in the USA really cares about Ukraine, and, since the left has been so anti-Trump and Trump is also pro-Russia, it is coming off as hypocrisy. People really want better relations with Russia, even those on the right, and if Ukraine was invaded tomorrow, that would not change. 

Plus, none of the illegal actions anyone on the Trump team was involved in actually involved Trump.  Back when the Katie Hill scandal broke, I listened to Ben Shapiro say nothing sticks to a politician like a sex scandal because it is impossible for it to be someone else's fault.  So long as there is a plausible way to shift blame to someone else, any politician from either side will be fine once it blows over.  This philosophy applies to these three as well.  Biden could save himself, but he would need to throw Hunter under the bus (in a nice way).  None of the Trump teams scandals involved Trump.  The Hillary email was impossible to shake because only Hillary could be blamed. 

Insofar as the loose with communications security protocols team Trump seems to be doing, it is not 100% certain they are being loose.  And if it was, Trump would probably not only own up to it, but act like it's no big deal.  Plus the entire country would expect this anyway, so it is already baked into the cake.  Just look at his poll numbers; a surging economy and he is in the 40s.  Lots of issues with Trump are already baked into the cake at this point.  At the end of the day, I dont think the public is as concerned about security issues with communications between government leaders, especially since we have become so accustomed to devices.  Trump or Hillary being loose is not perceived as a big deal, but Hillary dragging it out was a screw up. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 14, 2019, 08:26:39 am
James that's a great question.  Let me answer it with a question.

No, why not answer that great question with an answer?

Quote
Why can the Democrats spend 2 1/2 years looking to impeach the president accusing him and his sons of using his office fir monetary gain, [...]

Wrong. Democrats didn't but, unlike the Republicans (?), instead they did their sworn duty, i.e. to protect the constitution. The investigations were about foreign meddling in the 2016  elections, and people were expelled or went to jail.

What candidate Trump at the time did or did not do, would not be ground for impeachment (because he was not the President yet).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 14, 2019, 09:45:07 am
... The investigations were about foreign meddling in the 2016  elections, and people were expelled or went to jail...

On unrelated charges.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 14, 2019, 10:15:11 am
On unrelated charges.

On December 29, 2016, Thirty-five Russian diplomats were declared 'personae non gratae' by the United States in response to the alleged Kremlin-backed interference in the 2016 United States presidential election.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/29/obama-expels-35-russian-diplomats-election-hacking-row/

And then there were :
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/25/who-has-already-been-indicted-russia-investigation/
Michael Flynn: Flynn was a campaign adviser to Trump and then briefly his national security adviser. In November 2017 Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his discussions with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition. Flynn and Kislyak had discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia for election meddling.
George Papadopoulos: A campaign adviser on foreign policy, Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in October 2017 to lying to the FBI about his efforts to put the Trump campaign in contact with Moscow.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 14, 2019, 11:15:01 am
I really appreciate this thread. If I start feeling down for any reason I can read the thread and roll on the floor laughing.

I can tell almost exactly what y'all are reading. I can't tell what the publications are, but I can tell what kind of reporters and editorial writers the publications have. Bottom line: what you're reading is no different from the crap that gets thrown around on U.S. publications like the Washington Post and Associated Press. It's all left-wing speculation and propaganda, pretending to be news and reportage. I understand that a lot of people actually believe that stuff, but the real revelations are things like the state of the U.S. economy, and the fact that the unemployment rate for minorities is lower than it's ever been. Things like that are facts. What you're reading is opinion. But you accept it as fact. That's called "gullibility."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 14, 2019, 11:25:13 am
I understand that a lot of people actually believe that stuff, but the real revelations are things like the state of the U.S. economy, and the fact that the unemployment rate for minorities is lower than it's ever been.

Could it be that people needing more than 1 job to make ends meet has someting to do with that?

And could it be that running up the National deficit allows more "money" to be available?.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-budget/u-s-governments-annual-budget-deficit-largest-since-2012-idUSKBN1X426T
Quote
It is the first time since the early 1980s that the budget gap has widened over four consecutive years. The figures reflect the second full budget year under U.S. President Donald Trump, a Republican, and come at a time when the country has an expanding tax base with moderate economic growth and an unemployment rate currently near a 50-year low.
[...]
Quote
The annual budget deficit had been reduced to $585 billion by the end of former President Barack Obama’s second term in 2016 and Republicans in Congress during that time criticized Obama, a Democrat, for not reducing it further.

Since then, the budget deficit has jumped due in part to the Republican’s overhaul of the tax system, which in the short term reduced revenues, and an increase in military spending. By the end of fiscal 2019, corporate tax payments were up 5%. Customs duties, which have been boosted by the Trump administration’s levying of tariffs on China and others, were up 70% year-on-year to a record high.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 14, 2019, 11:31:08 am
As Casey Stengel said, Bart, "You could look it up."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 14, 2019, 11:34:55 am
As Casey Stengel said, Bart, "You could look it up."

It beats fact free delusions.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 14, 2019, 11:35:11 am
No, why not answer that great question with an answer?

Wrong. Democrats didn't but, unlike the Republicans (?), instead they did their sworn duty, i.e. to protect the constitution. The investigations were about foreign meddling in the 2016  elections, and people were expelled or went to jail.

What candidate Trump at the time did or did not do, would not be ground for impeachment (because he was not the President yet).

The Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump since inauguration day in January 2017.  That's what Pelosi said yesterday that she's been working at it "for 2 1/2 years". They spent the first 2 years with the Russia collussion charge phony as it was as proven by Mueller.   Emoluments, using his kids to get rich,  tax returns,  obstruction,  etc etc.   A witch hunt. 

By the way the constitution also allows impeachment for the crimes specified within it regardless of when the president did them.  If he took a bribe let's say from the Netherlands for favored trade protection while he was running,  that would be grounds for impeachment.  Of course,  only the Democrats would believe that's true. 😀

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 14, 2019, 01:14:52 pm
Bart,

“Lying to the FBI” is a face-saving, last-resort charge, after spending millions of dollars trying to find a crime and having nothing to show for it. If there was a crime they lied about, they would have been charged with that crime,  not for lying about it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 14, 2019, 03:49:43 pm
https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAK7Suv?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 14, 2019, 04:44:08 pm
I really appreciate this thread. If I start feeling down for any reason I can read the thread and roll on the floor laughing.

I can tell almost exactly what y'all are reading. I can't tell what the publications are, but I can tell what kind of reporters and editorial writers the publications have. Bottom line: what you're reading is no different from the crap that gets thrown around on U.S. publications lik

e the Washington Post and Associated Press. It's all left-wing speculation and propaganda, pretending to be news and reportage. I understand that a lot of people actually believe that stuff, but the real revelations are things like the state of the U.S. economy, and the fact that the unemployment rate for minorities is lower than it's ever been. Things like that are facts. What you're reading is opinion. But you accept it as fact. That's called "gullibility."

Russ,

You are a perfectly trained candidate for a totalitarian state, congratulations.

Any piece of information not supporting the official state speech of the great leader you blindly support is categorized by you as “propaganda from the enemies of the state”.

Talking no differently than the good comrades in early communist Russia.

And yes... I can hear you think "we are different, we are the good guys"... but they also were 100% sure they were in a situation totally different from earlier totalitarian attempts... ;)

You are now actively supporting a regime using techniques akin to the ones you so bravely fought with your fighter jets over the densed jungles of Asia. As least do you now understand them better than ever before I guess.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 14, 2019, 06:16:32 pm
From Wiki, "A May 2012 United Nations committee report stated that none of the six Fukushima workers who had died since the tsunami had died from radiation exposure. According to a 2012 Yomiuri Shimbun survey, 573 deaths have been certified as "disaster-related" by 13 municipalities affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

 It was the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986,[10] and the radiation released exceeded official safety guidelines. Despite this, there were no deaths caused by acute radiation syndrome. Given the uncertain health effects of low-dose radiation, cancer deaths cannot be ruled out.[11] However, studies by the World Health Organisation and Tokyo University have shown that no discernible increase in the rate of cancer deaths is expected." 

Joe,

This is not the point you were making to which I answered.

You may not be realizing this, but the twisted logic to which you have to conform to keep defending Trump at any cost is apparently infecting you and impacting your ability to think straight and to have a balanced conversation on other topics also. A balanced conversation being one in which you admit when you are wrong and don't start with a premise that you know better than the person you are speaking with on any topic just because you are right by definition (i.e. Trump is innocent by definition because it's a political plot against him).

On Fukushima, there are several things:
- no, death were not caused by mass hysteria
- yes, all the evacuations were totally needed, and I personally think that more people should have been evacuated in a smarter way
- yes, the official number of casualties resulting from radiation is very low, but whether that is the true situation is object to serious debate and there are many contrary sources in Japan claiming that the actual numbers are much higher
- no it doesn't mean I am personally against nuclear as a key energy source but it has to be done the right way:

1. Without profit as the main driving motivation to operate the plants, we have seen how it has led to structural under-investment in maintenance and updates in Japan with major safety risks
2. Leveraging the best available technology, which is probably the French 3rd generation EPR power plants although these have proven very costly and difficult to manufacture/build well
3. With information shared in a totally transparent way to citizens

And why does it always have to be state-run?  It is not like state run entities are incapable of disaster.  Chernobyl was state run.  And since when were companies not being held accountable?  The last major energy screw up in the USA was the BP oil spill.  They were ordered to pay out $5.5B; that sounds like a pretty serious dose of accountability. 

And are government run entities always held accountable?

The key issue with private ownership of Nuclear reactors is three-fold:
- As mentioned above, it leads to prioritizing profit over safety. Fukushima is a very clear example of this,
- Private companies simply do not have the financial means to pay the actual cost of the consequences of a Fukushima like event, not event 10% of it. This means that the huge societal cost is not covered by anyone. People lose their homes and memories and don't get compensated for it although the private entity was making money on their back for years thanks to an exclusive license to operate granted by the people through the government. I am sure you understand how unbalanced this is,
- Private entities are intrinsically less transparent.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 14, 2019, 07:02:55 pm
Oh, for God’s sake! This glorification of state-run things!? Are you serious?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on December 14, 2019, 07:11:34 pm
Gods ?Sake?
Is that your drive.
Is there a religious corner?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 14, 2019, 07:24:18 pm
Oh, for God’s sake! This glorification of state-run things!? Are you serious?

Yes, I am totally serious.

In case you are not aware state runs your beloved US military.

The State is nothing but the citizens. The State is you.

Only years long brain washing of the kind you apparently like to submit yourself to has resulted in this unbelievable twist of logic by which citizens like to give away their own power (the power of the State representing them) to entities on which they have no control whatsoever (private corporations).

Now, I understand you not trusting a State run by Trump, we agree here. But there will be better days.

I am obviously not saying that everything should be run by the State, nor that private entrepreneurship is evil (on the contrary, I am a total believer in the power of the free market), but it may be that such level of complexity is hard to grasp? Everything must be whole or nothing in your world right?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 14, 2019, 07:37:27 pm
... The State is nothing but the citizens. The State is you...

Comrade Bernard, you are making Lenin real proud.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 14, 2019, 07:39:53 pm
Comrade Bernard, you are making Lenin real proud.

Again, tell the US soldiers that they have been tricked in joining a communist plot.

And tell yourself why public school for all is such a terrible concept. Much better to let rich kids go to private schools and take over dad’s company right? Why care about equal opportunities?

Are you familiar with the concept of boomerang? This thing that comes back to hit you.

When you turn a possibly reasonable conversation about the value of enforcing state control for Nuclear operators into a joke by turning into a black & white thing, you are both making a fool of yourself and making communication impossible. You are in fact removing yourself from civilization, defined by speech.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 14, 2019, 09:45:24 pm
Comrade Bernard, you are making Lenin real proud.

Reverse Godwin again!

You're too predictable.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 15, 2019, 03:08:55 am
... the value of enforcing state control for Nuclear operators...

Ah, now you are weaseling out. Nobody is against a reasonable state oversight for nuclear plants. However, you were clearly raging against private nuclear plants and arguing for state-run ones.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 15, 2019, 04:03:20 am
Ah, now you are weaseling out. Nobody is against a reasonable state oversight for nuclear plants. However, you were clearly raging against private nuclear plants and arguing for state-run ones.

Yes, Nuclear power must be run by States.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on December 15, 2019, 04:14:52 am
The problem is that the States are hopelessly incompetent when it comes to approval of the new, small and safe nuclear plants. In USA, only one new reactor has been licensed in the last 25 years.

Quote
At 76 feet high and 15 feet in diameter, a self-contained NuScale reactor would take up just 1% of the space of a conventional reactor. Buried deep in the earth and surrounded by millions of gallons of water, one reactor could power a remote region. Twelve modular reactors, stacked up like beer cans in six packs, could serve a city.

"The minute you get rid of two-thirds of the stuff, there's less stuff to buy and install, less stuff to operate and maintain, less stuff to break and go wrong," says Colbert. "It becomes safer, more cost-effective, easier to build." To save on construction costs, NuScale plans to use a standardized design, mass producing modules in factories, transporting them to sites, and installing them in the ground. Colbert says they'll also be cheaper to operate.

(https://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2019/09/0918TruckTransportGraphic-1000x475.jpg)

https://www.wbur.org/earthwhile/2019/09/18/nuclear-power-miniaturization-new-technology
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 15, 2019, 07:06:24 am
The problem is that the States are hopelessly incompetent when it comes to approval of the new, small and safe nuclear plants. In USA, only one new reactor has been licensed in the last 25 years.

(https://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2019/09/0918TruckTransportGraphic-1000x475.jpg)

https://www.wbur.org/earthwhile/2019/09/18/nuclear-power-miniaturization-new-technology

I have no issue with the State using private contractors to design/deploy/operate the plants. The key aspect is ownership and accountability for the good of the general public.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 15, 2019, 07:23:01 am
Ahhh, yes, the beauty of state run power. 

Bernard, answer me this, what did Venezuelans light their houses with before candles? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on December 15, 2019, 09:20:13 am
I have no issue with the State using private contractors to design/deploy/operate the plants. The key aspect is ownership and accountability for the good of the general public.

Cheers,
Bernard

Unfortunately, there is very little accountability and motivation when the electric utility is owned and administered by the government.

Case in point: Ontario Hydro was formed in 1950 and used to be a Crown corporation owned by the Ontario government until it was privatized in 1999 and since then split into 5 different companies and restructured a few times (I lost track of all new company names), because the utility ran up a $34 billion debt, mainly because of overbuilding costly nuclear plants and wasting tremendous sums for maintenance,  administration and extremely generous salaries and other employee perks. In their early years, the electricity price was very low, but due to many wrong decisions by the corporation over the years the prices were raised significantly.

Ontario Hydro was the first provincially owned electric utility in Canada and it was the largest public electric utility in North America. Its generation and transmission system included 69 hydroelectric, 8 fossil-fueled and 4 nuclear power stations, along with over 130,000 km of transmission and distribution lines. In 1992, the utility had a $34 billion debt, largely because of overbuilding costly nuclear plants. Some of the nuclear plants were stopped, mothballed, and later restarted again at enormous costs. All large coal-generating plants were decommissioned between 2005 and 2014. In the eighties, I designed and implemented software for several of their nuclear and coal generating plants, so I was able to observe some of their problems on my own eyes and from conversations with the employees.

https://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/7165441-a-look-at-the-long-complicated-history-of-ontario-hydro/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 15, 2019, 10:20:51 am
I worked for both private and NYC government.   Government was much less efficient.  More people than necessary are kept working when when the work load decreased.  Things cost more.   I told this story here before. 

I once had a great idea that would have saved us lots of money.  So I brought the idea to my boss.  He responded, "what do you care what it costs?" 

That sums up government control of business.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 15, 2019, 11:23:23 am
Unfortunately, there is very little accountability and motivation when the electric utility is owned and administered by the government.

Part of me wants to agree with this sentiment. The trouble is I've worked for too many utterly incompetent private sector companies to have much faith in them. In the long run, they all f**k up. How many private corporations survive more than one or two generations, I'm thinking of General Electric and General Motors and who knows how many others. (As an aside, what's the world's backup to Google? They won't be around forever.) I won't mention the private financial sector and their periodic spectacular excesses. The electrical power grid is not like selling mobile phones or 2x4s. Who cares if a phone manufacturer goes belly-up, just buy another brand. But the strategic importance of the grid is such that if any electrical producer or distributor ends up in difficulty, they will be saved by taxpayers in the end because there won't be any other option, so the idea that you can keep government out of it is a non-starter anyway. In my personal experience, the ability of private corporations to plan ahead more than a year or two is suspect (to be polite) so expecting them to design and maintain something as strategic as the electrical grid with its 30-50 year planning horizons is a bad bet. Yes, as soon as governments get involved things get complicated and cost more, but that's in large part because of their more complex mandate than just turning a profit next quarter. (Yes, examples of governments running things badly are legion. But let's not kid ourselves that the private sector does better.)

The really bad part of public sector excess, especially wrt Ontario Hydro, is that no one had an incentive to fix things when OH started to lose its mind. That's bad oversight, pure and simple. And there are probably as many examples of that in the private sector as in the public sector, it's just that no pays much attention to the private sector ones. Unless you were one of the employees of NORTEL, for example, whose pensions disappeared in smoke when the near-criminal cabal that ran the place exited with all the cash. Because that was a private company we delude ourselves into think that it cost us less than when a public sector enterprise goes nuts, but that's largely because no one is doing all the sums properly.

A non-bad example of what I am talking about is the western Canadian oil sector. Despite repeated resource industry boom/bust cycles, they haven't been able to stabilize their business. And after preaching to everyone about entrepreneurship and keeping the government out of their business, they somehow always turn around and beg the government for assistance when things go south. Honestly, it's farce.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 15, 2019, 11:30:10 am
State or private: rocks and hard places.

The state enterprises end up in the grip of the trade unions, where unions know very well their paralysing power to strike and how govts. of all colours fear that, and how it can impinge on elections next time around; the private ones end up mired in the profit principle, where you can bet corners get cut in direct response to bottom lines. And of course, where we speak of public essentials such as power and water, the strike muscle is the same for both alternative systems.

My gut tells me that state makes sense if you can get and guarantee no strike agreements. Britain has this fight over rail. It's been in both systems, and both seem to suck. I was watching a report on this very thing a day or two ago on the news, and the cost of commuting is horrific. If the new government in the UK can do one thing, let's hope it's to encourage good local job opportunities where folks no longer need to sit in trains for three hours every day just to get to and from work.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 15, 2019, 11:44:10 am
Electric companies in the US are poor examples of Private Industry. Theyare basically monopolies been granted rights of ways and price supports because of government oversight. Public Service commission's Rule the Day for decades. The course of needed rights of ways, electric companies were granted these monopolies to charge what the Public Service Commission has allowed them to charge. But there was no competition.  I'd they did poorly, they'd get the commissions to allow them to raise prices.

Today there is competition. As the services have been opened up the competition by government at least here where I live. I can shop around the electric rates and I buy cheapest electricity I can and change it around every year. That's not something we used to have in the past.

So utilities like electric companies poor examples of Private Industry.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 15, 2019, 01:54:03 pm
State or private: rocks and hard places.

The state enterprises end up in the grip of the trade unions, where unions know very well their paralysing power to strike and how govts. of all colours fear that, and how it can impinge on elections next time around; the private ones end up mired in the profit principle, where you can bet corners get cut in direct response to bottom lines. And of course, where we speak of public essentials such as power and water, the strike muscle is the same for both alternative systems.

My gut tells me that state makes sense if you can get and guarantee no strike agreements. Britain has this fight over rail. It's been in both systems, and both seem to suck. I was watching a report on this very thing a day or two ago on the news, and the cost of commuting is horrific. If the new government in the UK can do one thing, let's hope it's to encourage good local job opportunities where folks no longer need to sit in trains for three hours every day just to get to and from work.
Public service unions in America cannot strike for the most part.   But some like teachers unions are very powerful in any case.   Their power to assist candidates running for office gets those candidates to provide great benefits and higher salaries than many private workers. Who needs to strike when you get what you want anyway?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on December 15, 2019, 02:34:22 pm
Back from the electric companies to Trump's impeachment.
Adding to the potentially dangerous delay in providing Ukraine with the promised defense missiles against Russia, Amazon claims that Trump fired defense secretary after he refused to "screw Amazon" out of big cloud-computing deal, brought in new leaders who changed the process to hurt Amazon’s bid, and used “improper pressure” to divert the contract from the company to harm its chief executive, Jeff Bezos.

Quote
As impeachment hearings on Capitol Hill debate whether Trump abused his power as president to investigate a political opponent, Amazon’s AMZN, +0.03%  complaint argues that Trump’s public bias against Bezos led him to compromise a major government contract for the Department of Defense. The timeline Amazon laid out includes the firing of a defense secretary, shifting requirements for the contract to specifically target Amazon Web Services, and a sham recusal at the last minute by the official Trump put in charge amid his demands for the contract to go to anyone but Amazon.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-amazon-is-really-accusing-trump-of-doing-in-jedi-deal-2019-12-10?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 15, 2019, 03:06:19 pm
Just as an aside, when Trump makes remarks about various private corporations, I wonder if anyone in various regulatory offices is monitoring the trading practices of himself, his family and any associates. In the past, public figures in powerful positions have usually been circumspect in making public statements that could have effects on financial markets. It would too easy, and too tempting for the unscrupulous, to take advantage of advance notice of the guy's tweets to make some cash. I mean, if you're going to argue that you need to investigate Biden because his son got himself a cushy job, then you'd think you'd want to look into possible insider trading scams. Not to mention the effects that these pronouncements might have on any innocent third-party investors.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on December 15, 2019, 03:28:30 pm
Just as an aside, when Trump makes remarks about various private corporations, I wonder if anyone in various regulatory offices is monitoring the trading practices of himself, his family and any associates. In the past, public figures in powerful positions have usually been circumspect in making public statements that could have effects on financial markets. It would too easy, and too tempting for the unscrupulous, to take advantage of advance notice of the guy's tweets to make some cash. I mean, if you're going to argue that you need to investigate Biden because his son got himself a cushy job, then you'd think you'd want to look into possible insider trading scams. Not to mention the effects that these pronouncements might have on any innocent third-party investors.

If some knew a few hours before all Trump tweets about the China trade positive and negative announcements, they could have made some serious money in the stock market. Buying and selling.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 15, 2019, 03:36:49 pm
If some knew a few hours before all Trump tweets about the China trade positive and negative announcements, they could have made some serious money in the stock market. Buying and selling.

So blantanly corrupt.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 15, 2019, 04:36:26 pm
So blantanly corrupt.

Les made a hypothetical statement. Markets barely blinked on the announcement.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 15, 2019, 05:52:52 pm
Unfortunately, there is very little accountability and motivation when the electric utility is owned and administered by the government.

Case in point: Ontario Hydro was formed in 1950 and used to be a Crown corporation owned by the Ontario government until it was privatized in 1999 and since then split into 5 different companies and restructured a few times (I lost track of all new company names), because the utility ran up a $34 billion debt, mainly because of overbuilding costly nuclear plants and wasting tremendous sums for maintenance,  administration and extremely generous salaries and other employee perks. In their early years, the electricity price was very low, but due to many wrong decisions by the corporation over the years the prices were raised significantly.

Ontario Hydro was the first provincially owned electric utility in Canada and it was the largest public electric utility in North America. Its generation and transmission system included 69 hydroelectric, 8 fossil-fueled and 4 nuclear power stations, along with over 130,000 km of transmission and distribution lines. In 1992, the utility had a $34 billion debt, largely because of overbuilding costly nuclear plants. Some of the nuclear plants were stopped, mothballed, and later restarted again at enormous costs. All large coal-generating plants were decommissioned between 2005 and 2014. In the eighties, I designed and implemented software for several of their nuclear and coal generating plants, so I was able to observe some of their problems on my own eyes and from conversations with the employees.

https://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/7165441-a-look-at-the-long-complicated-history-of-ontario-hydro/

Maybe, but safety of Nuclear facilities is an order of magnitude more important than optimal operation.

Again, I have lived the Fukushima story first hand.

The cost when something wrong occurs is hundreds of time more than the possible non optimality's resulting from gov operation vs private ones focused no profit.

Once you take that into account, a safety focused governmental operation is a total no brainer.

All the demonstration showing that private operation is optimal for Nuclear make a totally unrealistic assumption that things will not go very wrong... because they just cannot, because the plant is run by a private entity who would go bankrupt if things went very wrong... so they will do what it takes for things not to go very wrong... by definition.

Well, guess what? We have one obvious example with Fukushima where it didn't go that way... at all.

This is the same kind of circular thinking used by those supporting Trump, he cannot be guilty because it's a political plot.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 15, 2019, 06:19:37 pm
Stuff happens.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 15, 2019, 06:48:24 pm
Stuff happens.

Exactly, stuff always happens and it's irresponsible to put in place frameworks assuming that it won't.

We don't plan our cities without cemeteries on the ground that nobody is dying today, do we?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on December 15, 2019, 07:12:22 pm
Maybe, but safety of Nuclear facilities is an order of magnitude more important than optimal operation. Again, I have lived the Fukushima story first hand.
The cost when something wrong occurs is hundreds of time more than the possible non optimality's resulting from gov operation vs private ones focused no profit.
Once you take that into account, a safety focused governmental operation is a total no brainer.

All the demonstration showing that private operation is optimal for Nuclear make a totally unrealistic assumption that things will not go very wrong... because they just cannot, because the plant is run by a private entity who would go bankrupt if things went very wrong... so they will do what it takes for things not to go very wrong... by definition.

Well, guess what? We have one obvious example with Fukushima where it didn't go that way... at all.
This is the same kind of circular thinking used by those supporting Trump, he cannot be guilty because it's a political plot.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard, I agree with you that a government owned utility should look further ahead than a private corporation.
Unfortunately, if not manned by the right people and as we have seen, that is not always the case. So often the managers don't focus on the next quarter or on the five year horizon, but on their own retirement timeline. It is a dilemma, and maybe the best scenario would be indeed some joined stewardship, with the government overseeing the big picture and the private operators running the individual power plants. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 16, 2019, 03:59:24 am
Exactly, stuff always happens and it's irresponsible to put in place frameworks assuming that it won't...

And what makes you think stuff won’t happen under state ownership or control?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on December 16, 2019, 04:13:14 am
And what makes you think stuff won’t happen under state ownership or control?

Chernobyl, of course.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on December 16, 2019, 06:02:23 am
For every Chernobyl, there is one Fukushima and one Three Island privately owned and operated plant.
And not to forget Exxon Valdez.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 16, 2019, 07:04:30 am
Every quid pro quo (Chernobyl vs. Fukushima) has the same value as any other anecdotal evidence: entertaining. What matters is that state-run economies are inferior to market economies, globally and historically.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 16, 2019, 07:51:22 am
And what makes you think stuff won’t happen under state ownership or control?

Well of course it will.

As Bernard said above, "The cost when something wrong occurs is hundreds of time more than the possible non optimality's resulting from gov operation vs private ones focused no profit."

Discussing this issue in the narrow terms of private vs public accountability is silly. We're not talking about a corner store. The cost of a massive failure would extend far beyond the capability of any private company to deal with, it's simply nonsense to think the government should not be involved. The question only ever is what is the optimum breakdown in responsibility. This is especially so because the vast bulk of research into modern nuclear power plants occurs at the level of applied research that is funded by us all to begin with. Those potential private companies building the plants never work in isolation.

You might want to dig into the work in nuclear waste management that the Department of Energy does in the US. Michael Lewis has written extensively on this, there are interviews and podcasts all over the interweb, not to mention written articles and books. Now THAT's one mother of an externality.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 16, 2019, 09:15:56 am
Senate Minority leader, Chuck Schumer, ups the ante requesting that the Senate subpoena key policy makers from the Administration whose testimony will be key to establishing guilt or innocence.  If there is nothing to hide, there is nothing for President Trump to lose in providing these witnesses.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 16, 2019, 09:28:58 am
Les made a hypothetical statement. Markets barely blinked on the announcement.


One has no idea what one or two individual holders might achieve; it doesn't have to be a mass movement.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 16, 2019, 09:31:10 am
Every quid pro quo (Chernobyl vs. Fukushima) has the same value as any other anecdotal evidence: entertaining. What matters is that state-run economies are inferior to market economies, globally and historically.

It's no use, Slobodan. As Santayana said (in slightly different words), "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them." The evidence is all there: Russia, China, Venezuela, etc. versus the United States, Britain before WW II, Hong Kong under the British, etc. The simplest example, one that even leftists ought to be able to understand, is the history of the Plymouth Colony. In the beginning it was socialist -- "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Of course it wasn't long before ability shrank and need grew, and the colonists were starving. When it became apparent that socialism was killing them, William Bradford, the governor, told the members of the colony that from then on, what each produced would belong to him. With the help of the local natives, with whom they were trading, the colony began to flourish. The Wall Street Journal tells this story every Thanksgiving.

Leftists live in their own world, never bothering to determine whether or not the evidence supports their defective view of reality. No amount of argument and no showing of evidence will change their minds. If they're successful we'll all have to live through history's lessons all over again.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 16, 2019, 10:11:06 am
But I don't believe that it has anything whatsoever to do with left or right: I believe it just makes sense on its own merits.

If you want to bring in a social perspective, then yes, I do have a belief in the fact that any country rich enough to have armies etc. etc. is also wealthy enough to show a little care and interest in its citizens, to the extent that the basics of life should be protected and pretty much guaranteed, for whomsoever the citizen might be.

I think an overarching health sevice, a worthwhile pension, power and water, and a basic level of food allowance should be incorporated into every person's state rights. I know people living with heating poverty who dread each and every winter. Further, I believe that public transport should be costed on what the average citizen can afford. It strikes me as crazy that many people must spend ten, fifteen thousand pounds a year on trains just to get to work. All that does is create distorted high salaries of which the earner sees a rather small portion because he has to spend so much on work travel. And which the employer has to pay in order to facilitate that worker arriving every day. It creates inflation and recruitment problems in the work market. So stupid is it that thousands of commuters can't afford to live in London because nurses, teachers, many other essential workers never do get salaries to match the cost of living where they work.

The system is out of equilibrium.

As for learning lessons from history: the greatest one to learn is that is comes and goes, that one side wins and then another, with none covering itself in glory. That wonderful autumn/winter of 2008 didn't come about because of socially run services: it came about because of the basic stupidity, greed and extreme shortsightednes of the many thousands of city guys making friggin' fortunes playing games with other people's money, passing the financial buck on to somebody else, and selling the innocents stuff they could never afford. Beautifully, none ended up in prison. I wonder why. That "swamp" will always exist because it's too tempting. It's heated, you see, and comes with beautiful water sprites. Draining incentives do not exist; rather do people seek membership.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 16, 2019, 10:18:49 am
But I don't believe that it has anything whatsoever to do with left or right: I believe it just makes sense on its own merits.

Fully agree, but it is soooo convenient to play a blame game and point out other's shortcomings, without room for nuances.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 16, 2019, 10:32:51 am
Why are you lefties all of a sudden running away from  that descriptor? Until very recently, you were so proud of your “progressiveness.” What happened? Corbyn lost in a landslide? Time to pretend your were always just “common sense”? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on December 16, 2019, 10:56:56 am
...
Leftists live in their own world, never bothering to determine whether or not the evidence supports their defective view of reality. No amount of argument and no showing of evidence will change their minds. If they're successful we'll all have to live through history's lessons all over again.

Fortunately, we... who are all left from you... have the oracle RSL on our right side, to guide us through these dark times...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 16, 2019, 11:01:21 am
Why are you lefties all of a sudden running away from  that descriptor? Until very recently, you were so proud of your “progressiveness.” What happened? Corbyn lost in a landslide? Time to pretend your were always just “common sense”?

If you refer to me, Slobodan, you are mistaken: I have only ever voted Tory, and Maggie Thatcher was the last one worth squat. We peaked with her, as a party, and it's been a long slide downwards into unreality from then. All we have had since has been weak people playing the populist vote, in America as almost everywhere these days except Russia and NK; now ain't that a surprise!

As for Corbyn, even his own people couldn't bring themselves to vote for communism. Had he stood for socialism, then it might have ended up differently. I watched John McDonnell, his right-hand man, on the news: wearing a shirt and no tie, he looked shrunken and many, many years older than when last seen in his suit prior to the election. For both of them, the dream is over.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 16, 2019, 11:31:17 am
I think it's ironic that Soviet Russia learned the lesson of Communism and Europe learned nothing.

Unfortunately I think America hasn't learned anything either.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 16, 2019, 11:52:17 am
If you refer to me...

I wasn’t.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on December 16, 2019, 12:06:48 pm
I think it's ironic that Soviet Russia learned the lesson of Communism and Europe learned nothing.

Unfortunately I think America hasn't learned anything either.
Well, from the perspective we have to learn from Russia... (?)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 16, 2019, 12:47:46 pm
I think it's ironic that Soviet Russia learned the lesson of Communism and Europe learned nothing.

Unfortunately I think America hasn't learned anything either.

In its place hyperbole can be fun, but this is truly bizarre. Do you honestly think that European countries and the US are communist? Give it a rest.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 16, 2019, 02:34:11 pm
In its place hyperbole can be fun, but this is truly bizarre. Do you honestly think that European countries and the US are communist? Give it a rest.
It's where we're going.   Just look at AOC, Sanders,  Warren.   The Democrat Left.   If the Dems take the senate and presidency especially if it's with someone on the left America is in for big changes.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 16, 2019, 04:14:51 pm
It's where we're going.   Just look at AOC, Sanders,  Warren.   The Democrat Left.   If the Dems take the senate and presidency especially if it's with someone on the left America is in for big changes.

What utter hogwash. WTF are you talking about? Trump is the President and your Supreme Court is getting set to knock back women's body rights back 50 years.

Stop playing the phoney victim card, please, no one is buying it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 16, 2019, 04:16:03 pm
Arguably worse in the grand scheme of things than Trump's clumsy attempt to smear Joe Biden, Trump and his family, many of whom hold roles in the administration, have, and always have had, multiple conflicts of interest (https://www.citizensforethics.org/trump-argentina-trademarks/?fbclid=IwAR3Dla1Cp-3EUAPAI0Zc270Iqezly_5jckf3_7eMMg0VBYoZJtr-JIYaH04) that seem to clearly violate numerous ethics laws. (https://www.doi.gov/ethics/government-wide-ethics-laws)

Specifically,

Quote
Conflicts of Interest - 18 U.S.C. § 208

This statute prohibits a Government employee from participating personally and substantially, on behalf of the Federal Government, in any particular matter in which he or she has a financial interest. In addition, the statute provides that the financial interests of certain other "persons" are imputed to the employee (that is, the interests are the same as if they were the employee's interests). These other persons include the employee's spouse, minor child, general partner, an organization in which he or she serves as an officer, trustee, partner or employee, and any person or organization with whom the employee is negotiating or has an arrangement concerning future employment. There are limited regulatory exemptions authorized by the Office of Government Ethics, an exception for certain financial interests arising solely out of Native American birthrights, and a very limited waiver authority.

Supplementation of Federal Salary Prohibited - 18 U.S.C. § 209

This statute prohibits a Government employee from receiving any salary, or any contribution to or supplementation of salary; or anything of value from a non-federal entity as compensation for services he or she is expected to perform as a Government employee.

 

Impartiality in Performing Official Duties - 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502

You must take appropriate steps to avoid any appearance of loss of impartiality in the performance of your official duties. Beyond the conflict of interest law discussed at 18 U.S.C. § 207, ethics regulations require all employees to recuse themselves from participating in an official matter if their impartiality would be questioned. The regulations identify three circumstances where employees should carefully consider whether their impartiality is subject to question: 1) where the financial interests of a member of the employee's household would be impacted; 2) if a party or party representative in an official matter has a "covered relationship" with the employee; and 3) any other time the employee believes his or her impartiality may be subject to question. The term "covered relationship" includes a wide variety of personal and business relationships that an employee or his family members may have with outside parties. Employees who find that a party or representative of a party is a person with whom the employee or a family member has a personal or outside-of-work/unofficial business relationship should consult with their ethics counselor before taking official action in a particular matter.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 16, 2019, 04:27:22 pm
Fortunately, we... who are all left from you... have the oracle RSL on our right side, to guide us through these dark times...

That would matter, Peiter, if leftists were capable of learning anything from observation or experience, but as I pointed out, they're not.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 16, 2019, 05:26:05 pm
That would matter, Peiter, if leftists were capable of learning anything from observation or experience, but as I pointed out, they're not.

Russ,

I am wondering to what degree you are able to deal with complexity. I hope you don't take this as a personal attack because it isn't one, it's a genuine question.

You answers make me think you have formed a model of the world made up of left and right, good and evil,... that is so different from the real world I live in that it makes me wonder whether you have the ability to comprehend the complexities we have to deal with.

It's a rhetorical question that won't be answered obviously. But it's a scary thought.

It looks like you define every way of thinking differing from yours as "leftie". When Trump gets bad press, they are "enemies of the state",... examples abound.

But the craziest thing is that this mechanical reaction makes you fall in the very pitfall you describe as evil... the absence of democracy since your own behavior is the worst democracy killer. You are so entrenched in your own views that you are giving up on this very freedom you have fought for. Whoever they are, the lefties have won because they have succeeded in making you behave like them.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 16, 2019, 05:46:48 pm
And what makes you think stuff won’t happen under state ownership or control?

Slobodan,

I have never said stuff wouldn't happen under state ownership or control.

It's really hard to discuss with you because you are making no attempt whatsoever to comprehend what others are saying.

You project on me your black and white simplistic views of the world and make it look like mines fall in the same category as yours. You view everything through your categorizations of left/right without attempting to see beyond that, as if you were afraid that a true conversation could take you to areas you are not comfortable with, to things you cannot defend.

History can teach us many different things. That communism doesn't work, that privately controlled nuclear facilities both carry a risk of under-investment in safety and an intrinsic inability to deal with the costs when somethings goes very wrong,... this still leaves ample room for solutions away from the simplistic dogma you are bombarding us with.

I have never lived in a communist regime and my understanding of it has been shaped by the reading of Kundera. Certainly not sufficient to secure a deep understanding, but enough to be convinced that it doesn't work for the people nor for the country. Does that mean that all attempt of socialism fail? Go visit Sweden and tell me about it. Socialism is a simple idea that the wealth of a country is defined by that of its poorest citizens. It's simply the opposite of selfishness. It has not much to do with communism except for the fact that communism is one form of socialism. Does that say anything about free enterprise or state control? Not at all. Socialism is totally compatible with free market and free enterprise and it's very possible to become as rich as you please in a socialist European country. It doesn't mean that, as a society, money is defined as the driving force and the horizon of personal development.

This baseline being set, learning from the mistakes of Fukushima and enforcing state control/ownership of Nuclear operators is simply common sense and is not anymore a socialist measure than keeping US army control at state level is a socialist measure. It's just the way it has to be done. How about Chernobyl? As explained, this will not prevent stuff from happening but under proper democratic control (which was obviously not the case in communist and highly corrupt Ukraine) we will at least get the right focus on safety and the state will be able to deal with consequences if stuff occurs. Which, again, is not the case in Japan at the moment.

But perhaps it's now time to get back to our favorite impeachment case... ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 16, 2019, 06:45:08 pm
France seems to be dealing with nuclear pretty well.  Why not follow their lead?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 16, 2019, 06:58:29 pm
France seems to be dealing with nuclear pretty well.  Why not follow their lead?

Yes.

https://www.edf.fr/groupe-edf/espaces-dedies/investisseurs-actionnaires/l-action-edf/structure-du-capital

EDF is state owned with a max of 30% private investment.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 16, 2019, 07:25:06 pm
Yes.

https://www.edf.fr/groupe-edf/espaces-dedies/investisseurs-actionnaires/l-action-edf/structure-du-capital

EDF is state owned with a max of 30% private investment.

Cheers,
Bernard

I guess that means there's room for improvement. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 16, 2019, 08:01:42 pm
I guess that means there's room for improvement.

Joe,

Apologies, but I don't think you have demonstrated sufficient understanding of the Fukushima situation to make your opinion on this a relevant one... I understand your philosophical inclination in favor of the absence of state intervention in the business arena, but facts have clearly demonstrated that this doesn't work for Nuclear power.

I don't think you know people who have had to host refugees for months, if not years, because the private operator who messed up wasn't able to deal with the consequences of their mistakes. I happen to know such people. The same refugees who happened to fund the country house of Tepco's CEO throughout the years when they didn't invest what they should have in the safety of the Fukushima Dai 1 power plant.

Cheers,
Bernard

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 16, 2019, 08:24:23 pm
Fukushima looked pretty bad on TV with a plant blowing up into the sky.   Would government ownership have changed anything though?  Wasn't the fact they were next to the ocean and a tsunami hit the main problem? Didn't thre government approve the location?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 16, 2019, 08:37:11 pm
Fukushima looked pretty bad on TV with a plant blowing up into the sky.   Would government ownership have changed anything though?  Wasn't the fact they were next to the ocean and a tsunami hit the main problem? Didn't thre government approve the location?

Please re-read what I wrote Alan, the key issue is how the private operator wasn't able to deal with the financial consequences of the huge issues their plant generated.

Besides, the location was known to have tsunami risks and recommendations made by audits had not been implemented, most probably out of profitability concerns.

Finally, the tsunami is only part of the story, the plant is known to have been damaged first by the quake due to it no meeting safety standards.

Had the Japanese gov a partial responsibility also in not forcing a private operator to reach requirements, yes they did.

Did they do a mea cupla and compensate financially the people who got impacted? No they didn't on the ground that this was private business...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 16, 2019, 11:02:37 pm
Joe,

Apologies, but I don't think you have demonstrated sufficient understanding of the Fukushima situation to make your opinion on this a relevant one... I understand your philosophical inclination in favor of the absence of state intervention in the business arena, but facts have clearly demonstrated that this doesn't work for Nuclear power.

I don't think you know people who have had to host refugees for months, if not years, because the private operator who messed up wasn't able to deal with the consequences of their mistakes. I happen to know such people. The same refugees who happened to fund the country house of Tepco's CEO throughout the years when they didn't invest what they should have in the safety of the Fukushima Dai 1 power plant.

Cheers,
Bernard

Comedy really did die in November of 2016. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 17, 2019, 12:14:52 am
Comedy really did die in November of 2016.

I am sorry you think this is joke material.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 17, 2019, 02:49:09 am
According to the latest Fox news survey, 50% of Americans think Trump should be impeached and removed from office.

I wonder which of the Republican Senators will go against the will of the people they are supposed to be representing when they vote against impeachment... since we have clear declarations from key Republicans that they will not make the hearings a fair trial.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 17, 2019, 03:47:34 am
... Does that mean that all attempt of socialism fail?...

Yes.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 17, 2019, 03:52:53 am
According to the latest Fox news survey, 50% of Americans think Trump should be impeached and removed from office.

I wonder which of the Republican Senators will go against the will of the people...

No, they will go for the will of the other 50% of the people, or 100% of the people they represent.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 17, 2019, 05:30:04 am
Yes.

It's always enriching to see a well argumented and documented statement.

I hope you are at least able to convince yourself. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 17, 2019, 05:47:02 am
No, they will go for the will of the other 50% of the people, or 100% of the people they represent.

Hum... how does that work when Trump got 49% of votes in 2016 and only 40% of people are against the impeachment?

It would appear that you are missing 9% of of people at this point... which is more than 10 million people whose opinion will not be taken into account by their representatives.

That sounds like a great democracy!

And that is assuming that Fox survey number represent the reality of the situation... which would be a bit surprising considering the vested interest they have in showing Trump in good light.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 17, 2019, 06:02:51 am
That sounds like a great democracy!

I think Slobodan has tried before to argue that the United States is not a democracy... .
So if that's (probably) his point of view, there's nothing wrong with a president breaking his oath of office while running the circus.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 17, 2019, 06:11:33 am
I think Slobodan has tried before to argue that the United States is not a democracy... .

Certainly not a media-polling democracy.

It is, of course, a democracy in its broader meaning that includes representative democracy, where people decide every four years who they want to represent them. Via elections, not via daily media polling, and not via impeachment attempts since day one after election.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 17, 2019, 06:18:19 am
Certainly not a media-polling democracy.

Puzzling, since you also were in favor of populism (as if that is the pinacle of a representative democracy).

BTW, only voting once every 4 years is not the only instrument that the US Constitution offers to keep a government in check.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 17, 2019, 06:27:20 am
Puzzling, since you also were in favor of populism...

I don’t even know what that is, let alone be in favor of it. If that means doing what people want, expressed in elections, than, yes, I might be a populist. Doing what people want, isn’t that the very essence of democracy?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 17, 2019, 06:58:03 am
I don’t even know what that is, let alone be in favor of it. If that means doing what people want, expressed in elections, than, yes, I might be a populist. Doing what people want, isn’t that the very essence of democracy?

Populism is basically telling people what they want to hear instead of the reality. It's rooted in deception and lies.

Typical examples include blaming economic issues on foreigners, lie about the degree of immigration, claim to be in for the modest people and lower taxes for the richest,...

In other words, Trump is a perfect example of a populist.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 17, 2019, 07:22:23 am
Populism is basically telling people what they want to hear instead of the reality. It's rooted in deception and lies...

I thought that’s called politics?  ;)

Then again, if people want to hear “deception and lies” and vote for it, that’s democracy after all.

Quote
Typical examples include blaming economic issues on foreigners, lie about the degree of immigration, claim to be in for the modest people and lower taxes for the richest,...

In other words, Trump is a perfect example of a populist.

In your humble opinion.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 17, 2019, 08:04:40 am
Russ,

I am wondering to what degree you are able to deal with complexity.

I don't know what sort of crap you read over there in Tokyo, Bernard, but evidently it's full of complexity. There's nothing complex about the problem I cited. Give me a single example of a success by socialism. There simply aren't any. That's not complex. Capitalism, as is true of any human endeavor, has its problems, but it brings more prosperity to more people than any other approach to economics the world has ever seen. Adam Smith's invisible hand always triumphs if given a chance.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 17, 2019, 08:10:42 am
Hum... how does that work when Trump got 49% of votes in 2016 and only 40% of people are against the impeachment?

It would appear that you are missing 9% of of people at this point... which is more than 10 million people whose opinion will not be taken into account by their representatives.

That sounds like a great democracy!

And that is assuming that Fox survey number represent the reality of the situation... which would be a bit surprising considering the vested interest they have in showing Trump in good light.

Cheers,
Bernard


There are two Senators who represent each of the 50 sovereign States, not the people of the country in general.  Congressman represent the people.  Senators do not represent quantity of people but their states.   It's not by popular vote that the Senate decides to convict or not during impeachment proceedings. We are a Federal Republic, not a Democracy.  For reference,  Trump won 30 of 50 states in the 2016 election. Another example is there are 25 million people for each of the two senators from the State of California but only half a million for each senator from the State of  Montana.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 17, 2019, 08:58:54 am
... Give me a single example of a success by socialism. There simply aren't any....

Russ,

Apparently, Bernard et al found a way to weasel out of the historic embarrassment (actually, more like tragedy) that socialism was and is by pretending that, e.g., Sweden is a socialist country  ;D

But, I forgive him, given that he, by his own admission, has no clue what socialism is.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 17, 2019, 09:17:13 am
Yeah, I know, Slobodan. Unfortunately, Bernard seems incapacitated by his world of complexity, and he, like his fellow socialists will tell you that what’s going on in Venezuela isn’t really socialism, nor was what went on inside the Soviet Union, or inside Mao’s communist heaven. Real socialism is a dream that people involved in complexity dream, avoiding any contact with reality. They’re overcome by complexity, utterly unable to deal with it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 17, 2019, 09:48:10 am
I think the best example against state run power is Venezuela's state run oil program.  Venezuela sits on the largest oil reserves in the world, but as soon as it was nationalized, oil production steadily fell.  Forbes has a great article on this.

But anyway, enough with energy talk; back to the irony of the era of Trump.  Have we all lost our minds, or are the media and liberals really this easy to manipulate?

OK sign is under siege: How the squeaky-clean hand gesture was twisted by trolls and acquired racist undertones (https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct-life-ok-sign-racist-05282019-story.html)

I wonder how much longer before Apple removes it from their list of emojis? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 17, 2019, 10:39:43 am
What do you call it when nobody listens, but everybody claims to understand the other person's position as they dismiss it?

Whatever you call it, this is what we have right here and now: endless repetitions of catechisms learned at the family knee.

And to think I thought democracy used to make sense!

Populism: what Boris is about in promising cake today, tomorrow and forever after when he knows damned well there's neither a fucking bakery within sight nor being built any time soon. Populism is about getting 52% of a vote and instantly discounting the 48% that neither wants to buy cake nor pie in the sky, because it understands that open borders and customs within an agreed and mutually useful group is the least complicated, most productive model for international trade that there is when much of that trade consists of manufacture of parts in many member countries for assembly within others. Populism is catering to the political aspirations and tribal beliefs of a crowd of semi-literates whose news comes from the red top newspapers, echo chamber websites; whose idea of a good time is sitting on a couch watching interminable soaps about dull people in even more dull British towns, or standing in pubs, large beer glasses in hand, cheering like mad whenever the appropriate hero says something or scores something. It's a manifestation of tribalism in the extreme; that vote is popular populism: we are the people, there's nobody like us! Unfortunately for the world, that's also wrong: there are zillions just like them.

We saw it in Germany in the 30s and raising its head again today; we see it in the US and UK today, and it has never gone away in France, just bides its time because it can. Italy? As with Spain and France, the concept of country is fairly recent and miriad little states were the way it was.

The danger we face today is that somebody gave baby an atom bomb; when that gets chucked out of the pram, say your prayers, if you have time. You will also find your religious faith has been instantly rekindled.

;-(
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 17, 2019, 10:43:15 am
Russ,

Apparently, Bernard et al found a way to weasel out of the historic embarrassment (actually, more like tragedy) that socialism was and is by pretending that, e.g., Sweden is a socialist country  ;D

But, I forgive him, given that he, by his own admission, has no clue what socialism is.

You (all of you) are being pretty circular, arent'cha?  You (Slobodan) are starting with the premise that socialism is something that doesn't work, and then essentially stating that if it does work it can't be socialism.  Bart and others are identifying things that work and assigning the term "socialism" due, I assume, to a heavy degree of public (i.e government or non-private-owned) involvement.   Within that construct, it's no surprise that the people here that dislike "liberal" policies simply define them as "socialism" as a convenient way of dismissing varying degrees of government oversight/regulation/control, even though, in the context of this discussion, really only Bernie Sanders and potentially Elizabeth Warren seem to be actively advocating for state-ownership of a major facet of the US economy.

Carry on.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 17, 2019, 10:44:53 am
I think the best example against state run power is Venezuela's state run oil program.  Venezuela sits on the largest oil reserves in the world, but as soon as it was nationalized, oil production steadily fell.  Forbes has a great article on this.

But anyway, enough with energy talk; back to the irony of the era of Trump.  Have we all lost our minds, or are the media and liberals really this easy to manipulate?

OK sign is under siege: How the squeaky-clean hand gesture was twisted by trolls and acquired racist undertones (https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct-life-ok-sign-racist-05282019-story.html)

I wonder how much longer before Apple removes it from their list of emojis?

Venezuela is neither socialist, communist nor capitalist: it is a simple dictatorship where labels are used as suits the boss to disguise the reality. It is a land held hostage to a gang of thugs. It's in good company right across the third world.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 17, 2019, 11:07:40 am
So, Rob, you’re saying that Karl Marx was neither socialist nor communist in advocating state ownership of the means of production? That’s exactly what we have in Venezuela, and in a more disguised form in Russia and China. Marx was simply in favor of dictatorship?

I keep coming back to where it all starts: “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” Sounds wonderful if you have little ability and a lot of need. But we’ve demonstrated over and over and over and over that the approach arising out of that idea simply doesn’t work, even though it’s a dream of masses of people who have little contact with reality.

In the end, to provide the most for people with a lot of need, the only thing that really makes sense is the entrepreneur who’s setting out to make a buck. In the process he produces something that masses of people want and, to produce it, hires masses of people – gives them jobs. Doesn’t matter whether he’s a prince or a pirate. And that’s where the socialist gets hung up. He hates the guy who makes a bundle without virtue-signaling that he wants to help the people who adore his product or the people who work to produce it. What’s important to the avowed socialist is that the entrepreneur cares! Socialism is nothing more than emotionalism on steroids.

I've gotta stop doing this, but it's really a lot of fun.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on December 17, 2019, 11:07:48 am
“Patriotism and the survival of our nation in the face of the crimes, corruption and corrosive nature of Donald Trump are a higher calling than mere politics,”

Quote from a flaming liberal? A Democratic candidate? Nope--from the Lincoln Project, a group of conservatives, mostly if not all Republicans, that formed a PAC to fight against Trump's re-election. It includes George Conway, the husband of Kellyanne Conway, Trump's chief assistant liar.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/george-conway-and-other-conservative-critics-launch-pac-to-take-down-trump

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 17, 2019, 11:09:56 am
Good one, Peter. What you're describing is otherwise known as the "deep state."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 17, 2019, 11:16:51 am
Venezuela is neither socialist, communist nor capitalist: it is a simple dictatorship where labels are used as suits the boss to disguise the reality. It is a land held hostage to a gang of thugs. It's in good company right across the third world.

Rob, there is no way for socialism to work without a dictatorship, or at the very least a totalitarian government.  The simple reason for this is that people tend not to want to give up their property to the state, but that is the very essence of socialism.  The state owns and controls everything. 

After it begins, regardless if the socialist government was or was not started with good intentions, it quickly becomes apparent that the only way to nationalize private property is to take it by force, and thus begins the reign of terror and devolution into dictatorship. 

It is unavoidable, and what many on the left don't want to admit.  Not necessarily to those on the right mind you, but, IMHO, to themselves.  The fact that your new found religion of collectivism, brought forth by socialism, is bound to always devolve into misery would be quite the hard pill to swallow. 

FYI, I am using socialism in the sense of state owned and operation of assets, whether on a macro or micro level. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on December 17, 2019, 11:40:09 am
Rob, there is no way for socialism to work without a dictatorship, or at the very least a totalitarian government....

But there are many dictatorships without socialism ... So what is your point ?



... There's nothing complex about the problem I cited. Give me a single example of a success by socialism. There simply aren't any. That's not complex ...
YES it is complex...
And there exists in this real world no pure Socialism nor pure Capitalism...

Good one, Peter. What you're describing is otherwise known as the "deep state."
Deepstate ? on the front page?
Not so long ago we used to call that just a different political opinion... It was allowed.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 17, 2019, 11:42:17 am
You (all of you) are being pretty circular, arent'cha?  You (Slobodan) are starting with the premise that socialism is something that doesn't work, and then essentially stating that if it does work it can't be socialism.  Bart and others are identifying things that work and assigning the term "socialism" due, I assume, to a heavy degree of public (i.e government or non-private-owned) involvement.   Within that construct, it's no surprise that the people here that dislike "liberal" policies simply define them as "socialism" as a convenient way of dismissing varying degrees of government oversight/regulation/control, even though, in the context of this discussion, really only Bernie Sanders and potentially Elizabeth Warren seem to be actively advocating for state-ownership of a major facet of the US economy.

Carry on.


Communism socialism and liberalism just represent varying degrees of government power and control over individual freedom.  All government has that effect.   Every rule and regulation reduces personal, economic,  and political liberties.

But to argue that because we're all under some form of government therefore control is good, can justify the worse forms of government power. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 17, 2019, 11:46:09 am
I am sorry you think this is joke material.

Cheers,
Bernard

Seriously, lighten up.  It was pretty obvious my "there is room for improvement" comment was just a quip. 

But anyway, getting back to your private vs. state argument, what would the state have done differently to avoid the humanitarian crisis?  Would they have built a whole new, but unoccupied, city, just waiting in the wings for a catastrophe? 

I just cant see how having the state owning the power company would have made the humianrtian crisis any less severe. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 17, 2019, 11:53:34 am
YES it is complex...
And there exists in this real world no pure Socialism nor pure Capitalism...

No kidding, Pieter. But Britain in the old days, and Hong Kong until the communists clobbered it were pretty close to pure capitalism. Notice how well that worked.

And Venezuela is pretty close to pure socialism. Notice how well that's working.

Quote
Deepstate ? on the front page?
Not so long ago we used to call that just a different political opinion... It was allowed.

It still is. If it weren't, you wouldn't know anything about it, would you?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on December 17, 2019, 11:53:40 am
Good one, Peter. What you're describing is otherwise known as the "deep state."

Russ - Your response belongs in the humor thread.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 17, 2019, 11:55:21 am
Always, Peter.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 17, 2019, 11:56:06 am
But there are many dictatorships without socialism ... So what is your point ?

Not really sure what your point is here, or is if you are giving way to the classic fallacy of the converse.  Although it is possible to have dictatorships that have not arisen out of socialism, it is not possible to have socialism without a dictatorship. 

(Kind of like, if it is snowing outside, then it is freezing.  But it is not true that if it is freezing, then it must be snowing.  Simple example of the fallacy of the converse.) 

As I said before, this is because people don't just freely hand over their property, it must be taken by force.  And regardless if a socialist leader is elected in, like Chavez, he quickly needs to become a dictator to make the transition to socialism happen. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 17, 2019, 12:21:49 pm
You (all of you) are being pretty circular, arent'cha?  You (Slobodan) are starting with the premise that socialism is something that doesn't work, and then essentially stating that if it does work it can't be socialism.  Bart and others are identifying things that work and assigning the term "socialism" due, I assume, to a heavy degree of public (i.e government or non-private-owned) involvement.   Within that construct, it's no surprise that the people here that dislike "liberal" policies simply define them as "socialism" as a convenient way of dismissing varying degrees of government oversight/regulation/control, even though, in the context of this discussion, really only Bernie Sanders and potentially Elizabeth Warren seem to be actively advocating for state-ownership of a major facet of the US economy.

Carry on.


No, no, no, James. Thoughtful nuance will not cut it in these parts.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 17, 2019, 01:11:32 pm
Give me a single example of a success by socialism.

Oh, I dunno. Just off the top of my so-called head:

How about the Apollo Program?
Or, the military?  Not exactly a private enterprise success  (Blackwater anyone?)
Or libraries (imagine THEM under the current IP rules)
Or police forces?
Or the fire department?
Or entire families not going bankrupt because someone got sick?

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 17, 2019, 01:34:54 pm
 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 17, 2019, 02:20:00 pm
;D ;D ;D

What?  I mean, those ARE all examples of public services or entities that do their jobs with varying degrees of competence.

No one here is using "socialism" in terms of arguing for the glory of the Soviet state, or for the wholesale nationalization of private property, and while that may be the definition you and some others are using, it's disingenuous to place that definition on others' usage of that term when you know damn well that's not what they mean.  :)

If you want to provide a definition that we can all talk from, that would probably be more productive.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 17, 2019, 02:25:20 pm
Oh, I dunno. Just off the top of my so-called head:

How about the Apollo Program?
Or, the military?  Not exactly a private enterprise success  (Blackwater anyone?)
Or libraries (imagine THEM under the current IP rules)
Or police forces?
Or the fire department?
Or entire families not going bankrupt because someone got sick?

Yes, Peter, three of these are legitimate functions of government. The Apollo program was not. Libraries are not. Nor are programs that take from one group of people to give to another group of people. That last function was once done much more effectively by local charity, but government wiped out local charity.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on December 17, 2019, 02:27:53 pm
Not really sure what your point is here, or is if you are giving way to the classic fallacy of the converse.  Although it is possible to have dictatorships that have not arisen out of socialism, it is not possible to have socialism without a dictatorship. 

(Kind of like, if it is snowing outside, then it is freezing.  But it is not true that if it is freezing, then it must be snowing.  Simple example of the fallacy of the converse.) 

As I said before, this is because people don't just freely hand over their property, it must be taken by force.  And regardless if a socialist leader is elected in, like Chavez, he quickly needs to become a dictator to make the transition to socialism happen.

You took a quote from Rob, but what you said did not relate to it;  it made no sense...
Alan is the specialist in this field...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 17, 2019, 03:14:46 pm
You took a quote from Rob, but what you said did not relate to it;  it made no sense...
Alan is the specialist in this field...

Well, after looking at it again, I did not really explain myself nor made a good point. 

Rob was trying to imply Venezuela was not a socialist country by saying it is a dictatorship.  I was making the point that socialist countries always devolve into dictatorship.  However, and I guess more to your point, the two are not necessarily related, so it was a falsity on both our parts.  You can not write off a socialist country as not being socialist just because it is also a dictatorship, and vis versa. 

I do contest though that socialism will always devolve into some form of totalitarianism or oppressive regime.  People dont just give up their stuff, so you need to take it from them. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 17, 2019, 03:15:09 pm
What?  I mean, those ARE all examples of public services or entities that do their jobs with varying degrees of competence.

No one here is using "socialism" in terms of arguing for the glory of the Soviet state, or for the wholesale nationalization of private property, and while that may be the definition you and some others are using, it's disingenuous to place that definition on others' usage of that term when you know damn well that's not what they mean.  :)

If you want to provide a definition that we can all talk from, that would probably be more productive.

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 17, 2019, 03:20:56 pm
;D ;D ;D

Boo.  Your heart's not even in trolling today.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 17, 2019, 03:24:09 pm
Yes, Peter, three of these are legitimate functions of government. The Apollo program was not.

My man TJ knows a lot more than you do about the permissible role of government in exploration and research. (https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/jefferson-requests-funding-for-lewis-and-clark-expedition)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 17, 2019, 03:26:00 pm
Boo.  Your heart's not even in trolling today.   ;D

James, I am stil in the midlle of settling in Belgrade, thus without my desktop and a proper keyboard that made composing longer responses much easier. So bear with me for a while :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 17, 2019, 03:27:29 pm
James, I am stil in the midlle of settling in Belgrade, thus without my desktop and a proper keyboard that made composing longer responses much easier. So bear with me for a while :)

Oh cool!  How long are you there?  Hope you'll be posting pics!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 17, 2019, 03:51:16 pm
Oh cool!  How long are you there?  Hope you'll be posting pics!

Looks like for good. If you are coming this way, ping me.

I posted some in the Without Prejudice thread, but I think I will open a separate ongoing thread in the User Critique.

P.S. for those who often complain about acrimonious debates here, it shall be noted it is mostly rhetorical. We can be quite friendly IRL. In addition to James (who I know comes to these regions) everyone is cordially invited to ping me if coming here, for business or pleasure (including Bernard ;) )
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 17, 2019, 03:57:43 pm
Again, nobody listens, they just restate their earlier position.

Venezuela. Were it formerly socialist, communist or capitalist, the current disaster is dictatorship. That it can arise from different bases is not the argument. The argument concerns itself with what it is now, today.

Britain in the old days being close to pure capitalism. For the vast majority, those old days meant abject, grinding poverty, grime-ridden back-to-back rows of workers slums or, in other cities, tenements built around a square with no air circulating, and in both cases, row or high building, external lavatories. People died of pneumonia and cold every winter; children's diseases swept through society wiping out hundreds if not thousands of kids even before they hit school - if they hit school at all instead of going straight into the chimney stacks or the mines and mills instead. It was only because a point was reached when these folks said hey, enough is enough: we are human too, that new parties began to flex muscles and force through changes into goode olde Britain. Trust me, do you really imagine all those thousands of British GI brides did it because they loved that Gary Cooper accent? Like hell: they swallowed the propaganda crap from the Hollywood movies and imagined all Americans, from coast to coast and all points between lived in cute houses with picket fences and/or had apartments overlooking Central Park. The culture shock that hit them with what they found in the cities and in the sticks showed them they had achieved nothing, just more of what they thought they were escaping, but a long way from family and friends. And that was the mid-forties. And America was fortunate: it never suffered the devastation of nightly bombings, the factories flattened and the near-starvation of city dwellers remote from farming contacts; it's kids were not evacuated, taken out of some of the cities and dumped into remote counties to save them from being flattened along with their homes. The end of WW2 gave American industry the green light to return to servicing consumers, and boy, it did that with a vengeance, and for many it ushered in a fantastic standard of living but by no means for all. It was no coincidence that the 50s led to the most amazing automobiles, rock'n' roll and everybody dreaming there as they did in Britain during that very brief period in the 60s when absolutely everything seemed like it only needed you to get up off your ass and it could all be yours. And for a while the dream was fulfilled.

In case anyone thinks I write about the days of Dickens: I remember Glasgow and how it was when I waved ciao ciao back in '81. I was lucky: I lived next to a beautiful park and in a very nice house of my own. A couple of miles away it was a very different story. Last time I passed the old neighbourhood it looked rather tired, suggesting perhaps that good things go downhill more readily than they can in the opposite direction.

All countries have had their elite, and all elites do their damndest to cling on and keep it as it was or is. That's what the new Conservatives stand for, only they have pulled the amazing trick of persuading turkeys to work for them and to vote for Christmas. Truly an achievement, but just wait until Boxing Day comes around: these turkeys can fight, dead or alive.

And when did British socialism attempt to take away private property? The last time I heard of that being tried was in Portugal, where a short-lived communist regime during the second half of the twentieth century attempted to do it, only to have the population realise that confiscating all those golfing holiday homes down in the Algarve was going to stop the construction business in its tracks and throw thousands of good folks straight onto the rubbish heap. Actually, as with the commies still lurking about in Spain, they shouldn't have bothered: ultra-capitalism such as with the banks and investment/speculation/insurance groups did it for them: the events of 2008 happened without a shot being fired, a vote cast or an opinion sought: all it took was greed and lax governmental oversight. The property market here, as investment, died on its feet, and has yet to reach the morgue. For those just wanting a roof over their head, there is an acute shortage because nobody is willing to build at low profit margins. Many young adults simply can't marry and leave home. And that includes educated people, lots of educated people, which for perhaps the first time (outwith Italy, which has been familiar with that phenomenon since the seventies, at least) shows you that education, too, has lost its golden key for many young people. The entire paradigm has shifted: if you can be a good plumber or electrician you won't starve, because legally or on the black economy, people have to hire you to fix broken pipes and repair burned out wiring. Your degree, unless it's a passport to some rarified stratum of professional life, can just as easily mean nobody wants to hire you because you are over-qualified in something useless, and may probably turn out to be a trouble-maker out of resentment and frustration at yourself and the system you believed in for all those years of study.

The simple truth, I'm afraid, is that mankind being too damned clever for its own good, has managed to turn human beings into excess baggage. Rather than invest in people we have invested in technology which makes many levels of human intelligence and ability too low to be useful. In order to keep the employment figures high enough to prevent riots in the streets, we have allowed the creation of Mcjobs and concepts such as the Uber model where there is no security, no form of guarantee about anything, and no realistic basis upon which to seek bank help in order to buy a home. But hey, the official figures are still reading rosy, with under 2 or 3 percent unemployment. Which kinda makes one wonder why the soup kitchens, why the folks living under bridges if only two percent are without work? Can they all be immigrants?

We have to begin to value people and not buy into the myth that new is always better, that having robots do what people used to do creates new buyers for those products: in order to buy anything, you need to be working and making some money. It's a classically circular situation. No work, no buy.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 17, 2019, 04:07:02 pm
Rob, you must have access to a proper keyboard, right? :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 17, 2019, 04:10:52 pm
Looks like for good. If you are coming this way, ping me.

I posted some in the Without Prejudice thread, but I think I will open a separate ongoing thread in the User Critique.

P.S. for those who often complain about acrimonious debates here, it shall be noted it is mostly rhetorical. We can be quite friendly IRL. In addition to James (who I know comes to these regions) everyone is cordially invited to ping me if coming here, for business or pleasure (including Bernard ;) )

You have taken with you some extraordinary skills, both linguistic, artistic and professional. You are not dead yet! Don't ever accept that until you don't know that it happened, by which time it won't matter.

I must be twenty years older than you; even I still dream and want to move and begin a new life - to say career would open me to ridicule, my own, too!

Either way, dead or alive, I wish you the very best that's possible.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 17, 2019, 04:11:36 pm
Rob, you must have access to a proper keyboard, right? :)

IPad. And nothing better to do.

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 17, 2019, 05:03:34 pm
In his letter to Speaker Pelosi, President Trump who has never shown any indication that he has any religious principles, accuses Speaker Pelosi of hypocrisy, "You are offending Americans of faith by continually saying ‘I pray for the President,’ when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense.”  More exciting news from the President's personal lawyer, Mr. Giuliani who admits to forcing the former ambassador to the Ukraine out of office.  Why can't this man just keep his mouth shut?  He's digging a big hole for himself and the President.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 17, 2019, 05:36:50 pm
Seriously, lighten up.  It was pretty obvious my "there is room for improvement" comment was just a quip. 

But anyway, getting back to your private vs. state argument, what would the state have done differently to avoid the humanitarian crisis?  Would they have built a whole new, but unoccupied, city, just waiting in the wings for a catastrophe? 

I just cant see how having the state owning the power company would have made the humianrtian crisis any less severe.

Seriously?

Let me give you one obvious hint... by funding the rebuild of houses for the people who had to leave theirs as a result of the melt down of Fukushima reactors?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 17, 2019, 05:46:48 pm
I was making the point that socialist countries always devolve into dictatorship. 

So you consider the whole of Europe not to be socialist countries? Or do you consider all European countries to be on the verge of dictatorship?

If your definition of socialist is equal to communist, then there are no more soclist countries and we agree it doesn't work... But that's not at all the universally accepted definition of socialism.

Socialism is about the redistribution of the wealth to ensure that the poorest citizens who have not been provided with the right opportunities get a chance to make a decent living. This includes first the universal right to healthcare because we, citizens of socialist countries, think it's an absolute failure of civilization when people die on the street out of easily curable diseases. I see socialism as a structural embodiment of empathy. As explained before, this is in no way opposed to free enterprise and market developments. As it turns out, Europe is a lot more aligned with free market principles than the US under Trump.

The level of taxation in Europe is higher than in the US, not the difference isn't that large. The key differences are how money is being spent and the structure of taxation as a result of the level of wealth (and taxation on income vs on assets). On the former, the US focuses a lot of expenditures on its defense lobby without this being subject to much public debate as far as I can tell, while Europe uses its taxes to deliver services to its citizens, starting with proper healthcare, good public transportation,... this is the result of an incredible turn of fate in which private corporations in the US (again centered on the defense lobby) have formed to public mindset to be both anti-state and pro-defense spending... which when you think of it is a totally loosing proposition for most citizens. You pay a lot of taxes and are not getting anything out of it unless you are invested in the defense lobby... and you are super happy about that. Very smart...

in the mean time black kids die everyday in the ghettos of Los Angeles out of drug abuse, drugs that are being let in by supportive police forces... the US having a rate of people in jail 5 times higher than any other developed country (an incredible 0.7% of the population in the US is in jail), against mostly black people. So that non social state is working great for the poorest citizens in the country... very impressive. From a European standpoint we wonder... how do you justify to yourself on moral grounds the support to a system based on selfishness that results in such a high % of your fellow citizens left out to die in prisons? Do you think it's they fault? Don't you think you would be better off with a little less money and more happy fellow citizens?

So yes, it is complex. Not even close to the oversimplification of the world between lefties and righties.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 17, 2019, 05:47:52 pm
Oh cool!  How long are you there?  Hope you'll be posting pics!

This one seems quite appropriate for the thread ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on December 17, 2019, 05:48:30 pm
Boo.  Your heart's not even in trolling today.

James, I am stil in the midlle of settling in Belgrade, thus without my desktop and a proper keyboard that made composing longer responses much easier. So bear with me for a while :)

That's a relief!  It appeared for a moment that you had gone over to the bright side of the Force (https://screenrant.com/star-wars-best-quotes-dark-side/).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 17, 2019, 06:08:36 pm
So you consider the whole of Europe not to be socialist countries?

Of course. There is precisely zero socialist countries in Europe.

Quote
If your definition of socialist is equal to communist, then perhaps. But that's not at all the universally accepted definition of socialism.

Socialism is about the redistribution of the wealth...

Well, your “universally” accepted definition is anything but. Pretty much sounds like a feel-good definition you invented.

You can spend more on social functions precisely because we have to spend more on defense, as we have to provide protection for your sorry asses.

Another thing: diametrically opposite ethos. Europeans have a serf mentality in their genes, built over millennia of being “subjects” of their kings and queens. In exchange for the loyalty to your rulers, you expect they will take care of you and provide you with the basics. Americans are born out of rejection of such servitude and with the notion that no higher power but yourself is responsible for your pursuit of happiness. Nobody owes you anything. That, and the fear of failure, are powerful motivators to get off your ass and do something for yourself, instead of whining for help from the nanny state.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 17, 2019, 06:14:14 pm
Of course. There is precisely zero socialist countries in Europe.

Well, your “universally” accepted definition is anything but. Pretty much sounds like a feel-good definition you invented.

You can spend more on social functions precisely because we have to spend more on defense, as we have to provide protection for your sorry asses.

Well, then let's just agree that I am using the wrong word.

What I am referring to as socialism isn't communism, it's the modern embodiement of social wealth redistribution implemented in European countries. And it's in that context that state run ownership/control of Nuclear operators is the right solution.

How do you want to call that?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 17, 2019, 06:31:47 pm
Well, then let's just agree that I am using the wrong word.

What I am referring to as socialism isn't communism, it's the modern embodiement of social wealth redistribution implemented in European countries. And it's in that context that state run ownership/control of Nuclear operators is the right solution.

How do you want to call that?

I think it already has the name: social democracy.

And if American commies, Karla Marx and Angry Birdie, would call for a social democracy in the States, they might even have a point and more followers. But no, Angry Birdie never shied away from extolling virtues of certain aspects of the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Venezuela, praising even lines for bread.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 17, 2019, 06:39:50 pm
I think it already has the name: social democracy.

And if American commies, Karla Marx and Angry Birdie, would call for a social democracy in the States, they might even have a point and more followers. But no, Angry Birdie never shied away from extolling virtues of certain aspects of the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Venezuela, praising even lines for bread.

Let's go for social democracy.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 17, 2019, 06:40:15 pm
Seriously?

Let me give you one obvious hint... by funding the rebuild of houses for the people who had to leave theirs as a result of the melt down of Fukushima reactors?

Cheers,
Bernard

Property Insurance?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 17, 2019, 07:12:43 pm
;D ;D ;D

That reply was a direct response to me.

Just so you know, whatever your intent was with the three laughing faces, it came across as condescension.

 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 17, 2019, 07:36:19 pm
Property Insurance?

Not applicable.

And you understand that housing is just one example among many others right? I have not spoken about the impact on businesses and many intangible assets also.

The situation is that a whole area was written off the map. Pretty much forever.

Any way you look at it, a private corporation is completely unable to deal with the consequences. By a factor of hundreds or thousands.

Which means that a business model for private ownership of Nuclear operation can only be built ignoring these aspects. Which is not a good solution.

All other business are built taking into account the possible costs if something goes wrong. When the battery of an iphone explodes and injures someone apple deals with the costs. And their business model is built in such a way as to factor in the costs of such risks. When you buy an iphone, you pay for the risk that batteries may explode.

This just doesn't fly for Nuclear.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 17, 2019, 07:58:07 pm
So you consider the whole of Europe not to be socialist countries? Or do you consider all European countries to be on the verge of dictatorship?

If your definition of socialist is equal to communist, then there are no more soclist countries and we agree it doesn't work... But that's not at all the universally accepted definition of socialism.

Socialism is about the redistribution of the wealth to ensure that the poorest citizens who have not been provided with the right opportunities get a chance to make a decent living. This includes first the universal right to healthcare because we, citizens of socialist countries, think it's an absolute failure of civilization when people die on the street out of easily curable diseases. I see socialism as a structural embodiment of empathy. As explained before, this is in no way opposed to free enterprise and market developments. As it turns out, Europe is a lot more aligned with free market principles than the US under Trump.

The level of taxation in Europe is higher than in the US, not the difference isn't that large. The key differences are how money is being spent and the structure of taxation as a result of the level of wealth (and taxation on income vs on assets). On the former, the US focuses a lot of expenditures on its defense lobby without this being subject to much public debate as far as I can tell, while Europe uses its taxes to deliver services to its citizens, starting with proper healthcare, good public transportation,... this is the result of an incredible turn of fate in which private corporations in the US (again centered on the defense lobby) have formed to public mindset to be both anti-state and pro-defense spending... which when you think of it is a totally loosing proposition for most citizens. You pay a lot of taxes and are not getting anything out of it unless you are invested in the defense lobby... and you are super happy about that. Very smart...

in the mean time black kids die everyday in the ghettos of Los Angeles out of drug abuse, drugs that are being let in by supportive police forces... the US having a rate of people in jail 5 times higher than any other developed country (an incredible 0.7% of the population in the US is in jail), against mostly black people. So that non social state is working great for the poorest citizens in the country... very impressive. From a European standpoint we wonder... how do you justify to yourself on moral grounds the support to a system based on selfishness that results in such a high % of your fellow citizens left out to die in prisons? Do you think it's they fault? Don't you think you would be better off with a little less money and more happy fellow citizens?

So yes, it is complex. Not even close to the oversimplification of the world between lefties and righties.

Cheers,
Bernard

There is a conservative radio host in the USA named Dennis Prager who is found of saying, I don't need agreement, I just need clarity.  You provided some nice clarity, until you got to talking about black kids in ghettos.  Why not just people in ghettos?  Lets keep skin color out of it, or I will need to start siting psychological studies on the effect of single parent households, including the recent landmark study that showed even if you are raised in a dual parent household but in a neighborhood with a majority of single parent households, you still will not escape the effects.  Then we will need to start talking about cross racial statistics on the rate of single family households and the history in the rates of decline, pointing out that in fact one particular racial group had higher rates of dual parent households prior to the 1960s but now has the highest rate in single parent households.  Then that leads to what happened in the 60s that encouraged this devolution.  It becomes a whole can worms. 

But anyway, getting back to your other points.  It is not nice to see people die on the streets from easily curable diseases, but that is not what I see.  As a matter of fact, I dont see much of anyone living or dying on the street.  Philadelphia does not have a big homeless problem.  I see the occasional vagabond staking out a spot on Callowhill Street, under 676, but we have a lot of privately operated shelters in the city.  I've actually been hire to photograph a couple.  On top of that, it is illegal to live on the streets in Philly, which helps officers to get these people to except help and go to the shelters.  Now in LA or San Fran, I hear a lot of discouraging news.  But it appears to be brought on by giving people too much carrot and not using enough stick.  Of course, using too much stick and not enough carrot has it's problems, which is why I support private shelters. 

On defense, I agree we spend way too much on defense.  If I was in charge, we would be a near isolationist country.  I would have us pull out of NATO and the middle east, and mostly anywhere else.  Perhaps provide help to Israel when needed, but they bested three countries at once in the 1967 War and appear to be able to handle themselves, and a few other choice allies. 

Insofar as the prison debate, as I alluded to above, I believe the route cause to much of the increase in the prison rate to be related to the increase in single parent households along with the devolution of family structure and basic societal structures, like church.  (Note, I am an atheist and cant stand the hocus pocus of any religion, so it is quite difficult for me to side with the conservative right on this.  I do believe the increase in non-secularism is a contributing factor, even though I have no plans of joining any churches.)  So, by the time they reach adulthood, it is kind of baked into the cake.  Now I am not an Inspector Javert here and feel redemption is beyond possibility, but I do insist on holding adults responsible for there actions and expect them to pay for their sins.  (I am also for the death penally in case you are wondering.)  Money and time would be better spent on trying to instill basic societal structures, like promoting marriage and raising kids in in two parent households.  However, many elites promote the idea that marrage does not need to be for everyone and two parent households are not necessarily needed, even though most (83%) reap the financial benefits of being married. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 17, 2019, 08:00:55 pm
Not applicable.

And you understand that housing is just one example among many others right? I have not spoken about the impact on businesses and many intangible assets also.

The situation is that a whole area was written off the map. Pretty much forever.

Any way you look at it, a private corporation is completely unable to deal with the consequences. By a factor of hundreds or thousands.

Which means that a business model for private ownership of Nuclear operation can only be built ignoring these aspects. Which is not a good solution.

All other business are built taking into account the possible costs if something goes wrong. When the battery of an iphone explodes and injures someone apple deals with the costs. And their business model is built in such a way as to factor in the costs of such risks. When you buy an iphone, you pay for the risk that batteries may explode.

This just doesn't fly for Nuclear.

Cheers,
Bernard

My God man.

If an entire area is wiped off of the map, there is no way to deal with that that would mitigate the impact one bit, regardless if it the power plant was state run or privately run. 

All anyone could do would be to provide the capital to rebuild elsewhere, whether it be government or private insurance companies.  Furthermore, the idea that only one company would have to cover the cost is absurd.  Like I alluded to, many property insurers would be involved from having property owners in the area owning coverages. 

On top of that, I have seen the government screw up so many times on disasters, it's become almost a metaphor.  The 9th Ward in New Orleans is still a total mess, and the government has been involved with that for years. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 17, 2019, 08:30:53 pm
My God man.

If an entire area is wiped off of the map, there is no way to deal with that that would mitigate the impact one bit, regardless if it the power plant was state run or privately run. 

All anyone could do would be to provide the capital to rebuild elsewhere, whether it be government or private insurance companies.  Furthermore, the idea that only one company would have to cover the cost is absurd.  Like I alluded to, many property insurers would be involved from having property owners in the area owning coverages. 

These situations are typically part of exclusion clauses of insurance policies.

I have never said one company should cover everything. My very point is on the contrary that, since a single company will not be able to cover these costs, the private ownership model is not a suitable match for nuclear power.

A state definitely has the ability to cover such costs.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 17, 2019, 11:25:14 pm
Yes, Peter, three of these are legitimate functions of government. The Apollo program was not. Libraries are not.

Thanks for giving me credit for three, even though you asked us for one.

So, why was the Apollo program not a legitimate function of government?  It was certainly successful.

And why are libraries not legitimate?  They, too seem very successful.


 
Quote
Nor are programs that take from one group of people to give to another group of people. That last function was once done much more effectively by local charity, but government wiped out local charity.

But that basically disables ALL forms of taxation.  How do you pay for those three items that you do think qualify?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 18, 2019, 12:07:47 am
Slobo Be well and successful in Belgrade.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 18, 2019, 12:25:06 am
Nobody in America wants nuclear whether run by government or private.   So thre argument is moot.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 18, 2019, 12:38:02 am
FISA court head judge finally complains about FBI malfeasance on Trump applications for getting court-approved easedropping authority.  Where have they been for 3 years?

https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEA0yMJ7oLQiWFiSMaG5OMtMqGAgEKg8IACoHCAowhK-LAjD4ySww69W0BQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 18, 2019, 02:53:29 am
Nobody in America wants nuclear whether run by government or private.   So thre argument is moot.

I guess Joe isn't American then.

This is surprising... I thought your statements were balanced and well thought out... ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 18, 2019, 02:55:29 am
... Just so you know, whatever your intent was with the three laughing faces, it came across as condescension.

For what it is worth, it was directed at the concept, which isn’t uniquely yours, thus shouldn’t be taken personally.

As I mentioned in another post, I understand that many in the West simply have no clue what socialism is, so they are all over the place. From narrowing it down to the strictly technical distinction (government-owned means of production), to ballooning it to include many common functions. Some simply dismiss it as dictatorships.

Military as socialist!? By that definition, any society from the dawn of mankind is socialist. Taxes are socialist? Again, existed many millennia ago. By that definition, the Roman Empire was socialist. Firefighters? They started, and still are, in many communities, as volunteers. The same with police. Or libraries. A small, local group of people got together and elected a sheriff, or a judge, or any other function of common interest. Throughout history, many years ago, way before the concept of socialism came to be. Unless, of course, we accept that everything, from the dawn of mankind, is socialism.


Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 18, 2019, 03:01:13 am
I guess Joe isn't American then...

That would be an example of language complexity, Bernard  ;)

You see, “nobody”  is known as a hyperbole, a favorite of Trump, so no wonder you don’t get it ;)

I guess your head would explode upon encountering Yogi Berra: “Nobody comes here anymore. It is too crowded.”
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 18, 2019, 04:27:41 am
1.  There is a conservative radio host in the USA named Dennis Prager who is found of saying, I don't need agreement, I just need clarity.  You provided some nice clarity, until you got to talking about black kids in ghettos.  Why not just people in ghettos?  Lets keep skin color out of it, or I will need to start siting psychological studies on the effect of single parent households, including the recent landmark study that showed even if you are raised in a dual parent household but in a neighborhood with a majority of single parent households, you still will not escape the effects.  Then we will need to start talking about cross racial statistics on the rate of single family households and the history in the rates of decline, pointing out that in fact one particular racial group had higher rates of dual parent households prior to the 1960s but now has the highest rate in single parent households.  Then that leads to what happened in the 60s that encouraged this devolution. 

2.  It becomes a whole can worms. 

3. But anyway, getting back to your other points.  It is not nice to see people die on the streets from easily curable diseases, but that is not what I see.  As a matter of fact, I dont see much of anyone living or dying on the street.  Philadelphia does not have a big homeless problem.  I see the occasional vagabond staking out a spot on Callowhill Street, under 676, but we have a lot of privately operated shelters in the city.  I've actually been hire to photograph a couple.  On top of that, it is illegal to live on the streets in Philly, which helps officers to get these people to except help and go to the shelters.  Now in LA or San Fran, I hear a lot of discouraging news.  But it appears to be brought on by giving people too much carrot and not using enough stick.  Of course, using too much stick and not enough carrot has it's problems, which is why I support private shelters. 

4.  On defense, I agree we spend way too much on defense.  If I was in charge, we would be a near isolationist country.  I would have us pull out of NATO and the middle east, and mostly anywhere else.  Perhaps provide help to Israel when needed, but they bested three countries at once in the 1967 War and appear to be able to handle themselves, and a few other choice allies. 

Insofar as the prison debate, as I alluded to above, I believe the route cause to much of the increase in the prison rate to be related to the increase in single parent households along with the devolution of family structure and basic societal structures, like church.  (Note, I am an atheist and cant stand the hocus pocus of any religion, so it is quite difficult for me to side with the conservative right on this.  I do believe the increase in non-secularism is a contributing factor, even though I have no plans of joining any churches.)  So, by the time they reach adulthood, it is kind of baked into the cake.  Now I am not an Inspector Javert here and feel redemption is beyond possibility,

5.  but I do insist on holding adults responsible for there actions and expect them to pay for their sins.  (I am also for the death penally in case you are wondering.)  Money and time would be better spent on trying to instill basic societal structures, like promoting marriage and raising kids in in two parent households.  However, many elites promote the idea that marrage does not need to be for everyone and two parent households are not necessarily needed, even though most (83%) reap the financial benefits of being married.

1.  Perhaps "siting" some psychological studies could liven the debate, somewhat. Claiming that two-parent or one-parent families do cross-pollinate trouble is a no brainer: bad apples always rot more good apples than good apples turn rotten ones good. Geez!

What happened in the sixties? Oh, did you mean free love? It was myth: Suzi Quatro's mum says "somebody always pays!" The concept of sleeping around is as old as Adam and Eve, and if anyone seriously believes it was truly a phenomenon of the 60s, they need either to get a life or to speak with the ancestors after getting them a little tight. If there was a difference it was in the way hypocrisy was or was not applied to the same unavoidable human behaviour. Bible Belt America may have had a little more of it than elsewhere. The hypocricy, I mean. Wait, isn't the Mormon ethic big in your country?

2. Worms are canned simply for the excitement and pleasure of the opening of the cans. Just like beer.

3. From what I hear on American Internet radio, Philly has always had a tough reputation. Being illegal to live on the street is as much a solution to the problem as saying that it is illegal to sell drugs is the solution to selling drugs.

4.  True isolationism would mean that you'd have to consume all your own products at home; you'd be starved of foreign investment and have no place to sell your weapons and commercial aircraft (pace, 737 Max) other than in your own High Street, shopping malls and airshows. Out of NATO means out of your early-warning radar systems which, incidentally, whilst they may give your POTUS a few more minutes to save his ass, do absolutely nothing for the head honchos of Europe. In fairness, warning does nothing for the rest of the citizens anywhere: they will still fry in a flash or slowly rot with cancer, burns and deformities.

Israel will always receive US help. Look at the structure of American power and wealth, through banking to the art world, or are they the same thing twice?

5.  Indeed, but that requires the perfect world with perfect heroes and rôle models right to the top of your political and religious trees. As with us, your country stands not a chance. It also requires castration at birth, which, actually, may resolve everything.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 18, 2019, 05:48:27 am
In America’s most “socialist” state, California, showing us what to expect if the disease (of socialism) spreads to the whole US:

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/man-caught-pooping-in-aisle-of-san-francisco-safeway/

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 18, 2019, 07:12:12 am
In America’s most “socialist” state, California, showing us what to expect if the disease (of socialism) spreads to the whole US:

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/man-caught-pooping-in-aisle-of-san-francisco-safeway/

Look on the bright, at least he made it to the isle with toilet paper.  There's always a bright side.   (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJUhlRoBL8M)

In all seriousness, I just cant understand how this is going on.  How are the  politicians in CA getting re-elected?  I mean, left vs right, capitalism vs. socialism, how much regulation to have, these are all abstract arguments.  But poop and piss in the street, that's the real deal; you can see that. 

And I really cant understand the 9th Circuit Court's ruling on this.  It is totally absurd.

There's a pandemic just waiting to break out in CA. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 18, 2019, 07:13:21 am
Rob, BTW, not everything in teh 60s was about sex, drugs and rock and roll.  Let's get our mind out of the gutter.   ;)

I was alluding to certain social programs put in place in the USA. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 18, 2019, 07:28:09 am
In America’s most “socialist” state, California, showing us what to expect if the disease (of socialism) spreads to the whole US:

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/man-caught-pooping-in-aisle-of-san-francisco-safeway/

You’ve got to wonder how those crazy Californian lefties generate twice as much economic power as the second closest state in the union...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 18, 2019, 07:40:02 am
You’ve got to wonder how those crazy Californian lefties generate twice as much economic power as the second closest state in the union...

Cheers,
Bernard

Give it time; it was pretty recently that CA was a republican run state.  As Margaret Thatcher said, socialism is great until you run out of other people's money. 

Plus, CA has seen 5 million residents move in the last decade with a net loss of 1 million.  A big part of it are quality of life issues, such as this.  There's only so much crap you take.   8)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 18, 2019, 07:42:57 am
Give it time; it was pretty recently that CA was a republican run state.  As Margaret Thatcher said, socialism is great until you run out of other people's money. 

Plus, CA has seen 5 million residents move in the last decade with a net loss of 1 million.  A big part of it are quality of life issues, such as this.  There's only so much crap you take.   8)

Yes, but that has nothing to do with it being a socialist state, it has everything to do with the increase of the cost of living thanks to the inflation of salaries from the GAFA and co.

Btw Schwarzy was the worst leftie among the Republicans! ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on December 18, 2019, 08:40:23 am
As Margaret Thatcher said, socialism is great until you run out of other people's money. 
America et al already reached that bottom... many times ...and it was not socialism that caused it...
There is a cure that is widely used : start the presses!

All the candidate presidents say- we have to do something about it! ; Once in power they say:  make them run harder!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on December 18, 2019, 09:26:35 am
People talk about "wealth redistribution." Well, you want to know what is the oldest and most successful wealth redistribution system ever devised? The corporation, which takes wealth created by workers and redistributes part of it to owners and executives. Now that's the way corporations are supposed to work, and is the foundation of pretty much every economy. But it's telling that conservatives think it's fine and dandy when wealth is redistributed to them (dividends, increased stock prices) but get all bothered when wealth is distributed away from them (taxes for food stamps and welfare).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 18, 2019, 09:37:09 am
Rob, BTW, not everything in teh 60s was about sex, drugs and rock and roll.  Let's get our mind out of the gutter.   ;)

I was alluding to certain social programs put in place in the USA.

Your sixties must have come wrapped in cotton wool. I was an avid reader of Playboy in that era - increased my word power far more than did the Reader's Digest a decade earlier, without, unlike the latter, ever attempting to tell me such was part of its remit!

" not everything in teh 60s was about sex, drugs and rock and roll.  Let's get our mind out of the gutter."

Well, what can I say? Different strokes for different folks? Personally speaking, I never did have sex in the gutter - that I can recall; but do tell us more about such an experience and what some of us may have missed out on!

;-)  ;-.)  That's sex with a girl with a famous mole, by the way.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 18, 2019, 10:05:52 am
Thanks for giving me credit for three, even though you asked us for one.

So, why was the Apollo program not a legitimate function of government?  It was certainly successful.

And why are libraries not legitimate?  They, too seem very successful.


 
But that basically disables ALL forms of taxation.  How do you pay for those three items that you do think qualify?

Hello, Peter,

I was replying to your unsupported assertions with an unsupported assertion. If you’d like to discuss it, I’d be happy to do so.

First, I probably could be convinced that at the time the Apollo program was a legitimate expenditure of taxpayer money -- if it could be connected convincingly to the cold war. After the Russians beat us into space we were demonstrating that we were way ahead of them in that playing field. We certainly were, but I’m not sure we needed to demonstrate it with a massive expenditure of taxpayer money. In any case, a lot of useful stuff came out of the Apollo program. One thing not so useful was NASA. It’s less and less useful, but it’s another government program, marginally useful at best, funded by taxpayers, that refuses to die; refuses even to be put into mothballs.

What’s the difference between a public library and an opera? Why, exactly, should taxpayers be forced to support a library? Don’t get me wrong, I love libraries and before the web matured I used to spend a lot of time in libraries. But the question has to do with forcing people who don’t use libraries to support them with their hard-earned money. Unfortunately, I see cases where taxpayer money is being used nowadays to support operas. The NEA is an abomination when you consider that Joe, the guy who works in the Chrysler press plant, and will never go to the opera, is having his pocket picked by his government to support the opera.

I’ll leave it at that. We can discuss your “entire families going bankrupt because someone got sick” if you want to, but it’s a complicated subject that leads to people not needing to work as long as taxpayers are being forced to provide them with everything they need.

The bottom line is the question of whether or not it’s moral to force people to give up their earnings for a “program” YOU think is a good idea. It leads to the idea of the government “paying” for programs, and illusions like the idea of “government money,” which you can get by enrolling in one of those programs. There’s no such thing as government money. It  all comes from you and me and the rest of the taxpayers.

And no, it doesn’t “disable all forms of taxation” as legitimate. A society needs the other three things in order to survive as a society. Without a military the society will be invaded. Without police forces the society will degenerate into a shambles. You can see the beginnings of that one in New York, Chicago, LA, San Francisco... And without a fire department you’re dependent on your garden hose.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 18, 2019, 10:10:18 am
People talk about "wealth redistribution." Well, you want to know what is the oldest and most successful wealth redistribution system ever devised? The corporation, which takes wealth created by workers and redistributes part of it to owners and executives. Now that's the way corporations are supposed to work, and is the foundation of pretty much every economy. But it's telling that conservatives think it's fine and dandy when wealth is redistributed to them (dividends, increased stock prices) but get all bothered when wealth is distributed away from them (taxes for food stamps and welfare).

ROTFL!!!! I'd like to pass this one up, but I just can't. Peter, please describe for us exactly what you think a corporation is.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 18, 2019, 11:00:10 am
That would be an example of language complexity, Bernard  ;)

You see, “nobody”  is known as a hyperbole, a favorite of Trump, so no wonder you don’t get it ;)

I guess your head would explode upon encountering Yogi Berra: “Nobody comes here anymore. It is too crowded.”
Yes that's what I meant.   The same nobody's who don't go there anymore are the same nobody's who also don't want nuclear. 😂
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 18, 2019, 11:22:02 am
People talk about "wealth redistribution." Well, you want to know what is the oldest and most successful wealth redistribution system ever devised? The corporation, which takes wealth created by workers and redistributes part of it to owners and executives. Now that's the way corporations are supposed to work, and is the foundation of pretty much every economy. But it's telling that conservatives think it's fine and dandy when wealth is redistributed to them (dividends, increased stock prices) but get all bothered when wealth is distributed away from them (taxes for food stamps and welfare).
My wife agrees with you.  She believes in wealth redistribution and socialism too. She always tells me what's hers is hers and what's mine is hers as well.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 18, 2019, 11:38:49 am
Yes, but that has nothing to do with it being a socialist state, it has everything to do with the increase of the cost of living thanks to the inflation of salaries from the GAFA and co.

Btw Schwarzy was the worst leftie among the Republicans! ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

My wife and I just spent 9 days in California.   5 in San Diego and now we're in Los Angeles.   Prices are out of sight.   I don't know how people can afford to live here and I'm from NYC not exactly a cheap area.   Gasoline is 50% higher.  Average homes are over a million.   Restaurants 40% higher.   It's nuts!  Well,  if you could afford them.

Don't know who Schwarzy and GAFA are.   But if they're causing the cost increases and I was a Californian,  I'd shoot them or move to Texas.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 18, 2019, 02:53:34 pm
Hello, Peter,

First, I probably could be convinced that at the time the Apollo program was a legitimate expenditure of taxpayer money -- if it could be connected convincingly to the cold war.

First, thanks for your detailed response.  A substantially more useful contribution to the discussion than three smilie faces.

That the Apollo Program was a response to Russian space sucesses is a matter of historical fact.  The same goes for NASA's success.  Have you never seen an image of the moons of Saturn and felt a little twinge of awe?  Or pride?

Quote
What’s the difference between a public library and an opera?
Any operas I've attended required you to purchase a ticket in order to attend.  This is not true for a library.  Thus, opera is at least partially supported by free enterprise. (something I support, BTW.  The success of free-enterprise SpaceEx is notable.)


Quote
Why, exactly, should taxpayers be forced to support a library?
Because if they don't, hardly anybody will.  Can you imagine today's publishing industry supporting the idea of libraries?  Or authors thinking libraries were a good idea?

Absent "enforced" (your words, not mine) public support, libraries would never exist.

 
Quote
Don’t get me wrong, I love libraries and before the web matured I used to spend a lot of time in libraries.

Thus rendering inexplicable your lack of support for funding them.


Quote
Unfortunately, I see cases where taxpayer money is being used nowadays to support operas. The NEA is an abomination when you consider that Joe, the guy who works in the Chrysler press plant, and will never go to the opera, is having his pocket picked by his government to support the opera.

FWIW, I'm not an opera fan.  I do think, however that the total dollar figure "picked from the pockets" of the boys in the Chrysler plant to support opera is vanishingly small.

Quote
We can discuss your “entire families going bankrupt because someone got sick” if you want to, but it’s a complicated subject that leads to people not needing to work as long as taxpayers are being forced to provide them with everything they need.

Another vanishingly small percentage, yet one frequently cited by the right. In the Socialist Hell that is Canada, there are very very few who refuse to work, yet are treated "for free."  And no families go bankrupt because somebody got sick.  It's just a better, more efficient, more fiscally responsible, more caring idea to look after each other, healthwise. Most western democracies realize this.

Quote
The bottom line is the question of whether or not it’s moral to force people to give up their earnings for a “program” YOU think is a good idea.

Actually, it's usually programs that are supported by the voters.  We've just easily identified five.  There lots more.

Can you imagine a free-enterprise highway system?  Ain't gonna work.  We've both experienced the highway systems in areas where supportive taxes are low.  I think they're actually corruptly financed by the shock absorber industry.  :)

Quote
There’s no such thing as government money. It  all comes from you and me and the rest of the taxpayers.
Actually, I think we all know this. We don't need this particular bell rung over and over and over.

Quote
And no, it doesn’t “disable all forms of taxation” as legitimate. A society needs the other three things in order to survive as a society. Without a military the society will be invaded. Without police forces the society will degenerate into a shambles. You can see the beginnings of that one in New York, Chicago, LA, San Francisco... And without a fire department you’re dependent on your garden hose.

My position is that there are far more than just "three things" that society needs in order to survive that are supported by taxes   It's just that the anti-tax-at-all-costs faction refuse to see them.

Right-side-of-the-spectrum Alberta, for instance, recently fired a few thousand nurses and cut many more essential services in order to balance their provincial budget.  Other than the outlier-case of Yukon, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories) Alberta is the only province which refuses to invoke a sales tax.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 18, 2019, 03:10:08 pm
First, thanks for your detailed response.  A substantially more useful contribution to the discussion than three smilie faces...

Did you miss my response #2178?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 18, 2019, 03:40:55 pm

That the Apollo Program was a response to Russian space sucesses is a matter of historical fact.  The same goes for NASA's success.  Have you never seen an image of the moons of Saturn and felt a little twinge of awe?  Or pride?

Peter, I'll be 90 in March. I was there when all this was going on. Of course there was pride in our accomplishments. So what does that have to do with taxpayers being forced to support something they don't want to support?

Quote
Any operas I've attended required you to purchase a ticket in order to attend.  This is not true for a library.  Thus, opera is at least partially supported by free enterprise. (something I support, BTW.  The success of free-enterprise SpaceEx is notable.)

Having to do with libraries being supported with taxes:
Quote
Because if they don't, hardly anybody will.  Can you imagine today's publishing industry supporting the idea of libraries?  Or authors thinking libraries were a good idea?

Absent "enforced" (your words, not mine) public support, libraries would never exist.
 
Thus rendering inexplicable your lack of support for funding them.

FWIW, I'm not an opera fan.  I do think, however that the total dollar figure "picked from the pockets" of the boys in the Chrysler plant to support opera is vanishingly small.

Ah ha! "Vanishingly small" eh? Yep. Look at the tax structure in New York or California. There's "vanishingly small" tax piled on top of "vanishingly small" tax until you're ready to get out of town and head for some place where the taxes really are "vanishingly small." Unfortunately, nowadays there's no such place.

Quote
Another vanishingly small percentage, yet one frequently cited by the right. In the Socialist Hell that is Canada, there are very very few who refuse to work, yet are treated "for free."  And no families go bankrupt because somebody got sick.  It's just a better, more efficient, more fiscally responsible, more caring idea to look after each other, healthwise. Most western democracies realize this.

Sure, Peter. First, I lived in Beausejour, Manitoba for a couple years. I was a controller at a highline radar site, so as an American I didn't have to depend on Canada's wonderful "free" medical care. But I've spent winters in Florida for many years now. Canadians come down here so they can go to the doctor and not have to wait months and months for what they need. In the U.S. you can walk in to a clinic and get a cat scan within the hour. How long does it take in Canada?

Quote
Actually, it's usually programs that are supported by the voters.  We've just easily identified five.  There lots more.

Sure. The guillotine was supported by the "voters" in France during the revolution. So what? That doesn't make it right.

Quote
Can you imagine a free-enterprise highway system?  Ain't gonna work.  We've both experienced the highway systems in areas where supportive taxes are low.  I think they're actually corruptly financed by the shock absorber industry.  :)
Actually, I think we all know this. We don't need this particular bell rung over and over and over.

My position is that there are far more than just "three things" that society needs in order to survive that are supported by taxes   It's just that the anti-tax-at-all-costs faction refuse to see them.

Absolutely. Highways are an appropriate use of tax money. So are water systems. So are sewers. There are a few things like that absolutely necessary for a community to exist. But neither libraries nor opera (which, by the way, I love -- at least the music) nor any kind of art are essential for a community to exist. Let the library lovers and the opera lovers support their loves, but don't force those who aren't interested -- ultimately at the point of a gun -- to support those things.

Quote
Right-side-of-the-spectrum Alberta, for instance, recently fired a few thousand nurses and cut many more essential services in order to balance their provincial budget.  Other than the outlier-case of Yukon, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories) Alberta is the only province which refuses to invoke a sales tax.

As Maggie Thatcher said, "Eventually you run out of other people's money."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 18, 2019, 03:44:27 pm
What I would say, though, is that when we used to drive through Fance, after the initial buzz of finding nice little places on minor roads to stop for the night and eat, we did use the motorways more and more. AFAIK, these were privately built - there may have been govt. help, I simply don't know how they were funded - but you had to pay. They were always in excellent condition, low traffic volume (but we avoided peak holiday seasons) and hitting the UK versions when we got off the ferry was an eye-opening experience: free, but OMG, what a mess! I think a stretch of private motorway (toll) has now been built to help keep traffic moving on a part of the free motorway, but I don't know how willing the Brits are to pay if they can suffer and get it free. After all, only the Brits here at the distant end of Mallorca would do a 120 klicks round trip to Palma to save a few pesetas on a case of wine at Continente, one of the first huge superstores on the island. Some things just don't compute.

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 18, 2019, 03:56:19 pm
Good point, Rob. Down here in Florida, the turnpike, that runs the length of the state is, of course, a toll road. It's always in top shape. If you're a resident you deposit money with the turnpike authority and stick a transponder on your windshield. With that done you never have to stop at a toll booth to pay. It's a great setup, and makes a lot more sense than "freeways," which, in spite of the name aren't free. They're paid for by the taxpayers.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 18, 2019, 05:36:38 pm
In the U.S. you can walk in to a clinic and get a cat scan within the hour. How long does it take in Canada?

In my case, fifteen minutes.  From the doc's request to supine on the table.

Your example of Canadians taking advantage of the far superior US health system is oft quoted, seldom proven.  My wife suffered a dislocated shoulder while in the USA.  Her hospital stay was under three hours.  The bill was nearly ten large.  Yes, ten thousand dollars.  The care was excellent.

Can we all just agree that some taxes are necessary and that some things are better handled by the government, rather than corporations?  And vice versa? 

This all-or-nothing approach is getting us nowhere.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on December 18, 2019, 05:47:23 pm
ROTFL!!!! I'd like to pass this one up, but I just can't. Peter, please describe for us exactly what you think a corporation is.

It's an organization that redistributes wealth from workers to owners, as I can well attest to when I see my dividends listed on my tax statements, money I have done nothing to earn.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 18, 2019, 06:28:15 pm
It's an organization that redistributes wealth from workers to owners, as I can well attest to when I see my dividends listed on my tax statements, money I have done nothing to earn.

So we can assume, as a loyal socialist, you take the full amount you earn from dividends and donate it to the poor.  I mean, as you said, you did nothing to earn this income and if you even kept one cent, I just dont know how you can sleep at night. 

But anyway, last time I checked, corporations pay what is called a wage to those whom work there.  This is, in fact, a value added exchange, a quid pro quo if you well, for them providing labor to the corporation and the corporation paying them for this service.  And truth be told, if workers felt they were worth more, they have the option to quit and go elsewhere to negotiate a better wage.  This is especially the case now, when the economy today has a better labor market then in recent history.  It is litterally and seller's market out there.  If you have skill, you can name your price.  (If you don't have a skill, well maybe you should have made better life choices.)

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on December 18, 2019, 09:14:53 pm
In the U.S. you can walk in to a clinic and get a cat scan within the hour. How long does it take in Canada?

For a cat, we can get a scan also on the same day. The actual procedure takes about 20 minutes.
For humans, the scan takes takes also about 20-30 minutes, but depending on the hospital or clinic, the waiting time may be several weeks or months. Of course, in emergency situations, it's done in an hour or two.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 18, 2019, 10:08:46 pm
It's an organization that redistributes wealth from workers to owners, as I can well attest to when I see my dividends listed on my tax statements, money I have done nothing to earn.
If you get dividends,  that means you're an owner of the corporation which makes you a corporatist.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 18, 2019, 10:42:09 pm
If you get dividends,  that means you're an owner of the corporation which makes you a corporatist.

Let me reveal something to you, it is 100% possible to be in favor of social wealth redistribution and to also invest in companies and to get dividends. What you call coporatists is absolutely not incompatible with social democracy.

Regarding the proposal from Joe that those getting dividends should devote it to the poor, this is completely missing the point. The point of social wealth redistribution is that the taxation and welfare system needs to take care of this. Does it prevent people from donating to charity? No it doesn't, but the system needs to ensure that everyone gets decent safety net.

And yes, this is coming from someone making a very good living and very happy to pay high level of taxes in favor of those who didn't get the chance.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 19, 2019, 04:04:10 am
Bernard, are you saying you are making a very good living by chance?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 19, 2019, 04:41:22 am
...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 19, 2019, 05:18:12 am
Bernard, are you saying you are making a very good living by chance?

The reality is that being born at the right place had a real high impact on the good living I am making today.

Could I have messed it up? Certainly.

Do I take some pride in having navigated better than others? I probably do.

Does it mean I don’t know how lucky I have been? No it doesn’t.

Could I have gotten where I am today with less luck? Perhaps but it would have been a lot more difficult.

Man often attribute their success to their abilities and their failures to bad luck. I think the opposite is often true.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 19, 2019, 06:03:00 am
... Man often attribute their success to their abilities and their failures to bad luck. I think the opposite is often true.

That I can fully agree with.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 19, 2019, 06:44:42 am
That I can fully agree with.

And so can I.

When I was leaving boarding school in India for the last time (I hated that prison! The schoool; India was great for me), a pretty young lady wrote in my autograph book: "The secret of success is to be ready when your opportunity comes. Old Indian proverb."

In later years, before I lost that book, I often wondered whether she was telling me something - when it was too late - that I'd been too dumb to understand, or whether it was just an older mind now putting implications into that of a fifteen-year-old kid. Funnily enough, I was to meet my future wife a year later when she was fifteen-and-a-bit. Maybe I did learn something just in the nick of time.

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 19, 2019, 07:08:35 am
It's an organization that redistributes wealth from workers to owners, as I can well attest to when I see my dividends listed on my tax statements, money I have done nothing to earn.

Then you certainly ought to stop ripping-off those workers and dump your investments in corporations. Shame on you for being invested in corporations.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 19, 2019, 07:18:39 am
...

Sadly, your link(ed picture) came without introduction or comment to discuss. I thought that was not allowed by the moderator ...

Anyway.

The U.S. Senate seems to be the place where a majority of its members will soon violate their oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and where a republic governed by and for the people will be surrendered for a new kingdom or a new dictatorship.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 19, 2019, 07:33:42 am
That I can fully agree with.
You two gentlemen made my day!

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 19, 2019, 07:58:03 am

What’s the difference between a public library and an opera? Why, exactly, should taxpayers be forced to support a library? Don’t get me wrong, I love libraries and before the web matured I used to spend a lot of time in libraries. But the question has to do with forcing people who don’t use libraries to support them with their hard-earned money. Unfortunately, I see cases where taxpayer money is being used nowadays to support operas. The NEA is an abomination when you consider that Joe, the guy who works in the Chrysler press plant, and will never go to the opera, is having his pocket picked by his government to support the opera.


Hey, we agree on something. Now you know how I feel when government gives "tax incentives" to pro sports franchises or builds them stadiums. Or hands over a "helping hand" to Amazon so that can "create" jobs. Or passes financial sector laws lobbied for by the financial sector so that can more easily fleece the unsophisticated.

In general though, your libertarian ideal never existed anywhere, certainly not in the US, not even before FDR. Mayberry only existed on TV and was slightly less fake than reality TV, except for Floyd the barber, he was real. Your minimalist view of government works fine in textbooks, I'm sure, but so do a lot of other ideas. You're making a common philosophical mistake, you confuse insurance with lack of freedom. It is insurance, more generally the sharing of risk, that has created the wealthy cultures we live in.

Do you really think it's a mistake to have government-backed standards bureaus, to pick one example, or do you think it is really better that we each have to hire an electrical engineer when we buy a toaster to be sure it doesn't burn down our houses? Do you really believe it is inefficient to have public procedures in place to protect consumers from scam-toaster builders or fraudulent mortgage vendors? You do what communists do, you have latched onto one or two simple ideas, convinced yourself of their correctness, and think that everything fits that mold.

You are confusing mythology with how people actually live.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 19, 2019, 08:03:13 am
As a general comment, isn't it astonishing what mental gymnastics people are willing to go through to prove to themselves how correct they must be. When you reach the point of declaring that California is a socialist failure waiting to happen, shouldn't you take a step back and re-examine your assumptions about the world.

I mean, seriously, California?

Look up at the sky. It's blue, stop listening to fantasists who tell you it must be yellow.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 19, 2019, 08:17:38 am
As a general comment, isn't it astonishing what mental gymnastics people are willing to go through to prove to themselves how correct they must be. When you reach the point of declaring that California is a socialist failure waiting to happen, shouldn't you take a step back and re-examine your assumptions about the world.

I mean, seriously, California?

Look up at the sky. It's blue, stop listening to fantasists who tell you it must be yellow.

+1

The same mindset can lead some people to believe that Trump is the victim of a democrat conspiracy, that refusal to testify is an act of resistance instead of an attempt to hide the truth... once you free yourself from truth and reality a world of self-deception opens up to anything you can dream of...

It’s the same kind of mechanism that led to the genocide of more than a million people in Rwanda 25 years ago. A collective hysteria where many people give up on logic and reason to blindly follow a cause. To deprive oneself of the freedom to think in an objective way.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 19, 2019, 09:25:31 am
Hey, we agree on something. Now you know how I feel when government gives "tax incentives" to pro sports franchises or builds them stadiums. Or hands over a "helping hand" to Amazon so that can "create" jobs. Or passes financial sector laws lobbied for by the financial sector so that can more easily fleece the unsophisticated.

In general though, your libertarian ideal never existed anywhere, certainly not in the US, not even before FDR. Mayberry only existed on TV and was slightly less fake than reality TV, except for Floyd the barber, he was real. Your minimalist view of government works fine in textbooks, I'm sure, but so do a lot of other ideas. You're making a common philosophical mistake, you confuse insurance with lack of freedom. It is insurance, more generally the sharing of risk, that has created the wealthy cultures we live in.

Do you really think it's a mistake to have government-backed standards bureaus, to pick one example, or do you think it is really better that we each have to hire an electrical engineer when we buy a toaster to be sure it doesn't burn down our houses? Do you really believe it is inefficient to have public procedures in place to protect consumers from scam-toaster builders or fraudulent mortgage vendors? You do what communists do, you have latched onto one or two simple ideas, convinced yourself of their correctness, and think that everything fits that mold.

You are confusing mythology with how people actually live.

Robert, you’re right. Humans and their organizations never live up to the ideal, but we can strive to move them in that direction. And yes, the government has no business handing out taxpayer money to companies in pursuit of more jobs or in pursuit of anything. In fact the government has no business trying to create more jobs. Leaving entrepreneurs alone is what will create more jobs.

I don’t know anything about Mayberry or “reality” TV. I stopped watching TV more than ten years ago when I finally realized that bad as it was it actually wasn’t as bad as it could get. My realization has been proven correct over and over again.

But let’s talk about government-backed standards bureaus. Government has several legitimate functions. Defense is one of them. Keeping public utilities delivering clean water and disposing of sewage is another. Maintaining roads is another. Police action to prevent crime is another. A standards bureau – or something like it – is a legitimate function of police activity. But it’s the kind of function that can get out of control quickly once it’s taken over by people with a dictatorial mentality or who profit from deciding who meets the standards. An example: cities where only a government-approved taxi company is allowed to operate. Denver went through that for decades while I lived in Colorado. New York currently is fighting ride-hailing as the “value” of its taxi medallions plummets.

I’m not sure what you were thinking when you wrote your last sentence. I’m old enough that I can distinguish between mythology and reality. Eventually you may be able to do that too.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 19, 2019, 10:05:08 am
But let’s talk about government-backed standards bureaus. Government has several legitimate functions. Defense is one of them. Keeping public utilities delivering clean water and disposing of sewage is another. Maintaining roads is another. Police action to prevent crime is another. A standards bureau – or something like it – is a legitimate function of police activity. But it’s the kind of function that can get out of control quickly once it’s taken over by people with a dictatorial mentality or who profit from deciding who meets the standards. An example: cities where only a government-approved taxi company is allowed to operate. Denver went through that for decades while I lived in Colorado. New York currently is fighting ride-hailing as the “value” of its taxi medallions plummets.

All shared-risk processes have free-rider problems. What else is new. We need to do everything possible to overcome that, whether in the private or public sector. Arguing that you need to get rid of a shared system because of free riders is silly. It's like saying that all retail outlets should be closed because there exist shoplifters. What you do is implement procedures to correct the system, and all participants pay for that, and likely none of those systems will ever be perfect. It's how almost everything works.

And for the thousandth time, of course people screw up. But it's not any cheaper or more efficient when the private sector does it. That is to say, that is not the criteria by which you determine whether a service should be publicly or privately funded. I bet there were lots of scams while building the US interstate system, a lot of them perpetrated by private enterprises, but is that a reason for not building it? Do you think it's wrong to tax people in Utah to share in the cost of building miles of highways in New York? There are a LOT of needs that cannot be met by private enterprise. The planning time horizon alone bars them from the frame in many cases. It's ridiculous, imo, to suggest that the government's only responsibilities are the military and the police. That's a silly fantasy. You are creating a utopian paradise that doesn't exist and never has and then compare reality to that utopia and find it wanting. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 19, 2019, 11:06:57 am
Like most things, it's a matter of degree.   And a slippery slope.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 19, 2019, 11:47:47 am
. . .should be publicly or privately funded.

There's that term, "funded" again. That term always is used to steer attention away from the fact that everything -- everything -- is privately "funded." The difference is that when taxes are involved, the people "funding" an enterprise with their hard-earned money often aren't the people who'll benefit from that enterprise. But the politicians "funding" the project always will benefit.

The term, "funded," always tells me there's a government scam involved.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 19, 2019, 01:25:51 pm
At the first campaign rally following the House of Representatives vote of Impeachment, President Trump manages to insult both living and deceased Democratic lawmakers.  John Dingell, a beloved Congressman who represented Michigan for many years and was not in office when the President was elected was singled out for some obscure reason known on to the Leader in Chief.  President Trump said his spirit may very well be living in hell.  Dante had special levels in his Inferno but likely would have to create a new one were he still alive.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 19, 2019, 02:53:42 pm
There's that term, "funded" again...The term, "funded," always tells me there's a government scam involved.

What term would you prefer?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on December 19, 2019, 03:21:47 pm
Sadly, your link(ed picture) came without introduction or comment to discuss. I thought that was not allowed by the moderator ...

No, linked pictures, which show up inline, are perfectly permissible. Links to external sites, which can be viewed only by clicking on them, must have a description of what is at the other end of the link and an explanation of why it is of interest.

There's no, or minimal, danger in displaying an image. There are potentially great dangers in following links.

Jermey
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 19, 2019, 03:47:35 pm
What term would you prefer?

Actually, "funded" is okay as long as you precede it with "taxpayer." The problem is that government agencies want you to believe that they are doing the "funding." An awful lot of people out there are dumb enough actually to believe that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 19, 2019, 04:54:54 pm
An awful lot of people out there are dumb enough actually to believe that.

I disagree.  Hence my earlier comment asking you to quit ringing that bell.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 19, 2019, 05:28:57 pm
Actually, "funded" is okay as long as you precede it with "taxpayer." The problem is that government agencies want you to believe that they are doing the "funding." An awful lot of people out there are dumb enough actually to believe that.

If there are some people dumb enough to believe that, that can only be the result of a lack of properly funded public school ensuring that all citizens have the required knowledge and skills to live together as grown ups.

There is nothing secret about my taxes being used to that end in Japan. And I would hate the country to leave the top 10 of world's best educated countries because I know that it is thanks to this that living in Japan is such a pleasant experience. Safe, inhabited by well behaved people who have an understanding of the cost of living together in peace.

A society is not a collection of people living next to one another without rules. That's anarchy. And an essential rule at the core of developed societies is the understanding that there is global value - cascading down to individuals - about devoting some of one's money to the good of the collectivity. This is the same reason why all developed countries but the US forbid weapons. Because they have understood that the private right to defend oneself has overall negative impacts on society. It takes education to understand that. The mental models that shape these behavious require a certain level of acquired intelligence.

Note that it's a natural extension of the concept of nation by which you get to feel a sense of belonging with people with whom you factually have nothing in common with. There is a fundamental incoherence between feeling American (which derives from the recognition that the man made object called nation exists and is important enough to shape your life) and not acknowledging the fact that you are bound by a tight set of rules that include the redistribution of money through taxes. You cannot both be American and refuse the reality that America exists thanks to its taxation system. That's like living with dad and refusing to follow the rules of the house.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 19, 2019, 07:47:30 pm
There's no, or minimal, danger in displaying an image.

Even if the "picture" is just an image with a text overlay, only meant to provoke and stir up trouble?
Good to know, because one can then just post comments as pictures ...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 19, 2019, 07:48:17 pm
If there are some people dumb enough to believe that, that can only be the result of a lack of properly funded public school ensuring that all citizens have the required knowledge and skills to live together as grown ups.

There is nothing secret about my taxes being used to that end in Japan. And I would hate the country to leave the top 10 of world's best educated countries because I know that it is thanks to this that living in Japan is such a pleasant experience. Safe, inhabited by well behaved people who have an understanding of the cost of living together in peace.

A society is not a collection of people living next to one another without rules. That's anarchy. And an essential rule at the core of developed societies is the understanding that there is global value - cascading down to individuals - about devoting some of one's money to the good of the collectivity. This is the same reason why all developed countries but the US forbid weapons. Because they have understood that the private right to defend oneself has overall negative impacts on society. It takes education to understand that. The mental models that shape these behavious require a certain level of acquired intelligence.

Note that it's a natural extension of the concept of nation by which you get to feel a sense of belonging with people with whom you factually have nothing in common with. There is a fundamental incoherence between feeling American (which derives from the recognition that the man made object called nation exists and is important enough to shape your life) and not acknowledging the fact that you are bound by a tight set of rules that include the redistribution of money through taxes. You cannot both be American and refuse the reality that America exists thanks to its taxation system. That's like living with dad and refusing to follow the rules of the house.

Cheers,
Bernard

In other words, politicians give you a "feeling of belonging." Right, Bernard?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 19, 2019, 08:18:40 pm
In other words, politicians give you a "feeling of belonging." Right, Bernard?

Euh... no. The nation isn't politicians. The nation is citizens having internalized the concept of nation. This internalization is the result of education.

Politicians are just a tool deployed to connect citizens to some mechanisms required for the nation to be embodied in a physical form and to execute its purpose. In the case of democracies, this purpose is supposed to represent the willingness of the majority of citizens.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 19, 2019, 10:58:38 pm
Anybody watch tonight's Democratic debate?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 19, 2019, 11:06:24 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QunK-36aELw

Does anyone really think that the US is better off with Trump when you watch the linked interview?

Aren't you guys concerned about the emotional reaction we would have gotten from him had he been attacked this way by a reporter? He would have started by calling them corrupt...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 20, 2019, 02:09:52 am
If there are some people dumb enough to believe that, that can only be the result of a lack of properly funded public school ensuring that all citizens have the required knowledge and skills to live together as grown ups.

There is nothing secret about my taxes being used to that end in Japan. And I would hate the country to leave the top 10 of world's best educated countries because I know that it is thanks to this that living in Japan is such a pleasant experience. Safe, inhabited by well behaved people who have an understanding of the cost of living together in peace.

A society is not a collection of people living next to one another without rules. That's anarchy. And an essential rule at the core of developed societies is the understanding that there is global value - cascading down to individuals - about devoting some of one's money to the good of the collectivity. This is the same reason why all developed countries but the US forbid weapons. Because they have understood that the private right to defend oneself has overall negative impacts on society. It takes education to understand that. The mental models that shape these behavious require a certain level of acquired intelligence.

Note that it's a natural extension of the concept of nation by which you get to feel a sense of belonging with people with whom you factually have nothing in common with. There is a fundamental incoherence between feeling American (which derives from the recognition that the man made object called nation exists and is important enough to shape your life) and not acknowledging the fact that you are bound by a tight set of rules that include the redistribution of money through taxes. You cannot both be American and refuse the reality that America exists thanks to its taxation system. That's like living with dad and refusing to follow the rules of the house.

Cheers,
Bernard

America is a great nation in spite of taxation not because of it.  It's private capital that's made us powerful and rich.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 20, 2019, 03:02:38 am
... Does anyone really think that the US is better off with Trump...

Millions of people think so.

According to you, they are just uneducated and with lower intelligence. The deplorables, in other words.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 20, 2019, 03:14:23 am
Anybody watch tonight's Democratic debate?

Those commies are still at it? Blabbering about the future without billionaires, planes, and kids?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 20, 2019, 03:23:12 am
Millions of people think so.

According to you, they are just uneducated and with lower intelligence. The deplorables, in other words.

Your words, not mine. My view is that they are mostly very poorly informed by the media outlet they are following.

They are kept in the dark.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 20, 2019, 04:21:52 am
Your words, not mine...

Nope. I was paraphrasing you.

... It takes education to understand that. The mental models that shape these behavious require a certain level of acquired intelligence...

By inference, those who do not agree with your views on society are uneducated and have not reached the “certain level of intelligence.”
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 20, 2019, 05:33:59 am
Nope. I was paraphrasing you.

By inference, those who do not agree with your views on society are uneducated and have not reached the “certain level of intelligence.”

“Acquired intelligence”, gained through education and maintained through objective information collected from plural sources.

I am familiar with the usual Trump camp tactics which consists in painting adversaries as condescending snobs. Thank you.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 20, 2019, 05:59:56 am
“Acquired intelligence”, gained through education and maintained through objective information collected from plural sources..l

And again you imply that only you et al are educated enough and read plural sources, and Trump supporters are not.

When are you going to accept that we read the same info, have the same intelligence, and surely my education is not inferior to yours, never mind that I have much broader life experience, and yet we draw vastly different conclusions. People think differently and have different world views, you know. And yours is not superior to mine. You lot at least should appreciate diversity,  not just in skin color, or which entrance your prefer, back or front.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 20, 2019, 06:37:03 am
And again you imply that only you et al are educated enough and read plural sources, and Trump supporters are not.

When are you going to accept that we read the same info, have the same intelligence, and surely my education is not inferior to yours, never mind that I have much broader life experience, and yet we draw vastly different conclusions. People think differently and have different world views, you know. And yours is not superior to mine. You lot at least should appreciate diversity,  not just in skin color, or which entrance your prefer, back or front.


Are we talking sex here? ;-)

Thing is, Slobodan, our different countries still have massive quantities of rednecks. It's an unavoidable fact of life, and one exploited in turn by all of the parties because like stock photography, politics is a numbers racket game.

So, whilst you have very highly educated politicians calling the shots in most parties, they all tailor the message and pander to the lowest common denominator because they understand that without prole power they can achieve nothing. The proles always outnumber the rest. That's why all politicians eventually become revealed as liars: one side or the other of voters discovers they didn't mean what they were saying.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 20, 2019, 07:33:10 am
America is a great nation in spite of taxation not because of it.  It's private capital that's made us powerful and rich.

I'm a bit shocked to see you say this. There is a lot of private capital all over the world and there always has been, nothing uniquely American about that. Th US implemented explicit separation of executive and judicial powers, permitted individual freedom (sort of, in fits and starts), structured things so that upward mobility was not unduly hampered although access to very cheap new land helped a lot with that (made conveniently cheap because you chose not to pay market rates for the land opting instead for indigenous genocide but that discussion is for another day). In the past you have expressed repeated reverence for the constitution so I'm surprised that you now express the idea that rich people make you great. ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on December 20, 2019, 08:10:10 am
I am amazed but delighted--Christians actually acting like Christians.

https://www.axios.com/christianity-today-evangelicals-supports-impeachment-92956ccb-241c-48d7-bad3-d3e4ddd2d64d.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on December 20, 2019, 09:47:49 am
I am amazed but delighted--Christians actually acting like Christians.

The full Christianity Today editorial (https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html) is interesting.  It argues, inter alia, that

Quote
. . . the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.

The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.

And while it urges evangelical Christians to abandon Trump, and explicitly calls for his removal from office, the editorial is (pardon the expression) agnostic about the best way to do this:

Quote
Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.

To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?

While Trump remains quite popular among potential voters who identify themselves as Republicans, the support of many of his more prominent defenders has always been a matter of expedience—a transactional arrangement, as the news commentators like to point out, where they put up with his often bizarre behavior and contempt for facts and the law in return for specific policy or political objectives.  In the case of the evangelicals, the most important of these has been the nomination of "conservative" federal judges who, they hope, will reverse the secular trend of recent appellate rulings on issues such as abortion and gay rights.  There is a similar implicit bargain, no doubt, among many Republican members of Congress, including senators who will vote on whether to remove him from office assuming an impeachment trial takes place, who reportedly revile him in private but support him publicly so as not to offend his core populist supporters, whose defection could threaten their own continuance in office.  If I were religious, myself, I'd be tempted to say they have made a pact with the devil.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 20, 2019, 09:49:00 am
And again you imply that only you et al are educated enough and read plural sources, and Trump supporters are not.

When are you going to accept that we read the same info, have the same intelligence, and surely my education is not inferior to yours, never mind that I have much broader life experience, and yet we draw vastly different conclusions. People think differently and have different world views, you know. And yours is not superior to mine. You lot at least should appreciate diversity,  not just in skin color, or which entrance your prefer, back or front.

Isn’t that a great opportunity for you to share your values and what aspects of Trump and Trump’s policies meet those values? I am fascinated how a citizen of the world with a wealth of experiences becomes a Trump supporter. And I hope you won’t answer that you support Trump because he somehow is less of a disaster than Democrat candidates...

My view that Trump supporters lack access to objective information sources is superbly backed up by the totally biased views they have of his impeachment. Any way you look at facts he is guilty as hell. I don’t see how you can both claim he isn’t and asert that you are objective about him.

As far as being open to different opinions, I happen to have views that bridge the traditional left/right devide. What I don’t like about Trump is the constant lying, the racism, the sexism, the lack of understanding of the world, his lack of respect for institutions, his focus on creating walls and on isolation instead of opening, his speech focused on the less favored but his actions supporting his rich friends, the terrible example he is showing to the kids of the world. Other than that he is fine I guess.

But in the end Slobodan the best proof of me being right although you are both smarter and more experienced is that I don’t have to twist logic to have the upper hand in our discussion. I can’t count the times when you chose to avoid answering the points I was making because the power of the truth is just unbeatable.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 20, 2019, 09:59:58 am
Isn’t that a great opportunity for you to share your values and what aspects of Trump and Trump’s policies meet those values?

My view that Trump supporters lack access to objective information sources is superbly backed up by the totally biased views they have of his impeachment. Any way you look at facts he is guilty as hell. I don’t see how you can both claim he isn’t and asert that you are objective about him.

Cheers,
Bernard

Only one fact witness actually testified, Sondland, and he did not incriminate Trump.  This is why, after all this time, he was not charged with an actual crime even though they had been pushing bribery, etc., for so long.  The case is beyond weak. 

The Dems could have censured him, and gotten bipartisan support.  The call was in fact not perfect.  However, they went full hog and pushed for impeachment.  More then likely the thought from Pelosi was to protect her current majority from be primaried by radicals who would not be able to win in the general, and that irrefutable evidence would be found if an inquiry began.  This would then increase public support, decreasing his chances of winning re-election.  This went well for about a month. 

However, she never took into consideration what would happen if no strong evidence was found and that having her majority vote for weak articles of impeachment without any crime in a solely partisan way would radicalize them in the eyes of the public.  It was a total screw up on her part, and she is now making it worse by refusing to the send the articles to the Senate. 

I am not so sure what she is thinking.  Pretty much every republican in the Senate does not want to receive these articles.  Her threat of holding onto the articles has no leverage.  Plus the longer she holds on to them, the more and more this looks partisan.  Even Noah Feldman, yes one of the radical law professors called by the Dems, has said that until the articles are delivered, Trump can argue he has not been impeached. 

And if you think the media has actually been objective on this, well then "Merry Impeachmas!" (https://thehill.com/homenews/media/475273-trump-campaign-rips-washington-post-reporter-for-merry-impeachmas-tweet-what-a)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 20, 2019, 10:05:32 am
Any way you look at facts he is guilty as hell.
Cheers,

Bernard

What he's "guilty as hell" of, Bernard, is beating Hillary when she was supposed to be a shoo-in. That's what this whole Kabuki performance in the House has been about. In the end it's going to cost the Democrats the presidency and the House. People here in the U.S. are pissed.

I don't know what kind of propaganda you're getting out of your news media there in Japan, but don't depend on what you're reading or seeing on TV.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 20, 2019, 10:09:19 am
Only one fact witness actually testified, Sondland, and he did not incriminate Trump.  This is why, after all this time, he was not charged with an actual crime even though they had been pushing bribery, etc., for so long.  The case is beyond weak. 

The Dems could have censured him, and gotten bipartisan support.  The call was in fact not perfect.  However, they went full hog and pushed for impeachment.  More then likely the thought from Pelosi was to protect her current majority from be primaried by radicals who would not be able to win in the general, and that irrefutable evidence would be found if an inquiry began.  This would then increase public support, decreasing his chances of winning re-election.  This went well for about a month. 

However, she never took into consideration what would happen if no strong evidence was found and that having her majority vote for weak articles of impeachment without any crime in a solely partisan way would radicalize them in the eyes of the public.  It was a total screw up on her part, and she is now making it worse by refusing to the send the articles to the Senate. 

I am not so sure what she is thinking.  Pretty much every republican in the Senate does not want to receive these articles.  Her threat of holding onto the articles has no leverage.  Plus the longer she holds on to them, the more and more this looks partisan.

Joe,

Pretty much every line in what you write does’t match available public evidence:
- sondland’s testimony did clearly support the claims laid by Democrats about what Trump is being impeached for
- had the white house not refused to follow the intent of the impeachment process by refusing more witnesses to testify there would be more confirmation of this
- Trump was just impeached for that and it’s the worst possible punishment defined by the law at this stage of the procedure
- the refusal of a bipartisan approach is clearly a Republican decision. Had they respected their oath to the US and US citizens they would have cooperated.
- the clear refusal of Republican leaders to make de senate a fair trial is another nail in the coffin of the US institutions

The only thing you are doing with your obviously biased reading of facts is to support my claim that Trump supporters are either ill informed or unable to be objective about him.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 20, 2019, 10:11:22 am
What he's "guilty as hell" of, Bernard, is beating Hillary when she was supposed to be a shoo-in. That's what this whole Kabuki performance in the House has been about. In the end it's going to cost the Democrats the presidency and the House. People here in the U.S. are pissed.

I don't know what kind of propaganda you're getting out of your news media there in Japan, but don't depend on what you're reading or seeing on TV.

The same propaganda shared by every news outlet I am aware of except Foxnews.

What are the odds that the whole world is wrong and Fox is right? ;)

Aren’t you able to smell something fishy?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 20, 2019, 10:20:25 am
Joe,

Pretty much every line in what you write does’t match available public evidence:
- sondland’s testimony did clearly support the claims laid by Democrats about what Trump is being impeached for
- had the white house not refused to follow the intent of the impeachment process by refusing more witnesses to testify there would be more confirmation of this
- Trump was just impeached for that and it’s the worst possible punishment defined by the law at this stage of the procedure
- the refusal of a bipartisan approach is clearly a Republican decision. Had they respected their oath to the US and US citizens they would have cooperated.
- the clear refusal of Republican leaders to make de senate a fair trial is another nail in the coffin of the US institutions

The only thing you are doing with your obviously biased reading of facts is to support my claim that Trump supporters are either ill informed or unable to be objective about him.

Cheers,
Bernard

LOL Bernard. 

Sondland, during cross examination (that did not get that much media attention) admitted that he was told by Trump there was to be no quid pro quo.  He also admitted that he did not think Trump had intentions for a quid pro quo.  So his testimony did not support the Dem's narrative. 

As I said before, every one, including the President, has the right to refuse a subpoena by congress.  Then congress has to make the decision whether or not to take that person to court.  This is excepted practice, and the fact is congress did not follow through with any of the subpoenas to a court.  As a matter of fact, Bolton voluntarily went to court to get a judge's opinion on if he should or should not testify, and the Dems pulled the subpoena at this point.  They did not even want to argue there case after the courts were already looking at it. 

Once again, according to noble law professor Noah Feldman, whom the Dems had so much respect for they called him to testify, does not agree Trump has been impeached until the articles are delivered.  He wrote an opinion piece on this in Bloomberg News, another source so objective they openly admit they will not investigate any Dems running for president. 

Insofar as bi-partisanship, well the Dems decided to engage in a lot of it during the inquiry.  And the fact is they could have postponed the vote and went to court to get these same witnesses they suddenly want to testify in the trial.  They did not. 

Merry Impeachmas!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 20, 2019, 10:24:11 am
By the way, Sharyl Attkisson has a great talk on the origin of "Fake News."  I was pretty surprised it was actually originally coined by the Dems in an attempt to discredit conservative websites. 

It was actually started by a former HRC associate with the hopes of it being a useful phrase to be used against conservatives in the election.  Then Trump high jacked it and completely turned it around on them.  Oh the irony life throws at you sometimes. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 20, 2019, 10:26:23 am
LOL Bernard. 

Sondland, during cross examination (that did not get that much media attention) admitted that he was told by Trump there was to be no quid pro quo.  He also admitted that he did not think Trump had intentions for a quid pro quo.  So his testimony did not support the Dem's narrative. 

As I said before, every one, including the President, has the right to refuse a subpoena by congress.  Then congress has to make the decision whether or not to take that person to court.  This is excepted practice, and the fact is congress did not follow through with any of the subpoenas to a court.  As a matter of fact, Bolton voluntarily went to court to get a judge's opinion on if he should or should not testify, and the Dems pulled the subpoena at this point.  They did not even want to argue there case after the courts were already looking at it. 

Once again, according to noble law professor Noah Feldman, whom the Dems had so much respect for they called him to testify, does not agree Trump has been impeached until the articles are delivered.  He wrote an opinion piece on this in Bloomberg News, another source so objective they openly admit they will not investigate any Dems running for president. 

Insofar as bi-partisanship, well the Dems decided to engage in a lot of it during the inquiry.  And the fact is they could have postponed the vote and went to court to get these same witnesses they suddenly want to testify in the trial.  They did not. 

Merry Impeachmas!

https://www.google.co.jp/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.amp.html

Sorry your understanding of the implications of Sonderland testimony doesn’t seem aligned with facts.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 20, 2019, 10:26:54 am
What are the odds that the whole world is wrong and Fox is right? ;)

Aren’t you able to smell something fishy?

Cheers,
Bernard

The odds are very high.

And, yes, I can smell something fishy: the attempt to pull off a coup, beginning the day Trump was elected. At the moment the odds are very high that at least three of the principals in the coup attempt will be indicted and tried. But your "news media" aren't going to report that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 20, 2019, 10:39:06 am
Only one fact witness actually testified...

Why?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 20, 2019, 10:45:27 am
https://www.google.co.jp/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.amp.html

Sorry your understanding of the implications of Sonderland testimony doesn’t seem aligned with facts.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard, IMO, the NYTs has completely discredited themselves over the last few years. 

They have been caught in so many false stories due to their Trump derangement syndrome it is not even funny anymore.  On top of that, they deliberately edit out any type of exculpatory information that may go against their narrative.  Most recently was the hit piece on Kavanaugh about how at a college party someone pushed his penis into some girl.  (I'm not really quite sure how you do this or why would be drinking naked at a party, but this is what the article exclaimed.)  The problem though is that the woman in question did not remember this rather unforgettable event happening.  This was in the initial write up, but the editors decided to take it out before publishing.  It is stuff like this that has caused me to loose confidence in the NYTs. 

But getting back to Sondland.  I have looked at his cross examination and he specifically states there was no quid pro quo.  This was not heavily reported on, and it is no wonder why. 

Gordon Sondland says Trump wanted ‘nothing’ from Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky (https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/gordon-sondland-says-trump-wanted-nothing-from-ukraine-president-voldymer-zelensky/)

I'll finish with this, if the evidence is so strong that Trump engaged in illegal activities, why are there no criminal charges in the two articles? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 20, 2019, 10:50:05 am
Why?

Because the Dems did not want to go through the process of challenging the President in court. 

The executive and congress are separate bodies, and one does not have to follow the others requests.  If one side feels they have a case to force the other side to do so, they can then take their case to the courts.  But until that happens, there is no impropriety.

As I stated before, Bolton went to the courts himself to see if he should or should not testify, and the Dems then pulled the subpoena.  They refused to argue the case. 

If the Dems actually felt so strong about their case, why did they not follow through with it and go to the courts? 

Why?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 20, 2019, 11:21:12 am
Bernard, your self-righteousness borders with religious fanaticism.

You seem to believe that if I support Trump that something must be wrong with my value system. I have no intention to justify my value system and world view to you. You seem to believe that it is duty of innocent people to prove their innocence. I, and the whole western judicial system, strongly disagree. Your stance reminds me of the religious theory that atheists can not be moral people, as the only possible morality comes from belief in God.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 20, 2019, 11:35:53 am
Because the Dems did not want to go through the process of challenging the President in court. 

The executive and congress are separate bodies, and one does not have to follow the others requests.  If one side feels they have a case to force the other side to do so, they can then take their case to the courts.  But until that happens, there is no impropriety.

As I stated before, Bolton went to the courts himself to see if he should or should not testify, and the Dems then pulled the subpoena.  They refused to argue the case. 

If the Dems actually felt so strong about their case, why did they not follow through with it and go to the courts? 

Why?

Honestly, it doesn't make any sense to me either - Susan McDougall went to jail for this stuff 20 years ago.  But considering what was revealed through the witnesses that did testify, I'm doubtful that the reasoning was a fear that the witnesses in question would exonerate Trump.  Could have been a political calculation that pushing this back to mid 2020 would look bad (it would), or that a Trump-friendly judge somewhere along the way would rubber stamp the "Trump is literally immune from any investigation at all" argument (that's the actual argument put forth by his lawyers in another case), or who knows what.

I do know that screaming about "no evidence" as Republicans keep doing, when at the same time Trump refuses to let "exculpatory" witnesses testify, is transparently stupid.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 20, 2019, 11:38:35 am
But getting back to Sondland.  I have looked at his cross examination and he specifically states there was no quid pro quo.  This was not heavily reported on, and it is no wonder why. 

Gordon Sondland says Trump wanted ‘nothing’ from Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky (https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/gordon-sondland-says-trump-wanted-nothing-from-ukraine-president-voldymer-zelensky/)

 

NO.   Sondland testified that *Trump said* there was no quid pro quo.   And this was said to him by Trump AFTER the story broke.  That's an immensely critical difference.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 20, 2019, 11:50:35 am
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 20, 2019, 11:57:49 am
Regardless, Sondland's testimony is still not a smoking gun for either party.  His testimony, in its entirety, did not really help anyone.  It was just a big flop. 

Insofar as the tactics Pelosi has employed thus far, I am in agreement with you, I cant possibly understand why she is doing what she is doing.  Especially with her leaving for the holidays without sending the impeachment articles.  I have no idea what leverage she thinks she has with McConnell, but there does not appear to any.  Plus McConnell is perfectly happy without getting the articles and needing to spend time on a trial. 

Do you know McConnell had 12 new judges approved during the impeachment vote.  Impeachment is proving to be quite the great side show to keep progressive attention away from how the judiciary is being changed.   ;D

But anyway, with the delay, the only possible reason I can think of in her refusing to send the articles over would have to do with those Dems in swing districts that voted yea for the articles.  Perhaps they pressured her to give them time to get home and see what the voters think about this with the far fetched idea that if there is drastic backlash in their districts, they could vote on a resolution to void the articles when they return.  I am doubtful of this conspiracy theory of mine, but cant think of any other reasons considering the total lack of leverage she has over McConnell.  Plus Pandora's box is already opened; nothing much can be done now. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 20, 2019, 12:06:31 pm

Insofar as the tactics Pelosi has employed thus far, I am in agreement with you, I cant possibly understand why she is doing what she is doing.  Especially with her leaving for the holidays without sending the impeachment articles.  I have no idea what leverage she thinks she has with McConnell, but there does not appear to any.  Plus McConnell is perfectly happy without getting the articles and needing to spend time on a trial. 


Ah, but THIS part makes perfect sense.  McConnell and others have already publicly stated they have no interest in a fair trial on the facts.  I think in this case she's actually being straightforward - why send it over when she knows the process is rigged?  And Graham and McConnell gave her the perfect opening.

As for judges, there's not much anyone can due thanks to the way the system is set up.  Again, we know McConnell has no use for non-statutory "rules" or tradition if it stands in his way, so there's not much the Dems can do on that front.  Even so, some of Trump's nominations are *still* getting rejected because they're so horrid.  That's kinda scary.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 20, 2019, 12:07:05 pm
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Sorry - public school educated... Gotta Google that.  BRB.  :D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on December 20, 2019, 12:14:42 pm
Sorry - public school educated... Gotta Google that.  BRB.  :D

"What is asserted gratuitously may be denied gratuitously"
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 20, 2019, 12:22:09 pm
I am amazed but delighted--Christians actually acting like Christians.

https://www.axios.com/christianity-today-evangelicals-supports-impeachment-92956ccb-241c-48d7-bad3-d3e4ddd2d64d.html

Ha, turns out they are a "far left" magazine and have been "doing poorly", according to Trump's dismissal of them as reported on "thehill.com" https://thehill.com/homenews/news/475445-trump-attacks-christianity-today-over-bruising-editorial (https://thehill.com/homenews/news/475445-trump-attacks-christianity-today-over-bruising-editorial), so not worth listening to.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 20, 2019, 12:23:06 pm
Those commies are still at it? Blabbering about the future without billionaires, planes, and kids?

Yet another example of a valuable contribution to the discussion.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 20, 2019, 12:41:55 pm
Yet another example of a valuable contribution to the discussion.

When the discussion becomes valuable, so will my contribution.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on December 20, 2019, 12:42:25 pm
As I said before, every one, including the President, has the right to refuse a subpoena by congress.  Then congress has to make the decision whether or not to take that person to court.  This is excepted practice, and the fact is congress did not follow through with any of the subpoenas to a court.

Actually, no.  Recipients of congressional subpoenas that are issued for a valid legislative purpose―which would include an impeachment investigation in the House of Representatives or a trial in the Senate―are legally required to comply with them.

The federal court proceedings you refer to are enforcement mechanisms used in those relatively rare instances where recipients fail to respond to congressional subpoenas.  These can take the form of criminal prosecutions initiated at the request of Congress by a federal attorney or, more commonly, civil actions in which Congress asks the courts to use their inherent contempt power (https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/contempt-power/) to force compliance.  During these court proceedings, recipients of subpoenas may assert any defenses or legal privileges they believe may apply.  In theory, Congress can directly order the arrest of individuals who defy its subpoenas, although it has not exercised that authority in the modern era.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 20, 2019, 12:57:38 pm
Leave it to Karla Marx to explain what the impeachment is really about (and, of course, she is stupid enough not to realize Democrats shouldn’t be saying it publicly):



Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 20, 2019, 01:48:44 pm
Your words, not mine. My view is that they are mostly very poorly informed by the media outlet they are following.

They are kept in the dark.

Cheers,
Bernard

That's funny.  It's exactly what I think of people on the left.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on December 20, 2019, 01:52:51 pm
That's funny.  It's exactly what I think of people on the left.
You are so far to the right, even people on the right are to the left of you, which really limits the number of media you deem not fake news.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 20, 2019, 02:30:42 pm
Leave it to Karla Marx to explain what the impeachment is really about (and, of course, she is stupid enough not to realize Democrats shouldn’t be saying it publicly):

Of course, she's a tyro.  A naif.  A veritable ingenue. 

It takes stupidity and arrogance baked in over decades to announce your blatant disregard for the Constitution proudly and loudly ;)

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/12/mitch-mcconnell-impeachment-senate-trial-not-impartial-juror
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 20, 2019, 02:48:53 pm
The full Christianity Today editorial (https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html) is interesting.  It argues, inter alia, that

And while it urges evangelical Christians to abandon Trump, and explicitly calls for his removal from office, the editorial is (pardon the expression) agnostic about the best way to do this:

While Trump remains quite popular among potential voters who identify themselves as Republicans, the support of many of his more prominent defenders has always been a matter of expedience—a transactional arrangement, as the news commentators like to point out, where they put up with his often bizarre behavior and contempt for facts and the law in return for specific policy or political objectives.  In the case of the evangelicals, the most important of these has been the nomination of "conservative" federal judges who, they hope, will reverse the secular trend of recent appellate rulings on issues such as abortion and gay rights.  There is a similar implicit bargain, no doubt, among many Republican members of Congress, including senators who will vote on whether to remove him from office assuming an impeachment trial takes place, who reportedly revile him in private but support him publicly so as not to offend his core populist supporters, whose defection could threaten their own continuance in office.  If I were religious, myself, I'd be tempted to say they have made a pact with the devil.
So major parties in parliamentary countries like yours join forces with communists and fascists to get a majority in parliament. So evangelicals support a sinful man who is sinful like Hillary Clinton and the rest of us because he otherwise supports policies they agree with him on.   Politics make strange bedfellows.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 20, 2019, 02:53:38 pm
...blatant disregard for the Constitution...

Which article or part of the Constitution he would be disregarding?

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 20, 2019, 02:53:54 pm
I'm a bit shocked to see you say this. There is a lot of private capital all over the world and there always has been, nothing uniquely American about that. Th US implemented explicit separation of executive and judicial powers, permitted individual freedom (sort of, in fits and starts), structured things so that upward mobility was not unduly hampered although access to very cheap new land helped a lot with that (made conveniently cheap because you chose not to pay market rates for the land opting instead for indigenous genocide but that discussion is for another day). In the past you have expressed repeated reverence for the constitution so I'm surprised that you now express the idea that rich people make you great. ;)
Private Capital comes from poor and middle class as well as Rich. When you take part of your savings and put it in the bank for savings account, that money goes to capital for companies and corporations to be used to expand their businesses or stay them. Likewise when have a retirement plan and buy stock. That's capital for is for corporations. The idea that Starbucks started as a huge corporation from very rich people is silly. It started small with very small private investments. Then grew big. That's how capital and private wealth grows. People don't start off rich. private Capital comes from you and middle class as well as rich.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 20, 2019, 03:07:15 pm
Joe,

Pretty much every line in what you write does’t match available public evidence:
- sondland’s testimony did clearly support the claims laid by Democrats about what Trump is being impeached for
- had the white house not refused to follow the intent of the impeachment process by refusing more witnesses to testify there would be more confirmation of this
- Trump was just impeached for that and it’s the worst possible punishment defined by the law at this stage of the procedure
- the refusal of a bipartisan approach is clearly a Republican decision. Had they respected their oath to the US and US citizens they would have cooperated.
- the clear refusal of Republican leaders to make de senate a fair trial is another nail in the coffin of the US institutions

The only thing you are doing with your obviously biased reading of facts is to support my claim that Trump supporters are either ill informed or unable to be objective about him.

Cheers,
Bernard
The impeachment looks and is political because the Democrats have been trying to impeach him for 3 years long before the Ukrainian issue even came up. So that's why people are ignoring what the Democrats are trying to do on the Republican side. They see it is strictly political which is what it is.


It's not an impeachable offense in any case since it really doesn't rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Basically it's political hijinks The impeachment looks and is political because the Democrats have been trying to impeach him for 3 years long before the Ukrainian issue even came up. So that's why people are ignoring with the Democrats are trying to do on the Republican side. Thanks see it is strictly political which is what it is. It's not an inpeachable offence in any case since it doesn't rise to the level of high crimes in misdemeanors. Basically is political hijinks not much different than when Obama use the IRS to go after conservative organizations. He wasn't impeached and nobody even recommended he should be impeached for that. These things should be decided in elections.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 20, 2019, 03:13:20 pm
Which article or part of the Constitution he would be disregarding?

The part I just made up, apparently  ;D. (But he is wantonly violating is oath of office.)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 20, 2019, 03:23:39 pm
...  (But he is wantonly violating is oath of office.)

He (Mitch) should be impeached then  ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Kevin Gallagher on December 20, 2019, 03:51:08 pm
The Time Seems About Right For this...

(https://pbase.com/keving/image/170206682.jpg)



 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 20, 2019, 05:05:10 pm
Ah, but THIS part makes perfect sense.  McConnell and others have already publicly stated they have no interest in a fair trial on the facts.  I think in this case she's actually being straightforward - why send it over when she knows the process is rigged?  And Graham and McConnell gave her the perfect opening.


No offense, but have you lost your mind?  ???

I cant imagine a worse way to screw the pooch on this.  Setting aside the fact that I am not for impeachment and feel it is only going to hurt the Dems (as opposed to censure that would have probably helped them), this creates so many headaches. 

First, think about how this would have played if they followed procedure.  Presumably they would have spent Thursday deciding on who the managers would be and organized delivery for Friday.  Doing so would have kept the noise to a minimum from distracting from the debate and gave Republicans the least amount of time to organized and respond before going on break.  Trump would then need to spend the next two weeks defending himself and mounting his legal response.  Then, the Dems in the safe districts could have went home and crowed about how they impeached the president.  I still feel it would have been a disaster for the swing district Dems though. 

This, on the other hand, is an unmitigated catastrophe.  Withholding the articles apparently pissed off Noah Feldman (one of the legal scholars the Dems called to testify) so much so he penned an article in Bloomberg News that Trump really has not been impeached yet.  Although there is a legal debate if impeachment happens after the vote or after the articles are delivered, it still means the Dems really cant fully brag about impeaching Trump yet.  On top of that, this completely plays into Trump's narrative that the impeachment is nothing but a partisan scam from the Do Nothing Dems and every other Republican talking point.  Add to that that congress is not in session and not making any noise, meaning any political news coming out of DC will be what Trump wants it to be.  He is going to dominate the news cycle with this for two weeks, as opposed to having to defend himself.  Furthermore, Republicans are now not under any pressure to organize yet (or not as much) and can enjoy the holiday while also tweeting about the Do Nothing Dems.  And on top of this, the swing district Dems are still just as screwed.  Last, this little stunt really has no leverage what so ever over McConnell and ensures he can just chug along at getting judges approved. 

It is a really kind of interesting watching such a shrewd politician fall from grace.  Pelosi's legacy is going to be loosing the house while ensuring Trump's re-election. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 20, 2019, 05:08:58 pm
Joe, if you believe all of that, you should give up the snaps and become a full-time spin doctor for Mr T.

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 20, 2019, 05:49:08 pm
Bernard, your self-righteousness borders with religious fanaticism.

You seem to believe that if I support Trump that something must be wrong with my value system. I have no intention to justify my value system and world view to you. You seem to believe that it is duty of innocent people to prove their innocence. I, and the whole western judicial system, strongly disagree. Your stance reminds me of the religious theory that atheists can not be moral people, as the only possible morality comes from belief in God.

As expected, once again no answer from you.

You have not provided a single answer of substance in this thread Slobodan. You answer based on a a priori principle that Trump is a victim. In the process completely disregarding facts.

If someone is acting as a religious bigot here it’s you my friend. Where has your critical mind gone?

You claim more life experiences, more knowledge and intelligence. I am not disputing any of that. But the best proof of these great qualities would be to admit that you are misguided on this topic.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 20, 2019, 05:56:22 pm
That's funny.  It's exactly what I think of people on the left.

You know it’s very simple. It’s a statistical thing.

When 99% of the media, in the US and outside the US, say the same thing, most reasonable people disagreeing with their views start to question their own system of belief.

Instead you keep entrenching yourself deeper and deeper.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 20, 2019, 06:14:33 pm
You know it’s very simple. It’s a statistical thing.

When 99% of the media, in the US and outside the US, say the same thing, most reasonable people disagreeing with their views start to question their own system of belief.

Instead you keep entrenching yourself deeper and deeper.

Cheers,
Bernard

Like with the Mueller Report before it was published? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 20, 2019, 06:55:48 pm
No offense, but have you lost your mind?  ???

I cant imagine a worse way to screw the pooch on this.  Setting aside the fact that I am not for impeachment and feel it is only going to hurt the Dems (as opposed to censure that would have probably helped them), this creates so many headaches. 

First, think about how this would have played if they followed procedure.  Presumably they would have spent Thursday deciding on who the managers would be and organized delivery for Friday.  Doing so would have kept the noise to a minimum from distracting from the debate and gave Republicans the least amount of time to organized and respond before going on break.  Trump would then need to spend the next two weeks defending himself and mounting his legal response.  Then, the Dems in the safe districts could have went home and crowed about how they impeached the president.  I still feel it would have been a disaster for the swing district Dems though. 

This, on the other hand, is an unmitigated catastrophe.  Withholding the articles apparently pissed off Noah Feldman (one of the legal scholars the Dems called to testify) so much so he penned an article in Bloomberg News that Trump really has not been impeached yet.  Although there is a legal debate if impeachment happens after the vote or after the articles are delivered, it still means the Dems really cant fully brag about impeaching Trump yet.  On top of that, this completely plays into Trump's narrative that the impeachment is nothing but a partisan scam from the Do Nothing Dems and every other Republican talking point.  Add to that that congress is not in session and not making any noise, meaning any political news coming out of DC will be what Trump wants it to be.  He is going to dominate the news cycle with this for two weeks, as opposed to having to defend himself.  Furthermore, Republicans are now not under any pressure to organize yet (or not as much) and can enjoy the holiday while also tweeting about the Do Nothing Dems.  And on top of this, the swing district Dems are still just as screwed.  Last, this little stunt really has no leverage what so ever over McConnell and ensures he can just chug along at getting judges approved. 

It is a really kind of interesting watching such a shrewd politician fall from grace.  Pelosi's legacy is going to be loosing the house while ensuring Trump's re-election.

I get paid pretty well to tell people how and when to place media for impact, so appeal to authority notwithstanding and all that, I can tell you a few things:

1) the surest way to kill something is to dump it in the news Friday or before a holiday.  Relatively speaking,  nobody’s gonna care about this for about 2 weeks.  No dems are gonna go home for Christmas and get harassed in their districts by swing voters. Not gonna happen.

2) What was happening over the Christmas holiday in 2019 will be totally irrelevant in November 2020. Pelosi is playing a long game - always has been because she knowns that if she keeps giving Trump rope, the dumbass will keep strangling himself. (There’s an autoerotic asphixiation joke in there somewhere.)

3) I can’t fathom why you’re on about judges in this conversation. That’s gonna happen regardless of what Nancy Pelosi does,  because McConnell is a total toady.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 20, 2019, 07:01:39 pm
Like with the Mueller Report before it was published?

Yes. The selective reading done by Trump supporters of the Mueller reports is not aligned with what the majority of the press had reported, but the reality of the report is very close.

Joe, we have demonstrated with obvious clarity in the last 2 pages of discussion that you purposedely deform the facts to map them to your views. Unsurprisingly we see the same on the Mueller report too.

You transformed the real situation “Sonderland confirmed the quid pro quo” in “Sonderland confirmed there was no quid pro quo” leveraging the fact that Trump has denied the quid pro quo. This is not a mistake on your part. It’s on purpose and it shows that you are ok with lying to help your case.

For you this isn’t about the truth. This is about not losing power. Everything you are accusing Democrats of has just been proven with perfect clarity to be your own play.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 20, 2019, 08:22:00 pm
I get paid pretty well to tell people how and when to place media for impact, so appeal to authority notwithstanding and all that, I can tell you a few things:

1) the surest way to kill something is to dump it in the news Friday or before a holiday.  Relatively speaking,  nobody’s gonna care about this for about 2 weeks.  No dems are gonna go home for Christmas and get harassed in their districts by swing voters. Not gonna happen.

2) What was happening over the Christmas holiday in 2019 will be totally irrelevant in November 2020. Pelosi is playing a long game - always has been because she knowns that if she keeps giving Trump rope, the dumbass will keep strangling himself. (There’s an autoerotic asphixiation joke in there somewhere.)

3) I can’t fathom why you’re on about judges in this conversation. That’s gonna happen regardless of what Nancy Pelosi does,  because McConnell is a total toady.

Perhaps your right.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 20, 2019, 08:27:01 pm
Yes. The selective reading done by Trump supporters of the Mueller reports is not aligned with what the majority of the press had reported, but the reality of the report is very close.

Joe, we have demonstrated with obvious clarity in the last 2 pages of discussion that you purposedely deform the facts to map them to your views. Unsurprisingly we see the same on the Mueller report too.

You transformed the real situation “Sonderland confirmed the quid pro quo” in “Sonderland confirmed there was no quid pro quo” leveraging the fact that Trump has denied the quid pro quo. This is not a mistake on your part. It’s on purpose and it shows that you are ok with lying to help your case.

For you this isn’t about the truth. This is about not losing power. Everything you are accusing Democrats of has just been proven with perfect clarity to be your own play.

Cheers,
Bernard

Lol Bernard. 

As I’ve said before, if the case was as strong as you claim, there would be actual criminal charges in the articles.  There are not.  And if the Dems actually had the conviction of their accusations, they would have challenged Trump in the courts, like with Nixon. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 20, 2019, 09:27:59 pm
Yes. The selective reading done by Trump supporters of the Mueller reports is not aligned with what the majority of the press had reported, but the reality of the report is very close.

Joe, we have demonstrated with obvious clarity in the last 2 pages of discussion that you purposedely deform the facts to map them to your views. Unsurprisingly we see the same on the Mueller report too.

You transformed the real situation “Sonderland confirmed the quid pro quo” in “Sonderland confirmed there was no quid pro quo” leveraging the fact that Trump has denied the quid pro quo. This is not a mistake on your part. It’s on purpose and it shows that you are ok with lying to help your case.

For you this isn’t about the truth. This is about not losing power. Everything you are accusing Democrats of has just been proven with perfect clarity to be your own play.

Cheers,
Bernard
Mueller not only didn't find that Trump colluded with the Russians.   He found that neither did any of the Trump kids noR Anyone in the Trump campaign. In fact not one American out of 330 million did Mueller find who colluded. Yet you still claim he's guilty.  It seems that you're the one who can't accept the facts.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 20, 2019, 09:52:12 pm
Lol Bernard. 

As I’ve said before, if the case was as strong as you claim, there would be actual criminal charges in the articles.  There are not.  And if the Dems actually had the conviction of their accusations, they would have challenged Trump in the courts, like with Nixon.

Abuse of power is perfectly relevant and a clear violation of the constitution.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 21, 2019, 01:01:11 am
Abuse of power is perfectly relevant and a clear violation of the constitution.

Cheers,
Bernard
Politicians violate the constitution all the time.   However, impeachment requires a special crime to be committed: "Treason,  bribery,  or other high crimes and  misdemeanors".   At worse,  political hijinks occurred.  With presidents going to war without required congressional authority, and never impeached for it,  any problems people have with Trump should be decided when they vote in 2020.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 21, 2019, 01:55:47 am
Mueller not only didn't find that Trump colluded with the Russians.   He found that neither did any of the Trump kids noR Anyone in the Trump campaign. In fact not one American out of 330 million did Mueller find who colluded. Yet you still claim he's guilty.  It seems that you're the one who can't accept the facts.

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
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 21, 2019, 02:22:39 am
Politicians violate the constitution all the time.   However, impeachment requires a special crime to be committed: "Treason,  bribery,  or other high crimes and  misdemeanors".   At worse,  political hijinks occurred.  With presidents going to war without required congressional authority, and never impeached for it,  any problems people have with Trump should be decided when they vote in 2020.

No, politicians don’t violate the constitution all the time. US Presidents never do.

But I take it as a final admission that Trump did and am glad you are coming to terms with reality.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 21, 2019, 06:01:53 am
Politicians violate the constitution all the time.

Really?

And that makes it okay?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 21, 2019, 06:27:42 am
No, politicians don’t violate the constitution all the time. US Presidents never do...

Of course they do, just not “all the time,” but some of the time. Every time the SCOTUS strikes down a law as unconstitutional (previously passed by politicians), it means that politicians initially violated the constitution. The same goes for presidential executive orders. It shall be noted that so far the SCOTUS mostly supported Trump’s executive orders as constitutional. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 21, 2019, 06:42:13 am
Of course they do, just not “all the time,” but some of the time. Every time the SCOTUS strikes down a law as unconstitutional (previously passed by politicians), it means that politicians initially violated the constitution. The same goes for presidential executive orders. It shall be noted that so far the SCOTUS mostly supported Trump’s executive orders as constitutional.

So you do confirm that Presidents don’t violate the constitution, right? Including Trump with his executive orders.

US Presidents have a very strong team of lawyers who are very well paid to ensure that their orders are constitutional. And that works except when they by-pass the system and work with private lawyers precisely because they know what they are doing is not constitutional. Like Trump did.

And you do understand that there is a fundamental difference btwn having a legal discussion about the constitutionality of a law reviewed through lawful processes and performing the kind of actions Trump did, right?

It’s so different that I wonder why you consider relevant to raise this point?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 21, 2019, 07:56:20 am
Abuse of power is perfectly relevant and a clear violation of the constitution.

Cheers,
Bernard

I just dont agree this is the case without an actual crime being charged as well.  If there was a real federal crime, perhaps I would take them more seriously.  Or perhaps if the Dems had not been calling for his impeachment for three years, before he was even in office, conducting countless witch hunts, I would me more inclined to take them seriously. 

But weak charges without an actual crime being levied against the president after three years opf constant searching, and doing so because you know your candidates cant beat him, I'll pass thank you. 

BTW, Trump's job approval is up to 50% in the latest polling.  So I think many of my fellow Americans agree with me.  In case you're wondering, Obama's, at the same time in his presidency, was at 42%.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 21, 2019, 08:11:19 am
BTW, Trump's job approval is up to 50% in the latest polling.

Which is a gross underestimate. Considering the kind of reprehensible crap the left does to people who express an appreciation for what Trump has done, it's dangerous for people to tell polls what they really plan to do.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 21, 2019, 09:01:07 am
You know it’s very simple. It’s a statistical thing.

When 99% of the media, in the US and outside the US, say the same thing, most reasonable people disagreeing with their views start to question their own system of belief.

Instead you keep entrenching yourself deeper and deeper.

Cheers,
Bernard

Now that I have access to a key board, I would like to give a further response to this.

Yesterday I was listening to an interview with Sharyl Attkisson, who was a reporter for over 30 years and is now a critic of the media.  She questioned whether you can really trust the media if everyone is reporting the same thing.  She brought up the story of The Atlantic being caught agreeing to cover a speech given by Hillary Clinton in specific favorable terms for advanced access.  The request involved having the story describe the speech as muscular (a rather odd way to describe a speech, stern would have been more appropriate) and then listing the CFR seating plan of those positioned in front of her.   Now the only reason they got caught was by chance from a freedom of information request.  The Atlantic of course responded that they felt the speech was muscular and would have used that (very odd) term anyway, and the seating plan was appropriate to cover. 

Sharyl Attkisson then posed the question, was it only The Atlantic that was asked to do this and we just so happen to catch them, or was everyone in the media in on it and The Atlantic was the one caught.  Well, if you look at all of the other stories covering the event, everyone used that same odd term, muscular, to describe the speech and everyone made sure to list the CFR seating chart.  More then likely everyone was involved in this and The Atlantic just so happened to get the short stick when it came to being caught. 

So point in fact, the collective media has done a very good job at destroying its reputation and trustworthiness.  This is why the majority of Americans don't trust mainstream media anymore.  Then, after one major paper throwing a "Merry Impeachmas" party Wednesday night, it would not surprise me if most USA outlets were secreting corresponding with Dems for access to information (such as leaks from closed door sessions) so long as they wrote articles favorable to the Dems. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 21, 2019, 09:51:37 am
When 99% of the media, in the US and outside the US, say the same thing, most reasonable people disagreeing with their views start to question their own system of belief.
Bernard

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.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 21, 2019, 11:48:04 am
No, politicians don’t violate the constitution all the time. US Presidents never do.

But I take it as a final admission that Trump did and am glad you are coming to terms with reality.

Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard you distorted my words. I did not say he violated the Constitution. I said at worse case it was political hijinks to make a point.  That even then it would not be impeachable since those acts are not considered as such.    But he's claimed that he went after the Bidens because they are corrupted. The evidence appears that there is something funny going on between Ukrainian corporate officials his son and Biden himself. That calls for investigation. Perfectly legal. Of course the biased press ignores this part of the story to defend Biden and make Trump look guilty.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 21, 2019, 11:56:25 am
 ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 21, 2019, 12:01:11 pm
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.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on December 21, 2019, 02:21:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 21, 2019, 02:54:45 pm
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.”
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 21, 2019, 03:22:44 pm
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/


.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 21, 2019, 03:36:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 21, 2019, 04:40:28 pm
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
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 21, 2019, 05:02:26 pm
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
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 21, 2019, 06:01:31 pm
Bernard must work on his Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Bernard, Chill!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 21, 2019, 06:13:08 pm
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
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 21, 2019, 06:18:13 pm
... watching a disaster unfold.

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

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 21, 2019, 07:50:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 21, 2019, 11:02:36 pm
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
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 22, 2019, 01:56:26 am
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.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 22, 2019, 08:36:35 am
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.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 22, 2019, 12:18:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 22, 2019, 03:49:53 pm
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.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on December 22, 2019, 03:56:12 pm
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"?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 22, 2019, 04:03:38 pm
What's the "source" of your fake news, Fab?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on December 22, 2019, 04:24:19 pm
What's the "source" of your fake news, Fab?
Apparently everything except whatever was real for you.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on December 22, 2019, 04:34:23 pm
What is the source of your "real" news? How did you determine that it was "real"?

"Real news" is what agrees with what he has already decided must be true. "Fake news" is anything that challenges his pre-determined beliefs.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 22, 2019, 05:11:06 pm
The real news:

https://www.instagram.com/tv/B56l5j-gcrl/?igshid=10r7m6w2t62bk
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on December 22, 2019, 05:30:59 pm
The real news:

https://www.instagram.com/tv/B56l5j-gcrl/?igshid=10r7m6w2t62bk
Instagram? Seriously? Is that your source of real news?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 22, 2019, 05:35:08 pm
Instagram? Seriously? Is that your source of real news?

A video is a video is a video.

Besides, what’s wrong with Instagram?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on December 22, 2019, 05:38:50 pm
Instagram? Seriously? Is that your source of real news?

The original source of the Biden-Senate-subpoena story was U.S. National Public Radio: an interview a couple of weeks ago on the NPR program Morning Edition (https://www.npr.org/2019/12/09/785320977/biden-rejects-calls-for-impeachment-testimony-as-a-trump-ploy-to-divert-attentio).  Real news, but old news.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 22, 2019, 05:41:53 pm
But, for the ideologically blind, who think that if a video is on Instagram, it must be fake news or deep fake, even if the upper left corner in the video and the attached screenshot clearly points to NPR as the source, here is the NPR article itself. For the uninitiated, NPR is a leftie source.

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/09/785320977/biden-rejects-calls-for-impeachment-testimony-as-a-trump-ploy-to-divert-attentio
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 22, 2019, 05:59:42 pm
Maybe Joe Biden told Nancy Pelosi not to send the impeachment papers over to the Senate because then he'll have to testify which he won't want to do. Then everybody will ask what's wrong with Joe Biden? Is he afraid to testify? What did he do that was wrong? Is he above the law? Maybe Trump should ask the Ukrainians to investigate.   Oh wait.  He did that already.

Like I said earlier the more the impeachment goes on the worseJoe Biden will look.  Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on December 22, 2019, 06:00:48 pm
For the uninitiated, NPR is a leftie source.

However, for the open-minded, buy my brother's book (https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo5821945.html) (still available and selling well on Amazon, even after all these years) and decide for yourself.  N.B., he doesn't receive a royalty from the sales; the company owns all the rights.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 22, 2019, 06:16:35 pm
... even after all these years)...

Gee, 2008 edition!? Ancient times, when the media still at least tried to preserve the illusion of objectivity, before turning into rabid attack dogs for their political master’s voice  ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 22, 2019, 06:36:54 pm
NPR was always biased left.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 22, 2019, 06:54:14 pm
In the meantime, Trump continues winning:

Trump heads into 2020 with 'historic' judicial appointments

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-heads-into-2020-with-historic-judicial-appointments

Quote
That brings Trump’s total to 102 federal judges confirmed in 2019. Over the course of his administration, that total jumps to 187, including 50 to circuit courts of appeal and two Supreme Court justices.

"In terms of quality and quantity, we are going to be just about No. 1 by the time we finish -- No. 1 of any president, any administration," Trump said in early November, noting that George Washington may have technically appointed more judges.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 22, 2019, 07:00:30 pm
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.

Russ,

There is zero doubt that Sonderland testified that there was a Quid Pro Quo based on his direct involvement in the meetings. There is also zero doubt that this is a violation of the constitution.

You need to wrap your head around that fact and think about what it means to you.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 22, 2019, 07:06:20 pm
Russ,

There is zero doubt that Sonderland testified that there was a Quid Pro Quo based on his direct involvement in the meetings. There is also zero doubt that this is a violation of the constitution.

You need to wrap your head around that fact and think about what it means to you.



Cheers,
Bernard

It's a waste of time, Bernard.

Delay, distract and deny.  That's all <insert usual suspects here> know how to do.

Just like their leader, they provide zero proof for their lies and exaggerated unsubstantiated assertions.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 22, 2019, 07:36:22 pm
,
... There is zero doubt that Sonderland testified that there was a Quid Pro Quo based on his direct involvement in the meetings. There is also zero doubt that this is a violation of the constitution...

 ;D ;D ;D

Again, your self-righteousness is reaching comical proportions.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 22, 2019, 07:45:46 pm
Russ,

There is zero doubt that Sonderland testified that there was a Quid Pro Quo based on his direct involvement in the meetings. There is also zero doubt that this is a violation of the constitution.

You need to wrap your head around that fact and think about what it means to you.

Cheers,
Bernard

Sorry, Bernard, you need to wrap your head around the fact that the determination of whether or not this is true is up to the Senate -- not up to me; not up to you. If Nancy ever decides to pass the articles to the Senate so that an impeachment actually has taken place, then we'll see. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg says the whole impeachment performance was bullshit. Wrap your head around that one.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 22, 2019, 08:27:26 pm
Russ,

There is zero doubt that Sonderland testified that there was a Quid Pro Quo based on his direct involvement in the meetings. There is also zero doubt that this is a violation of the constitution.

You need to wrap your head around that fact and think about what it means to you.

Cheers,
Bernard

A violation,  even if true,  is not an impeachable offense. It's like getting a parking ticket.  It must be Treason. Bribery, or Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.   It's so serious a crime,  no president has ever been found guilty of it.   This is a joke perpetrated on America by Trump haters and the Democrats.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 22, 2019, 08:29:19 pm
Sorry, Bernard, you need to wrap your head around the fact that the determination of whether or not this is true is up to the Senate -- not up to me; not up to you. If Nancy ever decides to pass the articles to the Senate so that an impeachment actually has taken place, then we'll see. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg says the whole impeachment performance was bullshit. Wrap your head around that one.

No. You shouldn't get confused between politics and facts.

The Senate will determine whether Trump must be removed from office. But since the Republicans controlling the Senate have announced their intention to make a political play to exonerate trump from his deeds regardless of facts, Trump will remain in history as guilty but saved by a political play from Republicans senators.

That will not change anything about the clear facts we have today demonstrating beyond any possible doubt that Trump did what he is being accused of.

And it won't abuse anyone. The latest poll show that 66% of Republican voters want these hearings to be real, with witnesses. You not being part of these 66% only speaks about yourself. And it begs the same question you have failed to answer, what are you afraid of?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 22, 2019, 08:32:08 pm
A violation,  even if true,  is not an impeachable offense. It's like getting a parking ticket.  It must be Treason. Bribery, or Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.   It's so serious a crime,  no president has ever been found guilty of it.   This is a joke perpetrated on America by Trump haters and the Democrats.

That's your biased reading of the facts, nothing more.

Anyone looking at this objectively will find that an attempt to leverage a foreign power to take personal gains in the context of an election is a major offense. It's a threat to democracy.

Remove the name Trump, ask 1,000 randomly chosen people in the world about this case and 90% will answer the same.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 22, 2019, 08:35:22 pm
It's a waste of time, Bernard.

Delay, distract and deny.  That's all <insert usual suspects here> know how to do.

Just like their leader, they provide zero proof for their lies and exaggerated unsubstantiated assertions.

I know. But I can't help it. I think that there are some people for which the truth still matters.

I am a simple person. I work hard, make a living. I am trying to teach my daughter sound values of fairness and equality.

And it sickens me to see the kind of cynical attitude our friends are displaying here. They are so far away from the view I have of a what a great America is. This is deeply disappointing.

And I am not speaking about the kind of example if gives to young Americans who are trying to understand how they should behave in life. The answer being given by the likes of Alan, Russ, Slobodan is... "cheat, lie,... you'll be fine... that's what it takes to be a great American".

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 22, 2019, 08:38:19 pm
;D ;D ;D

Again, your self-righteousness is reaching comical proportions.

Personal attacks as a last resort when you don't have anything concrete to contribute?

There is nothing self-righteous about stating facts.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 22, 2019, 09:15:27 pm
;D ;D ;D

Again, your self-righteousness is reaching comical proportions.

Did you see/hear Sonderland's testimony and the questioning of Gordon Sondland ????
Here is the questioning, to refresh your memory as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtRUhzlaORM

It would have been useful to get other confirmations, e.g. from Pompeo, Volker, and others. However, in an attempt to frustrate the inquiry, the other players were told  to not testify. Obstruction of justice.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 22, 2019, 10:33:31 pm
Seriously Bart? 

Where is the cross examination by the Republicans in that video?  If you are going to post a video, at least give the illusion of impartiality and fairness.  The fact is Sondland contradicted his morning testimony from Democratic questioning with his afternoon questioning from Republicans.  It was a big flop for both sides. 

And by the way, the testimony of Volker, and others was conjecture based on hearsay that all originated with Sondland.  Pompeo's testimony was more cryptic then anything else and did not give the Dems the goods. 

This is why that, although Pelosi insists her case is solid, she is so desperately trying to force McConnell's hand for more witnesses, which she could have insisted on calling (and taking Trump to court) to testify.  She has a weak case, a product of rushing and not doing her do diligence in the courts, and suddenly realizes she does not have the goods.

Impeachment without any criminal charges, give me a break.  Come up with a actual crimes and you'll get my attention.  But articles without any crimes that are so vague any president could have been impeached over half a dozen times, please.   :P
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 22, 2019, 11:05:38 pm
Seriously Bart? 

Where is the cross examination by the Republicans in that video?  If you are going to post a video, at least give the illusion of impartiality and fairness.  The fact is Sondland contradicted his morning testimony from Democratic questioning with his afternoon questioning from Republicans.  It was a big flop for both sides. 

No Joe, Sonderland's testimony is one and only and clearly confirms the quid pro quo.

The Republicans tried very hard to focus the discussion on something else, which is the way Trump spoke about the quid pro quo. But there is no doubt whatsoever that Sonderland did confirm there was one.

You are attempting once again to deform facts.

What I would like you to think about is why you need to do this? Why need to deform the facts if they support your views. Or if they don't, why not challenge your position? Nothing forces you to remain stuck in deception.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 22, 2019, 11:13:42 pm
f you are going to post a video, at least give the illusion of impartiality and fairness.  The fact is Sondland contradicted his morning testimony from Democratic questioning with his afternoon questioning from Republicans.

Show us, with video, or with any hard evidence you have, how he contradicted his morning testimony in any way that disproves the fact that he witnessed the QPP.

You're not Trump, you can't just make stuff up and expect us to believe it.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 22, 2019, 11:55:39 pm
I am surprised that this hasn't been discussed here more btw.

https://apnews.com/0b2bbd8f03d7e4d02513803856d2dc84

This looks like the largest set back for Trump ever. Far worse than impeachment.

It's his very core base of supporters saying "we've had enough".

At the core of its indictment of Trump is what Galli described as the “profoundly immoral” act of seeking the assistance of the Ukrainian government in a bid “to harass and discredit” a Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

It's seem that for them also, there is little doubt that Trump did what he is being accused of...

Cheers,
Bernard

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 23, 2019, 01:30:12 am
Seriously Bart? 

Where is the cross examination by the Republicans in that video?  If you are going to post a video, at least give the illusion of impartiality and fairness.  The fact is Sondland contradicted his morning testimony from Democratic questioning with his afternoon questioning from Republicans.  It was a big flop for both sides. 

And by the way, the testimony of Volker, and others was conjecture based on hearsay that all originated with Sondland.  Pompeo's testimony was more cryptic then anything else and did not give the Dems the goods. 

This is why that, although Pelosi insists her case is solid, she is so desperately trying to force McConnell's hand for more witnesses, which she could have insisted on calling (and taking Trump to court) to testify.  She has a weak case, a product of rushing and not doing her do diligence in the courts, and suddenly realizes she does not have the goods.

Impeachment without any criminal charges, give me a break.  Come up with a actual crimes and you'll get my attention.  But articles without any crimes that are so vague any president could have been impeached over half a dozen times, please.   :P
The reason there's no crime because asking for an investigation of the Biden's who appear to have done something corrupt is perfectly legal.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 23, 2019, 01:35:28 am
If witnesses are called during the Senate trial,  the Biden's wil be called as well.   Of they refuse to testify,  which is likely,  others wil be called to explain the corrupt appearance of what they did to justify Trump's call for an investigation. Joe Biden wil take a major hit in his bid for the Democrat nomination.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 23, 2019, 03:27:07 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxFkEj7KPC0

For those unable to keep focus for 32:37 mins, the last 3 are the most important ones.

His call for a strong and free press is more important now than ever. A President able to embrace opposition because it is an intrinsic part of Democracy. Not the press saying what you want them to say, the press coming up with investigation, facts and logical objective thinking.

And for those interested in the power of non partisanship, in the power of truth and respect, here is another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raDyWogvQ2Y

For those lacking time, start at 8:15~9:30 and then 12:15~12:45. These words are of striking importance today.

Trump was nowhere to be found the day this great Republican passed away.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 23, 2019, 04:43:12 am
That's your biased reading of the facts, nothing more... 

And your reading of the facts is unbiased!?

You created such a straw man in your head that I am afraid you’ll come down with a hay fever.

Quote
... Remove the name Trump, ask 1,000 randomly chosen people in the world about this case and 90% will answer the same...

Thanks God the world doesn’t decide who the president of the US is.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 23, 2019, 04:52:27 am
... an attempt to leverage a foreign power to take personal gains...

Just noticed this.

1. Did you just use Ukraine and “power” in the same sentence?  ;D

2. “Personal” gain!? Half of America wants him to remain president for their own gain. For him personally, it remains a loss.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 23, 2019, 05:06:50 am
... saved by a political play from Republicans senators...

From a political play by Democratic congressmen.

Seriously, Bernard, don’t you see, right there, the contradiction you keep falling into? That what Republicans are doing is a “political play,” while Democrats are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, and pure love for the country, truth, and democracy!?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 23, 2019, 05:42:21 am
From a political play by Democratic congressmen.

Seriously, Bernard, don’t you see, right there, the contradiction you keep falling into? That what Republicans are doing is a “political play,” while Democrats are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, and pure love for the country, truth, and democracy!?

The motivation of the Democrats is irrelevant. All you need is to look at what Trump did and compare it with the constitution. And again, the religious community looking at his deeds as immoral should ring the bell that my inputs have failed to trigger in you?

The impeachment process is trigerred by party not in power. This is the constitution. They are doing their job. Are they expecting some political gains? Probably, but that doesn’t change anything about Trump’s wrong doings.

And similarly, just look at the facts of how Republicans are tranforming senate trial into a joke according to their own public declarations.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 23, 2019, 06:13:05 am
The motivation of the Democrats is irrelevant. All you need is to look at what Trump did and compare it with the constitution. And again, the religious community looking at his deeds as immoral should ring the bell that my inputs have failed to trigger in you?

The impeachment process is trigerred by party not in power. This is the constitution. They are doing their job. Are they expecting some political gains? Probably, but that doesn’t change anything about Trump’s wrong doings.

And similarly, just look at the facts of how Republicans are tranforming senate trial into a joke according to their own public declarations.

Cheers,
Bernard

That's the same argument I'm making about Trump's call for an investigation of the Biden's apparent corruption.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 23, 2019, 06:18:43 am
That's the same argument I'm making about Trump's call for an investigation of the Biden's apparent corruption.

There is no apparent corruption, if there had been Republicans would have investigated when Biden was vice-president.

Even the suspicion of corruption did absolutely not justify what Trump did nor make it more constitutional.

But I am nonethless in favor of Biden testifying under oath as it would have as major benefit to quiet you down.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 23, 2019, 06:33:05 am
... how Republicans are tranforming senate trial into a joke according to their own public declarations.

How so?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 23, 2019, 06:38:57 am
How so?

Slobodan,

I am sorry but you need to stay informed.

Do your homework man.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 23, 2019, 06:43:49 am
... I am sorry but you need to stay informed.

Do your homework man...

Since reading the same facts (or “facts”) lead the two of us to vastly different conclusions, I am interested in YOUR interpretation.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 23, 2019, 07:01:01 am
The Senate will determine whether Trump must be removed from office. But since the Republicans controlling the Senate have announced their intention to make a political play to exonerate trump from his deeds regardless of facts, Trump will remain in history as guilty but saved by a political play from Republicans senators.

That will not change anything about the clear facts we have today demonstrating beyond any possible doubt that Trump did what he is being accused of.

And it won't abuse anyone. The latest poll show that 66% of Republican voters want these hearings to be real, with witnesses. You not being part of these 66% only speaks about yourself. And it begs the same question you have failed to answer, what are you afraid of?

Cheers,
Bernard

Believe it or not, Bernard, I want those hearings too. Once the Republicans are in charge of the hearings we’ll be able to hear from the witnesses the Democrats refused to hear during their “hearings.” The Dems are scared to death of that happening. That’s why Nancy’s trying to make a deal that will reduce the damage from their testimony.

Of course, the House “hearings” weren’t a political play. Only Republicans can make a political play. Right? Nothing in the Democrat “hearings” demonstrates Trump did what he’s being accused of. What they demonstrated was that the House Democrats want to impeach Trump because they hate him, and think Hillary should have won.

Oh, and you just demonstrated that you don’t know what “begs the question” means.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 23, 2019, 07:14:37 am
Believe it or not, Bernard, I want those hearings too. Once the Republicans are in charge of the hearings we’ll be able to hear from the witnesses the Democrats refused to hear during their “hearings.” The Dems are scared to death of that happening. That’s why Nancy’s trying to make a deal that will reduce the damage from their testimony.

Of course, the House “hearings” weren’t a political play. Only Republicans can make a political play. Right? Nothing in the Democrat “hearings” demonstrates Trump did what he’s being accused of. What they demonstrated was that the House Democrats want to impeach Trump because they hate him, and think Hillary should have won.

Oh, and you just demonstrated that you don’t know what “begs the question” means.

I have already answered to Slobodan.

And I apologize for my imperfect mastery of English.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 23, 2019, 07:18:56 am
Since reading the same facts (or “facts”) lead the two of us to vastly different conclusions, I am interested in YOUR interpretation.

Facts are facts. Opinion differ from facts.

There is no need to interpret Sonderland’s testimony. He said “I witnessed a quid pro quo”.

There is also no need to interpret the Republican leader’s declaration to the press. Google it if you are interested. He made his intention 100% clear.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 23, 2019, 07:25:49 am
... There is also no need to interpret the Republican leader’s declaration to the press. Google it if you are interested. He made his intention 100% clear.

Once again, so?

What’s wrong or unique about that?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 23, 2019, 07:44:12 am
... the religious community looking at his deeds as immoral should ring the bell that my inputs have failed to trigger in you?...

I am not religious, so I couldn’t care less what a fringe religious community thinks.

And then there is this:

“Nearly 200 evangelical leaders condemned Christianity Today editorial on Trump”

https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/nearly-200-evangelical-leaders-condemned-christianity-today-editorial-on-trump
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 23, 2019, 07:44:37 am
I have already answered to Slobodan.

Whatever that means. . .

Quote
And I apologize for my imperfect mastery of English.

Cheers,
Bernard

That's okay. Your mastery of English is quite in line with most of your contemporaries. Actually, the expression "begs the question" accurately describes the Democrat hearings.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 23, 2019, 08:18:17 am
It's probably about time for this. The author sums up why Trump was elected, and his summary quite adequately explains why he'll be elected again, and why the Democrats' impeachment Kabuki will work against them. The Democrats will never understand this, nor will many of our posters here.

-------------------------------------------

There's a reason Donald Trump was elected, and it wasn't because of the Russians. It wasn't because of his tweets. It wasn't his crassness. It wasn't because of his money. It's not because he's a racist or a white supremacist. Not because he's a misogynist, homophobe or Islamophobe. It wasn't because of his oratory skills or his diplomacy.

In fact, his crassness, money, lack of diplomacy, twitter hysteria and awkward public speaking all worked against him. They were all liabilities in the eyes of most Americans. Libelous claims of racism, misogyny, homophobia and Islamophobia fortified his adversaries and gave discomfort to us.

Hillary Clinton’s miscalculated campaign strategy wasn't the reason he was elected. And it wasn't her platform that defeated her. Nor was it the Electoral College.

That an inarticulate, abrasive man was elected president is a tell, a reveal of the state and the mood of average America. A man who can be insulting, demeaning, outrageous, arrogant and bombastic was the choice of half the country to serve as our leader because he more than holds a light on deceit, corruption and injustice, he lashes them to a tree where the sun is bright and relentless, where their shadows are exposed for us all to see. And they hate him for it.

We chose a man who appears insensitive and careless and elevated him to the most powerful leadership office in history because we are watching the world hemorrhage from dishonesty and tyranny. Tired of broken promises, neglected constituents, enriched politicians and a protected ruling class we chose an outsider and a brawler because he promised to return our stolen pride. Americans voted for an imperfect man who sacrificed his life of prosperity and privilege because he promised he would fight for us against those who deceive, destabilize and abuse us.

It’s not because he’s nice. We didn’t elect him because we would emulate him, but because he knows the dragon that is eating our soul and he has the courage and tenacity to go into its lair and lure it out where we can fight it. Donald Trump isn’t our president because he’ll smooth wrinkles and calm storms, but because the alternative is far worse.

Eloquent speeches divided us. Hope was chained. Change stole our dreams, our children and our morals. Flamboyance imitated Camelot and it wounded America. The great experiment was fundamentally changed.

It was time to fight and we needed a Patton. This is why we elected him.


By Ward Wettlin in The Official Walter E. Williams Fan Club I got permission from Ward to copy this and paste it.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 09:45:53 am
Did you see/hear Sonderland's testimony and the questioning of Gordon Sondland ????
Here is the questioning, to refresh your memory as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtRUhzlaORM

It would have been useful to get other confirmations, e.g. from Pompeo, Volker, and others. However, in an attempt to frustrate the inquiry, the other players were told  to not testify. Obstruction of justice.

To both Bart and Bernard...

Sorry to intrude into this discussion but a point here needs to be made.  Im goinmg to make an assumption about both of you.  I'm going to assume neither of you actually watched the full hearings live and that you got your information from news sources.  First I did watch all of the hearings live and in person (a nice bonus of it being my slow season)  Having said that both of you are simply misinformed. I just did a search to see wha the media said about the Sondland testimony.  The big takeaway was there was a QUID PRO QUO.  Link after link says the same thing.  And tecnically they are correct , but in actually it is truly FAKE NEWS.  If thats all you read or, like Bart only show the Goldman cross you think you know what happened.  But if you really want the truth you are going to be very hard pressed to find it in the media coverage of the days events, especially on the net.  Why? Because the truth does not fit the narrative. 

Upon cross examination by the Republincans Sondland is forced to admit...more than once...that he was never told there was a QUID PRO QUO.  It was only his BELIEF.  This Mike Turner exchange sums it up perfectly...

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/gordon-sondland-testifies-impeachment/card/1574279877

This exchange is directly tied to Military Aid.  There were others tied to the White house meeting.  And again its the same story. Sondland only has hearsay and no direct evidence that Trump said the meeting was dependant on investigations.  But good luck finding that in the media accounts of his hearings.

Please don't preach that you know what happened unless you actually watched the hearings.  Your reliance on published media accounts leaves your blindly uninformed.

Here's the long and short of it and it was expressed so well by Johnathan Turley.  Alternative evidence about the nature of the requests have not really been explored in the Democratic case.  The evidence is not really uncontested.  You may believe the Democratic narrative but its not the only one.

Could it be possible that the requests for investigations into the 2016 election and into the actions of Biden and his son are actually of value to the Country?  Does our country have a need to know what happened in 2016?  How about how Former Vice President Biden acted?

I think it matters.   



 

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 09:46:56 am
No Joe, Sonderland's testimony is one and only and clearly confirms the quid pro quo.

The Republicans tried very hard to focus the discussion on something else, which is the way Trump spoke about the quid pro quo. But there is no doubt whatsoever that Sonderland did confirm there was one.

You are attempting once again to deform facts.

What I would like you to think about is why you need to do this? Why need to deform the facts if they support your views. Or if they don't, why not challenge your position? Nothing forces you to remain stuck in deception.

Cheers,
Bernard

You need to expand your knowlege....
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/gordon-sondland-testifies-impeachment/card/1574279877
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 09:47:49 am
Show us, with video, or with any hard evidence you have, how he contradicted his morning testimony in any way that disproves the fact that he witnessed the QPP.

You're not Trump, you can't just make stuff up and expect us to believe it.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/gordon-sondland-testifies-impeachment/card/1574279877
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 23, 2019, 10:12:14 am
The reason there's no crime because asking for an investigation of the Biden's who appear to have done something corrupt is perfectly legal.

Not if the Congress approved funding is made conditional upon the announcement of an inquiry. And yes, it was about the Bidens, and not about Burisma nor was it about corruption concerns because there are regular channels for that and the new President Zelenski was serious about addressing such issues. It was for personal political purposes that U.S. defense expenditure was used as corrupt extortion, and they had been plotting this for months already. And part of that money is still being withheld. This makes it a US defense security issue.

People also seem to ignore that Trump deviated from his talking points script that was prepared for that call, when he asked a foreign power to intervene in the US elections. He also invited China later to do the same.
Waiting for the next elections (which he tried to have influenced by a foreign country) is therefore not an option, because Trump thinks he can get away with anything. He is not an old style king, nobody is above the law.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 23, 2019, 10:36:46 am
It's probably about time for this. The author sums up why Trump was elected, and his summary quite adequately explains why he'll be elected again, and why the Democrats' impeachment Kabuki will work against them. The Democrats will never understand this, nor will many of our posters here.

-------------------------------------------

There's a reason Donald Trump was elected, and it wasn't because of the Russians. It wasn't because of his tweets. It wasn't his crassness. It wasn't because of his money. It's not because he's a racist or a white supremacist. Not because he's a misogynist, homophobe or Islamophobe. It wasn't because of his oratory skills or his diplomacy.

In fact, his crassness, money, lack of diplomacy, twitter hysteria and awkward public speaking all worked against him. They were all liabilities in the eyes of most Americans. Libelous claims of racism, misogyny, homophobia and Islamophobia fortified his adversaries and gave discomfort to us.

Hillary Clinton’s miscalculated campaign strategy wasn't the reason he was elected. And it wasn't her platform that defeated her. Nor was it the Electoral College.

That an inarticulate, abrasive man was elected president is a tell, a reveal of the state and the mood of average America. A man who can be insulting, demeaning, outrageous, arrogant and bombastic was the choice of half the country to serve as our leader because he more than holds a light on deceit, corruption and injustice, he lashes them to a tree where the sun is bright and relentless, where their shadows are exposed for us all to see. And they hate him for it.

We chose a man who appears insensitive and careless and elevated him to the most powerful leadership office in history because we are watching the world hemorrhage from dishonesty and tyranny. Tired of broken promises, neglected constituents, enriched politicians and a protected ruling class we chose an outsider and a brawler because he promised to return our stolen pride. Americans voted for an imperfect man who sacrificed his life of prosperity and privilege because he promised he would fight for us against those who deceive, destabilize and abuse us.

It’s not because he’s nice. We didn’t elect him because we would emulate him, but because he knows the dragon that is eating our soul and he has the courage and tenacity to go into its lair and lure it out where we can fight it. Donald Trump isn’t our president because he’ll smooth wrinkles and calm storms, but because the alternative is far worse.

Eloquent speeches divided us. Hope was chained. Change stole our dreams, our children and our morals. Flamboyance imitated Camelot and it wounded America. The great experiment was fundamentally changed.

It was time to fight and we needed a Patton. This is why we elected him.


By Ward Wettlin in The Official Walter E. Williams Fan Club I got permission from Ward to copy this and paste it.


I have hardly ever heard of a western head honcho politician who did not benefit from his time in office and go on to capitalise on it. Starting on the other foot, already rich, the future goodies are even more attractive because the doors have been oiled, the locks have had different sets of keys cut, and the future is back to square one but with a massively stengthened arm thanks to the recent "job" providing access not previously possible.

As for fighting against those who "deceive, destabilize and abuse us", isn't that exactly what he has done? No swamp appears drained, just reinforced with a new breed of bigger, stronger alligator crocodile. And guess what: he now has a permanent, highly skilled and highly connected security arm to protect him whatever he does after office. He can even take on the Mafia! Oh, wait...

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 23, 2019, 10:59:01 am
There is no apparent corruption, if there had been Republicans would have investigated when Biden was vice-president.

Even the suspicion of corruption did absolutely not justify what Trump did nor make it more constitutional.

But I am nonethless in favor of Biden testifying under oath as it would have as major benefit to quiet you down.

Cheers,
Bernard

Any 12 year old knows Biden got rid of the Ukrainian investigator to protect the company his kid earned $50K a month from.  He should be investigated for corruption.  Never mind testifying in the Senate which he already said he would not do.  Biden is a crook.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 11:25:06 am
Did you see/hear Sonderland's testimony and the questioning of Gordon Sondland ????
Here is the questioning, to refresh your memory as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtRUhzlaORM

It would have been useful to get other confirmations, e.g. from Pompeo, Volker, and others. However, in an attempt to frustrate the inquiry, the other players were told  to not testify. Obstruction of justice.

Just to add some clarity...Cross of Sundland by Republican council.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XDCKRpLk4E
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 23, 2019, 11:41:06 am
Wow, the conversation really progressed since last night, well in posts anyway. 

Thanks Craig for posting those links. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 23, 2019, 12:07:52 pm
The White House paused financial military assistance to Ukraine 91 minutes after the disputed phone call between President Donald Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky ended, according to released government documents requested by The Center for Public Integrity on Sunday. (see attachment)

https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/trump-administration-officials-worried-ukraine-aid-halt-violated-spending-law/
Quote
When President Donald Trump ordered a halt to aid to Ukraine last summer, defense officials and diplomats worried first that it would undermine U.S. national security. Ukraine is, as some of them later testified before Congress, on the front lines of Russian aggression, and only robust American support would fend off aggressive Moscow meddling in the West. This worry eventually helped galvanize congressional support for one of the two impeachment articles approved by the House of Representatives on Dec. 18.

But there was also a separate, less-noticed facet of the internal administration uproar set off by Trump’s July 12 order stopping the flow of $391 million in weapons and security assistance to Ukraine. Some senior administration officials worried that by defying a law ordering that the funds be spent within a defined period, Trump was asking the officials involved to take an action that was not merely unwise but flatly illegal.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 12:24:34 pm
The White House paused financial military assistance to Ukraine 91 minutes after the disputed phone call between President Donald Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky ended, according to released government documents requested by The Center for Public Integrity on Sunday. (see attachment)

https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/trump-administration-officials-worried-ukraine-aid-halt-violated-spending-law/

Did you even read the link you posted Bart?

Did you read this passage?

"Trump’s formal order blocking the Pentagon’s portion of the aid was nonetheless communicated to OMB by one of his aides on July 12."





Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 23, 2019, 12:25:42 pm
The reason there's no crime because asking for an investigation of the Biden's who appear to have done something corrupt is perfectly legal.

Of course not, if that's how you insist on describing the "crime".

Withholding congress-approved financial aid for personal reasons is the crime.

er, one of the crimes...


Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 12:31:52 pm
Of course not, if that's how you insist on describing the "crime".

Withholding congress-approved financial aid for personal reasons is the crime.

er, one of the crimes...

Was it for personal reasons?

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 23, 2019, 12:40:12 pm
Did you even read the link you posted Bart?

Did you read this passage?

"Trump’s formal order blocking the Pentagon’s portion of the aid was nonetheless communicated to OMB by one of his aides on July 12."

Yes Craig. And where was the approval by Congress?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 23, 2019, 12:45:39 pm
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/gordon-sondland-testifies-impeachment/card/1574279877

I did watch the coverage.  Live and continuous.  Not all of it, but over 90% of it.

Your rebuttal is an example of effective FUD lawyering.  I have to give the guy credit for cornering Sondland.  It must have consumed significant rehearsal time.

It is, however, like much of the observed Republican shenanigans, both instructive and despicable.


vis:

"So, your honor, the witness can provide no real additional collaboration for the defendant's guilt other than his own direct, personal observations.  Therefore he's lying and his entire testimony is invalid".

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 23, 2019, 12:47:46 pm
Was it for personal reasons?

<s> No, he did it for the greater glory of liberal democracies everywhere.  </s>
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 23, 2019, 12:58:51 pm
...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 01:14:39 pm
Yes Craig. And where was the approval by Congress?

So in other words you admit the headline on your post was fake news.  Thanks for that.

On the approval, exactly what timeline is required for that approval?  I don't know, do you?

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 01:18:12 pm
I did watch the coverage.  Live and continuous.  Not all of it, but over 90% of it.

Your rebuttal is an example of effective FUD lawyering.  I have to give the guy credit for cornering Sondland.  It must have consumed significant rehearsal time.

It is, however, like much of the observed Republican shenanigans, both instructive and despicable.


vis:

"So, your honor, the witness can provide no real additional collaboration for the defendant's guilt other than his own direct, personal observations.  Therefore he's lying and his entire testimony is invalid".


That really funny Peter.  So the facts don't fit your narrative and you try and deflect.  Perfect. 

So, did Sondland get directions directly from Trump or not?  Its a really simple question.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 23, 2019, 01:27:02 pm
That really funny Peter.  So the facts don't fit your narrative and you try and deflect.  Perfect. 

So, did Sondland get directions directly from Trump or not?  Its a really simple question.

“directions” on what?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 02:47:59 pm
“directions” on what?

ReallyPeter, that’s the best you have)

Let’s spell it out.


The so called “quid pro quo”.  Did trump tell Sondland directly there would be no meeting or aid unless Ukraine announced or undertook investigations into 2016 or the Bidens?   

It’s a very simple question and a direct yes  or no answer please.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 23, 2019, 02:55:34 pm
So in other words you admit the headline on your post was fake news.  Thanks for that.

It was not known for how long the security assistance was going to be withheld. But no permission was asked.

The article (second paragraph) says:
Quote
But there was also a separate, less-noticed facet of the internal administration uproar set off by Trump’s July 12 order stopping the flow of $391 million in weapons and security assistance to Ukraine. Some senior administration officials worried that by defying a law ordering that the funds be spent within a defined period, Trump was asking the officials involved to take an action that was not merely unwise but flatly illegal.

The administration so far has declined to release copies of its internal communications about this vital issue – the legality of what Trump had ordered.

Congressional approval was not asked for.

Quote
On the approval, exactly what timeline is required for that approval?  I don't know, do you?

Again:
Quote
The administration so far has declined to release copies of its internal communications about this vital issue – the legality of what Trump had ordered.

According to the law, the White House is not allowed to withhold expenses approved by Congress without permission. So permission would have to be granted before the expenses are withheld. Instead they were still being withheld after the call as a means of pressure for a quid pro quo .

There also was another (but that's not an excuse for not asking permission) a technical deadline that had to be met, the end of the fiscal year on September 30, which increased the unrest at the OMB because it takes time to arrange these things. AFAIK, some of the expenses (last thing I read was something like 10-14%) have not been paid yet (which is too late) ... It would be interesting to know, because that then is another violation of the law, since permission was neither asked nor given for withholding part of the money either.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 23, 2019, 02:57:13 pm
It was not known for how long the security assistance was going to be withheld. But no permission was asked.

The article (second paragraph) says:
Congressional approval was not asked for.

Again:
According to the law, the White House is not allowed to withhold expenses approved by Congress without permission. So permission would have to be granted before the expenses are withheld. Instead they were still being withheld after the call as a means of pressure for a quid pro quo .

There also was another (but that's not an excuse for not asking permission) a technical deadline that had to be met, the end of the fiscal year on September 30, which increased the unrest at the OMB because it takes time to arrange these things. AFAIK, some of the expenses (last thing I read was something like 10-14%) have not been paid yet (which is too late) ... It would be interesting to know, because that then is another violation of the law, since permission was neither asked nor given for withholding part of the money either.

Although true, I believe delays are allowed without consent by the executive.  The aid was eventually sent, so it was not withheld but delayed. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 23, 2019, 02:58:58 pm
It’s a very simple question and a direct yes  or no answer please.

Talk to Rudy.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 23, 2019, 03:12:12 pm
Although true, I believe delays are allowed.  The aid was eventually sent, so it was not withheld by delayed.

In a life or death situation in Ukraine, a hot war, people were getting killed at the eastern front each week. I don't recall that Congress said it could be used to bribe a foreign government. I don't know if Congress instructed with a deadline attached, but holding it up for months seems counter-productive, the money was needed badly. And to this day, no reason was given for the unnecessary delay.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 03:19:13 pm
It was not known for how long the security assistance was going to be withheld. But no permission was asked.

The article (second paragraph) says:
Congressional approval was not asked for.

Again:
According to the law, the White House is not allowed to withhold expenses approved by Congress without permission. So permission would have to be granted before the expenses are withheld. Instead they were still being withheld after the call as a means of pressure for a quid pro quo .

There also was another (but that's not an excuse for not asking permission) a technical deadline that had to be met, the end of the fiscal year on September 30, which increased the unrest at the OMB because it takes time to arrange these things. AFAIK, some of the expenses (last thing I read was something like 10-14%) have not been paid yet (which is too late) ... It would be interesting to know, because that then is another violation of the law, since permission was neither asked nor given for withholding part of the money either.

Thanks for admitting you don't know the answer. 

So you don't know how long a President may "DELAY" ( note, that is not withholding - which is another point altogether)  the release of Aid, nor do you know if what he did was against the law.  Now its my understanding that the requirement is to notify Congress that he woud be canceling aid, but I'm happy to be shown incorrect on that point.

The long and short of it is you have nothing in this regard that is unlawful or impeachable. 

Just more posturing.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 03:21:16 pm
Talk to Rudy.

Great, when did Sondland tell us Rudy told him?  (and bettrer yet did Rudy tell Sondland TRUMP told him to tell Sondland?)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 23, 2019, 03:22:23 pm
In a life or death situation in Ukraine, a hot war, people were getting killed at the eastern front each week. I don't recall that Congress said it could be used to bribe a foreign government. I don't know if Congress instructed with a deadline attached, but holding it up for months seems counter-productive, the money was needed badly. And to this day, no reason was given for the unnecessary delay.

No reason given does no imply improper actions.  It could have simply been attributed to Trump unease with sending aid to foreign countries, which he demonstrated with NATO. 

Plus, people over here care very little about Ukraine.  They are told to care by the elite, but that is the extent of their caring.  Most could care less. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 23, 2019, 03:53:38 pm
It's probably about time for this. The author sums up why Trump was elected, and his summary quite adequately explains why he'll be elected again, and why the Democrats' impeachment Kabuki will work against them. The Democrats will never understand this, nor will many of our posters here.

-------------------------------------------

There's a reason Donald Trump was elected, and it wasn't because of the Russians. It wasn't because of his tweets. It wasn't his crassness. It wasn't because of his money. It's not because he's a racist or a white supremacist. Not because he's a misogynist, homophobe or Islamophobe. It wasn't because of his oratory skills or his diplomacy.

In fact, his crassness, money, lack of diplomacy, twitter hysteria and awkward public speaking all worked against him. They were all liabilities in the eyes of most Americans. Libelous claims of racism, misogyny, homophobia and Islamophobia fortified his adversaries and gave discomfort to us.

Hillary Clinton’s miscalculated campaign strategy wasn't the reason he was elected. And it wasn't her platform that defeated her. Nor was it the Electoral College.

That an inarticulate, abrasive man was elected president is a tell, a reveal of the state and the mood of average America. A man who can be insulting, demeaning, outrageous, arrogant and bombastic was the choice of half the country to serve as our leader because he more than holds a light on deceit, corruption and injustice, he lashes them to a tree where the sun is bright and relentless, where their shadows are exposed for us all to see. And they hate him for it.

We chose a man who appears insensitive and careless and elevated him to the most powerful leadership office in history because we are watching the world hemorrhage from dishonesty and tyranny. Tired of broken promises, neglected constituents, enriched politicians and a protected ruling class we chose an outsider and a brawler because he promised to return our stolen pride. Americans voted for an imperfect man who sacrificed his life of prosperity and privilege because he promised he would fight for us against those who deceive, destabilize and abuse us.

It’s not because he’s nice. We didn’t elect him because we would emulate him, but because he knows the dragon that is eating our soul and he has the courage and tenacity to go into its lair and lure it out where we can fight it. Donald Trump isn’t our president because he’ll smooth wrinkles and calm storms, but because the alternative is far worse.

Eloquent speeches divided us. Hope was chained. Change stole our dreams, our children and our morals. Flamboyance imitated Camelot and it wounded America. The great experiment was fundamentally changed.

It was time to fight and we needed a Patton. This is why we elected him.


By Ward Wettlin in The Official Walter E. Williams Fan Club I got permission from Ward to copy this and paste it.


Brilliant analysis.  It's what is driving much of the country and people in other parts of the world as well.  Thanks for posting it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 23, 2019, 05:19:30 pm
Brilliant analysis.  It's what is driving much of the country and people in other parts of the world as well.  Thanks for posting it.

Right... and what were the first actions taken by this great hero of the poor and the neglected?
- reduce taxation for his super rich friends and in the process deepen the debt of the country... and who is going to pay for that?
- get out of the climate agreement... no need to explain that the poorest citizens will be those who will suffer from global warming
- attempt to kill Obamacare, again hurting the poorest citizens
- set the ground for a war with Iran, where kids from poor families will go and get killed on behalf of the great nation

So this text describes why the people were misled to think Trump would be different. He is actually much farther away from the people than Obama was. He may not belong to the political leading class, but he belongs to the money leaders and those the ones killing the average citizens.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 23, 2019, 05:24:27 pm
I see nothing in the links provided that changes a thing on Sonderland’ testimony.

Despicable anx manipulative interrogation techniques yes.

Nothing changing the essence of what was reported.

There was indeed clearly a quid pro quo.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 23, 2019, 05:36:51 pm
- reduce taxation for his super rich friends...

Right.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-reform-has-delivered-for-workers-11577045463

Tax Reform Has Delivered for Workers
Two years later the data show that investment has increased, with wages and job participation rising

Quote
Those who say that the strong economy under President Trump is merely a continuation of past trends are in full-scale denial. Before Mr. Trump took office in January 2017, the Congressional Budget Office forecast the creation of only two million jobs by this point. The economy has in fact created seven million jobs since January 2017. At the same time, the Federal Reserve’s median forecast had the unemployment rate inching up toward 5%, almost 1.5 percentage points higher than the current 50-year low.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 23, 2019, 05:58:15 pm
...There is also no need to interpret the Republican leader’s declaration to the press. Google it if you are interested. He made his intention 100% clear...

Since you repeatedly refused to clarify your position on this, I can only assume that you are troubled that the Senate leader and other Republicans in the Senate have already made up their mind about Trump’s “guilt” even before the trial. In other words, they can’t be impartial jury.

How unheard of!

You literally have people running for President as Dems that already said Trump is guilty, meaning they made up their mind.  Where is all your commentary about senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and Kamala Harris saying Trump is guilty?

That does not even count so many others repeatedly announcing Trumps guilt like senators Hirono, Bennet, Blumenthal, et al.

Even Dick Durban, a Democrat, is appalled by this double standard:
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 06:02:04 pm
I see nothing in the links provided that changes a thing on Sonderland’ testimony.

Despicable anx manipulative interrogation techniques yes.

Nothing changing the essence of what was reported.

There was indeed clearly a quid pro quo.

Cheers,
Bernard

Sheesh, you really do have it bad.

Yep it’s so clear, it was never told to your star witness Sondland.   He only PRESUMED it.   Now that’s some quality evidence.

Merry Christmas, Bernard.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 23, 2019, 06:20:21 pm
ReallyPeter, that’s the best you have)

Let’s spell it out.


The so called “quid pro quo”.  Did trump tell Sondland directly there would be no meeting or aid unless Ukraine announced or undertook investigations into 2016 or the Bidens?   

It’s a very simple question and a direct yes  or no answer please.

Classic lawyer tactics. There is no "direct yes or no" answer to this question.

However, I'll play your brain-dead game, despite your transparent attempt to corner me. 

The answer is "How the eff would I know?" And, "Why would I care?"

The issue isn't whether or not Trump told Sondland to invoke the QPP.  The issue is whether or not TRUMP invoked it.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 23, 2019, 06:22:15 pm
These semantic arguments about whether aid was "denied" or "withheld" are beneath contempt.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 23, 2019, 06:55:45 pm
Right.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-reform-has-delivered-for-workers-11577045463

Tax Reform Has Delivered for Workers
Two years later the data show that investment has increased, with wages and job participation rising

Thanks for confirming my point that taxes were indeed reduced for the super rich.

The correlation between this and increased job's is anybodies guess.

The reality is that Trump is largely surfing on the positive trend that had been prepared by the Obama administration.

Healthier workers protected by the Obamacare are also contributing more to the economy.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 23, 2019, 06:56:47 pm
Sheesh, you really do have it bad.

Yep it’s so clear, it was never told to your star witness Sondland.   He only PRESUMED it.   Now that’s some quality evidence.

Merry Christmas, Bernard.

No Craig, I am just looking at facts. I have a hard time thinking you can watch this Republican questioning in good faith and think they are attempting to find the truth here.

You are apparently still thinking that lawyer techniques can convince anyone. But this is more of the same corrupt stuff Trump supporters claim they have chosen him to get rid of... you guys have come a full circle.

Merry Christmas to you.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 06:58:41 pm
Classic lawyer tactics. There is no "direct yes or no" answer to this question.

However, I'll play your brain-dead game, despite your transparent attempt to corner me. 

The answer is "How the eff would I know?" And, "Why would I care?"

The issue isn't whether or not Trump told Sondland to invoke the QPP.  The issue is whether or not TRUMP invoked it.

Sorry Peter, you lose.  There is in fact a direct yes or no answer to the question and the answer is no.   You non answer shows very fully that you can’t come to grips with very direst evidence that destroys your position.

We are discussing Sondland and his claim there was a quid pro quo.  In that respect Sondland lwas less than honest when he said there was...it was only his presumption.   
 
I didn’t attempt to corner you.  You cornered yourself.   I simply pointed it out.   Your inability to deal with this in an intellectually honest manner speaks volumes.

Merry Christmas Peter.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 07:00:15 pm
No Craig, I am just looking at facts. I have a hard time thinking you can watch this Republican questioning in good faith and think they are attempting to find the truth here.

You are apparently still thinking that lawyer techniques can convince anyone. But this is more of the same corrupt stuff Trump supporters claim they have chosen him to get rid of... you guys have come a full circle.

Merry Christmas to you.

Cheers,
Bernard

But they did find the truth Bernard. You just don’t like the truth because it destroys your position.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 07:02:47 pm
These semantic arguments about whether aid was "denied" or "withheld" are beneath contempt.

Is there a difference between taking something away forever or holding it for a time Peter?

Words matter.


A yes or no answer will do just fine.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 23, 2019, 07:15:08 pm
But they did find the truth Bernard. You just don’t like the truth because it destroys your position.

No Craig. This is clearly not what Sonderland has been telling us.

I am impressed by the convoluted logic that results in you claiming the opposite of what has been said though. But I hope you realize that the techniques used here can be applied to just about anything. And can be leveraged to turn any truth upside down.

Are you proud of yourself to show support to this?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 07:31:15 pm
No Craig. This is clearly not what Sonderland has been telling us.

I am impressed by the convoluted logic that results in you claiming the opposite of what has been said though. But I hope you realize that the techniques used here can be applied to just about anything. And can be leveraged to turn any truth upside down.

Are you proud of yourself to show support to this?

Cheers,
Bernard

Actually Bernard you are guilty of what you are charging. Under cross, Sondland  was VERY clear.   He had NO idea if there was a Quid Pro Quo issued by Trump in respect to Aid or promise of an investigation and he never heard it from Trump.  The very BEST he could offer was his PRESUMPTION that one existed.  He was asked that question directly more than once.  His answer was the same. No Quid Pro quo from Trump.   Trump even told him that directly.  Ukraine said they were not issued a Quid Pro Quo.

None of this can be refuted.  Its FACT.  Your position is doomed by these facts. 

BTW, I’m very proud that I can read and comprehend facts and not be swayed by blind hate.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 23, 2019, 07:48:50 pm
Sorry Peter, you lose. Your inability to deal with this in an intellectually honest manner speaks volumes.
Merry Christmas Peter.

Oh, well.  Another one to add to the <insert usual suspects here> list.

Like I said earlier, Bernard.  This lot is a waste of time/keystrokes.  They'll say whatever they think will make them feel good.

Just like their fearless leader who I saw today in a video declaring "I know more about windmills than anybody!"

Really?  You allow this idiot to lead your country?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 23, 2019, 07:50:02 pm
Actually Bernard you are guilty of what you are charging. Under cross, Sondland  was VERY clear.   He had NO idea if there was a Quid Pro Quo issued by Trump in respect to Aid or promise of an investigation and he never heard it from Trump.  The very BEST he could offer was his PRESUMPTION that one existed.  He was asked that question directly more than once.  His answer was the same. No Quid Pro quo from Trump.   Trump even told him that directly.  Ukraine said they were not issued a Quid Pro Quo.

None of this can be refuted.  Its FACT.  Your position is doomed by these facts. 

BTW, I’m very proud that I can read and comprehend facts and not be swayed by blind hate.

Ah yes, I agree with you on this, Trump said no quid pro quo.

We know he can be trusted to tell the truth consistently. ;)

The point here is that Sonderland, looking at the situation and all the facts he was aware of, clearly testified that there was a quid pro quo.

That's what matters, not an a posteriori denial from Trump.

But you know this full well...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 07:54:15 pm
Oh, well.  Another one to add to the <insert usual suspects here> list.

Like I said earlier, Bernard.  This lot is a waste of time/keystrokes.  They'll say whatever they think will make them feel good.

Just like their fearless leader who I saw today in a video declaring "I know more about windmills than anybody!"

Really?  You allow this idiot to lead your country?

Such a transparent tactic.  When defeated declare victory and dismiss your opponent.   Great job Peter.

I’ll take Trump, warts and all, over anyone else running now or in 2016.

YMMV
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 23, 2019, 07:56:53 pm
LOL

I'll say it again, although some of you may not realize how weak the case is, the Dems in congress certainly do.  That is why they did not put a single crime in the articles.  No extortion nor bribery nor quid pro quo nor any other actual crime. 

Have a great night. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 07:59:02 pm
Ah yes, I agree with you on this, Trump said no quid pro quo.

We know he can be trusted to tell the truth consistently. ;)

The point here is that Sonderland, looking at the situation and all the facts he was aware of, clearly testified that there was a quid pro quo.

That's what matters, not an a posteriori denial from Trump.

But you know this full well...

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard, what part of Sondlands testimony where he says he only PRESUMED there was a Quid Pro Quo don’t you understand.  His “clear statement” was destroyed upon cross examination.

It was his guess.  So now we are impeaching a president on a guess?  That’s your star witness?  Really?

That’s the state of your argument?  My oh my.



Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 23, 2019, 08:20:20 pm
Bernard, what part of Sondlands testimony where he says he only PRESUMED there was a Quid Pro Quo don’t you understand.  His “clear statement” was destroyed upon cross examination.

It was his guess.  So now we are impeaching a president on a guess?  That’s your star witness?  Really?

That’s the state of your argument?  My oh my.

Help me understand Craig... are you saying that Trump would have had to explicitely say "this is a Quid Pro quo" for this situation to be a quid pro quo?

Is that the state of your argument?

My oh my...

If we both agree that Sonderland was not lying under oath, we need to treat him for what he is. A diplomat working on a sensitive topic that Trump obviously knew was sensitive. His global assessment that there was a quid pro quo is undisputed and is as good as it gets. What you call "presumption" is a fact and a proof.

There is absolutely no need for an explicit "let's do a quid pro quo" comment from Trump for this to be one.

According to your logic, the witness of a murder would not be a valid witness unless he heard the killer say to the victim "I am killing you". I guess most objective people would agree with me that this is stupid.

And I have a hard time once again believe you are commenting in good faith.
 
Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 23, 2019, 08:44:44 pm
Quid pro ques are not illegal even if they're read one.   We make demands on foreign governments all the time before we turn over money and weapons.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 23, 2019, 08:47:26 pm
Quid pro ques are not illegal even if they're read one.   We make demands on foreign governments all the time before we turn over money and weapons.

Ah ok, so you agree there was one?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 23, 2019, 09:03:47 pm
Ah ok, so you agree there was one?

Cheers,
Bernard

Ah ok, so you agree there was one?

Cheers,
Bernard

I didn't say that.   I said if there wss one,  it's not illegal.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 23, 2019, 09:15:18 pm
I didn't say that.   I said if there wss one,  it's not illegal.

Why do you think Republicans have been trying that super hard to convince the world against clear testimonies that there was no quid pro quo if a quid pro quo would have been legal? ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 09:16:10 pm
Help me understand Craig... are you saying that Trump would have had to explicitely say "this is a Quid Pro quo" for this situation to be a quid pro quo?

Is that the state of your argument?

My oh my...

If we both agree that Sonderland was not lying under oath, we need to treat him for what he is. A diplomat working on a sensitive topic that Trump obviously knew was sensitive. His global assessment that there was a quid pro quo is undisputed and is as good as it gets. What you call "presumption" is a fact and a proof.

There is absolutely no need for an explicit "let's do a quid pro quo" comment from Trump for this to be one.

According to your logic, the witness of a murder would not be a valid witness unless he heard the killer say to the victim "I am killing you". I guess most objective people would agree with me that this is stupid.

And I have a hard time once again believe you are commenting in good faith.
 
Cheers,
Bernard

I don’t agree that Sondland was not lying under oath.  In fact I believe the exact opposite.  He had to “ revise” his testimony three time.  He was a world class wreck of a witness...for both sides.  That he is your star witness is quite a tell.  His “ assessment” is meaningless.

Yes there is a need for an explicit statement of a Quid pro Quo.  Without one all you have is speculation and you want to impeach and remove a president with speculation? Trump would indeed have to explicitly state the desire for a Quid pro Quo if you want to impeach him for that charge.   He can’t just “will” it to happen.

Your analogy is fatally flawed.  As a witness he would have actually seen the murder.  I guess most objective people would conclude that to conflate the two situations would be stupid.  Sondland  did not witness the “murder”.  He did not hear the “murder”.  No one told him who was the “murderer”.  Sondland simply guessed who committed the “murder”

Actually Bernard, I’m having a hard time understanding why the facts mean so little to you.  Or what you consider to be facts.  Your thought process on this matter does seems irrationally driven.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 09:18:38 pm
Why do you think Republicans have been trying that super hard to convince the world against clear testimonies that there was no quid pro quo if a quid pro quo would have been legal? ;)

Cheers,
Bernard


Why do you think Democrats ... and you...are trying so hard to convince people there was a Quid pro Quo despite the lack of true facts that there was one?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 23, 2019, 09:29:52 pm
Why do you think Republicans have been trying that super hard to convince the world against clear testimonies that there was no quid pro quo if a quid pro quo would have been legal? ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

Because they say there was none.   If there was,  I believe it would be legal.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 23, 2019, 09:42:21 pm
Your analogy is fatally flawed.  As a witness he would have actually seen the murder.  I guess most objective people would conclude that to conflate the two situations would be stupid.  Sondland  did not witness the “murder”.  He did not hear the “murder”.  No one told him who was the “murderer”.  Sondland simply guessed who committed the “murder”

The Quid pro quo is a set of actions taken over a period of time. It's a slow and carefully planned crime, you may think of it as an arsenic poisoning rather than an emotional stabbing.

Sonderland saw the whole thing unfolding in front of his eyes. He joined some calls, heard stuff, did stuff.

His global assessment is that there was a quid pro quo and he made a clear testimony confirming his views.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 23, 2019, 09:58:00 pm
Because they say there was none.   If there was,  I believe it would be legal.

Lovely admission of your thinking process. ;)

Whatever narrative as long as the conclusion is that Trump is a victim...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 23, 2019, 09:59:56 pm
Honest show of hands... forget about legal or illegal, impeachable or not - who actually thinks Donald Trump wouldn't do exactly what he's accused of?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 10:14:46 pm
The Quid pro quo is a set of actions taken over a period of time. It's a slow and carefully planned crime, you may think of it as an arsenic poisoning rather than an emotional stabbing.

Sonderland saw the whole thing unfolding in front of his eyes. He joined some calls, heard stuff, did stuff.

His global assessment is that there was a quid pro quo and he made a clear testimony confirming his views.

Cheers,
Bernard

Sorry Bernard, it still takes a definite request from Trump for it to happen and for Trump to be impeached for it.  Sondlands  “assessment” is pretty much worthless as evidence that Trump demanded a Quid Pro Quo for aid and a meeting.

That’s the long and short of proving your case and you failed.

Welcome to reality. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 23, 2019, 10:22:51 pm
Such a transparent tactic.  When defeated declare victory and dismiss your opponent.   Great job Peter.

I was neither defeated, nor did I declare victory.  I simply gave up.  It appears that you are either incapable of, or reluctant to enage in, reasoned discussion.

Like you, another poster here attempted to lecture me in grade school physics and accused me of "declaring victory" when I gave up on him, too.

As I said previously, it's a waste of time and keystrokes.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 10:51:08 pm
I was neither defeated, nor did I declare victory.  I simply gave up.  It appears that you are either incapable of, or reluctant to enage in, reasoned discussion.

Like you, another poster here attempted to lecture me in grade school physics and accused me of "declaring victory" when I gave up on him, too.

As I said previously, it's a waste of time and keystrokes.


Well if those words make you feel better, have at it. 

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 23, 2019, 10:59:27 pm
Sorry Bernard, it still takes a definite request from Trump for it to happen and for Trump to be impeached for it.  Sondlands  “assessment” is pretty much worthless as evidence that Trump demanded a Quid Pro Quo for aid and a meeting.

That’s the long and short of proving your case and you failed.

Welcome to reality.

Have fun in the alternate one where you reside.

People are just tired of the condescending lawyerly talk.

Try to deform facts all you please, that's abusing fewer and fewer people as time passes by.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 23, 2019, 11:44:18 pm
Have fun in the alternate one where you reside.

People are just tired of the condescending lawyerly talk.

Try to deform facts all you please, that's abusing fewer and fewer people as time passes by.

Cheers,
Bernard

Translated from Bernardspeak...I have no facts, I can’t bluff anymore and I’ve lost the argument.  Time to run.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 24, 2019, 12:16:42 am
Of course not, if that's how you insist on describing the "crime".

Withholding congress-approved financial aid for personal reasons is the crime.

er, one of the crimes...



You say it was for personal reasons.  But the fact is Ukraine was to clean up its corruption, which it had not yet done  Even Obama demanded they clean it up.  With Zelensky being a new president, Trump was smart asking him to follow thru with previous promises made by earlier Ukrainian leaders.  Why should America give money to a corrupt nation?  Would you give money for services to a guy you doubted would fulfill his part of the deal?  Does Trump strike you as the kind of guy who gives away his money or the money he's responsible for?  You better perform if you want our money.  There's nothing wrong with demanding, yes a quid pro quo, that the other side perform before they get our taxpayer money.  Trump protected us with the costly Paris Agreement, NATO 2%, tariffs, etc.  He wanted Zelensky to promise he would follow through with investigation of corruption including Biden,  and publish his promise publicly to lock him in to his promises. Trump did not become a billionaire giving away money. The idea that the Democrats are now twisting that into something that they could try to justify impeachment is obscene.  It's just a continuation of three year witch hunt for impeachment long before anyone even heard of the Ukraine. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 24, 2019, 01:13:43 am
Translated from Bernardspeak...I have no facts, I can’t bluff anymore and I’ve lost the argument.  Time to run.

Needless to say, that's not how I look at the situation.

Your inputs have not changed in any meaningful way the strength of Sonderland's testimony. All you have demonstrated is how great questioning is able to spread some FUD.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 24, 2019, 03:40:39 am
Thanks for admitting you don't know the answer. 

So you don't know how long a President may "DELAY" ( note, that is not withholding - which is another point altogether)  the release of Aid, nor do you know if what he did was against the law.  Now its my understanding that the requirement is to notify Congress that he woud be canceling aid, but I'm happy to be shown incorrect on that point.

The long and short of it is you have nothing in this regard that is unlawful or impeachable. 

Just more posturing.

Dear me, please explain how one - even a president with brass halo - may delay without acually withholding. Kinda impossible, methinks. Either you deliver on time or you do not. If you do not, then you have withheld. Even using an American dictionary.

Sheesh!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on December 24, 2019, 04:14:46 am
You say it was for personal reasons.  But the fact is Ukraine was to clean up its corruption, which it had not yet done  Even Obama demanded they clean it up.  With Zelensky being a new president, Trump was smart asking him to follow thru with previous promises made by earlier Ukrainian leaders.  Why should America give money to a corrupt nation?  Would you give money for services to a guy you doubted would fulfill his part of the deal?  Does Trump strike you as the kind of guy who gives away his money or the money he's responsible for?  You better perform if you want our money.  There's nothing wrong with demanding, yes a quid pro quo, that the other side perform before they get our taxpayer money.  Trump protected us with the costly Paris Agreement, NATO 2%, tariffs, etc.  He wanted Zelensky to promise he would follow through with investigation of corruption including Biden,  and publish his promise publicly to lock him in to his promises. Trump did not become a billionaire giving away money. The idea that the Democrats are now twisting that into something that they could try to justify impeachment is obscene.  It's just a continuation of three year witch hunt for impeachment long before anyone even heard of the Ukraine.
Alan, sorry, but what are you talking about?


Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 24, 2019, 04:56:07 am
Right.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-reform-has-delivered-for-workers-11577045463

Tax Reform Has Delivered for Workers
Two years later the data show that investment has increased, with wages and job participation rising

And this is related, how? Wouldn't the investments have been made without taxbreaks? Where's the analysis of it?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 24, 2019, 05:01:03 am
Just to add some clarity...Cross of Sundland by Republican council.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XDCKRpLk4E

Having now had time to listen to this once again in details, the key fragment starts at 8:20-8:40 where he speaks of his email to Pompeo, then 19:10-19:20 when he clearly states that the conventional wisdom at the time (mid July) was that the investigation of the 2016 election and Barisma (although he mentions no explicit mention of Biden) were needed for the thing (the unlocking of the aid) to move forward, nobody including Bolton reacted to his statements.

Then the fragment between 29:30 and 30:30, when contrary to the intend of the Republican questioner, Sonderland clearly states that everybody up to the president himself was clearly involved in these discussions that were the main channel of communication about Ukraine.

Which means that the presumtion of Sonderland [that the freeing of the aid was conditioned by a declaration from Ukraine about an investigation] was confirmed by the non objection of key stakeholders including Bolton in July time frame and that these discussions were clearly fully known by all the chain of command up to Trump himself.

And again... we are talking here about the top diplomat of the US to the European Union, having been requested to devote special attention to Ukraine (which he confirmed), who has a clear and lasting presumption for 2 months that doesn't get challenged by any of the contacts he has with stakeholders. ;) It takes a very low level of honesty to consider this cross-examination a proof that there was no quid pro quo. If anything this fully confirms the clear impression from a key witness that there was one.

You've got to love the final smile of the questioner... I can't help but understand it as "good for you, you've been vague enough for your kids not to die in a car accident next month".

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 24, 2019, 05:07:59 am
.... People are just tired of the condescending lawyerly talk...

Yes.

When well-wishing, honest-to-God, decent, ethical do-gooders, like Bernard (and Democrats), accuse someone, no stinky lawyer should exist to muddy the clear waters of accusation with no stinky cross examination. The accused must prove himself innocent all by himself.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 24, 2019, 05:09:00 am
These semantic arguments about whether aid was "denied" or "withheld" are beneath contempt.

Indeed, people die because of it, and Putin was enboldend in his annexation attempts.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 24, 2019, 05:19:04 am
Yes.

When well-wishing, honest-to-God, decent, ethical do-gooders, like Bernard (and Democrats), accuse someone, no stinky lawyer should exist to muddy the clear waters of accusation with no stinky cross examination. The accused must prove himself innocent all by himself.

Not what I said. I am totally fine with the cross-examination. And I would love more witnesses to be cross-examined. If only that could happen.

What people are tired of is the muddy interpretations of these cross interviews proposed by the likes of Craig.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 24, 2019, 07:15:07 am
Needless to say, that's not how I look at the situation.

Cheers,
Bernard

That's one that always bugs me. If it's "needless to say", why are you saying it?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 24, 2019, 07:38:17 am
That's one that always bugs me. If it's "needless to say", why are you saying it?

Why not consider it a synonymous to “obviously”?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 24, 2019, 07:45:43 am
Yes there is a need for an explicit statement of a Quid pro Quo

How you fail to see a Quid pro Quo in the preconditioning of military support and financial help on the announcement of an inquiry (into a political opponent of Trump), is puzzling (to say the least).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 24, 2019, 08:23:12 am
Why not consider it a synonymous to “obviously”?

Cheers,
Bernard

Why not use "obviously"? "Needless to say" is a ridiculous preface if you then say what was needless to say.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 24, 2019, 08:42:42 am
Needless to say, that's not how I look at the situation.

Your inputs have not changed in any meaningful way the strength of Sonderland's testimony. All you have demonstrated is how great questioning is able to spread some FUD.

Cheers,
Bernard

Yep, you bought the fake news lock, stock and barrel.

I'm under no illusion that your mind could be changed even when you were presented with real facts.  Its very clear from your posts that you hate Trump with a passion.  You can't teach those who don't want to know.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 24, 2019, 08:44:56 am
Why not use "obviously"? "Needless to say" is a ridiculous preface if you then say what was needless to say.

I would say both are used as figures of speech for emphasis.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 24, 2019, 08:52:50 am
Having now had time to listen to this once again in details, the key fragment starts at 8:20-8:40 where he speaks of his email to Pompeo, then 19:10-19:20 when he clearly states that the conventional wisdom at the time (mid July) was that the investigation of the 2016 election and Barisma (although he mentions no explicit mention of Biden) were needed for the thing (the unlocking of the aid) to move forward, nobody including Bolton reacted to his statements.

Then the fragment between 29:30 and 30:30, when contrary to the intend of the Republican questioner, Sonderland clearly states that everybody up to the president himself was clearly involved in these discussions that were the main channel of communication about Ukraine.

Which means that the presumtion of Sonderland [that the freeing of the aid was conditioned by a declaration from Ukraine about an investigation] was confirmed by the non objection of key stakeholders including Bolton in July time frame and that these discussions were clearly fully known by all the chain of command up to Trump himself.

And again... we are talking here about the top diplomat of the US to the European Union, having been requested to devote special attention to Ukraine (which he confirmed), who has a clear and lasting presumption for 2 months that doesn't get challenged by any of the contacts he has with stakeholders. ;) It takes a very low level of honesty to consider this cross-examination a proof that there was no quid pro quo. If anything this fully confirms the clear impression from a key witness that there was one.

You've got to love the final smile of the questioner... I can't help but understand it as "good for you, you've been vague enough for your kids not to die in a car accident next month".

Cheers,
Bernard

Thanks for confirming that indeed Soudland had nothing but PRESUMPTION on which to base his claim of a Quid Pro Quo.  And of course that is the entire point.  He has no clue at all if Trump ordered a Quid Pro Quo.  He is only guessing.  And you want to impeach the President on a guess.  Amazing. 

This of course is why the Democrates are fearful of this case going to trial, because they have no real evidence.  If there case was ice on a lake there would be a big red flag stating "Danger Thin Ice! No Skating!"

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 24, 2019, 08:58:48 am
Dear me, please explain how one - even a president with brass halo - may delay without acually withholding. Kinda impossible, methinks. Either you deliver on time or you do not. If you do not, then you have withheld. Even using an American dictionary.

Sheesh!

Based on my  (admittedly slim) understanding on the rules governing the Aid granted by Congress, they must be informed if the President is doing to completely stop or never start Aid to a Country. It appears they do not need to be notified in the case of a delay, that is Aid will actual be given after some length of time.  That is the content of why we were discussing  the "words". Given that "withhold" may indeed be used to indicate a delay or a complete refusal may muddy the water a bit.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 24, 2019, 09:07:13 am
How you fail to see a Quid pro Quo in the preconditioning of military support and financial help on the announcement of an inquiry (into a political opponent of Trump), is puzzling (to say the least).

How can you fail to see that there is not a single piece of DIRECT PROOF that what you said was actually demanded by the President.

How can you fail to see that we have DIRECT EVIDENCE thst shows the President stating he did not WANT a Quid Pro Quo.

How can you fail to see that we have DIRECT EVIDENCE that shows the President of Ukraine stating he was not pressured into a Quid Pro Quo situation.

That you can't see this is puzzling (to say the least)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 24, 2019, 10:06:01 am
Indeed, people die because of it, and Putin was enboldend in his annexation attempts.
Excuse me Bart. But it's not your money.  It figures a Socialist European is so cavalier with other people's money.  We put all sorts of conditions on our money as your country and you do.  Turkey, an ally and NATO partner was cut off from receiving certain military aid when it bought Russian missisles.  It;s our money.  Conditions.  Quid pro quo.  Call it what you want.  ALl perfectly legal and expected until the Democrats and you decided to make it illegal because Trump is doing it.

The president is responsible for good stewardship of taxpayer money.  We use it as an incentive for foreign countries to work with us as partners.  It's not up to foreigners who don;t foot the cost to tell us how to spend our money.  Frankly, if the Ukraine steals our gifts and doesn;t use it as intended, then we should pull it totally and let them deal with the Russias by themselves.  We're not in the charity business.  If NATO countries don't pay their 2%, then we should pull out of NATO and let Europe deal with the Russians on their own as well.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 24, 2019, 10:28:39 am
Well, I suppose earning $50,000 a month in the Ukraine helped pay for the $2.5 million home.
It's a good thing that prosecutor was fired who was investigating the company he worked for there.  Good timing.  I wonder how that happened? 

Hunter Biden owns massive home in swanky Hollywood Hills, court docs reveal.
https://nypost.com/2019/12/24/hunter-biden-owns-massive-home-in-swanky-hollywood-hills-court-docs-reveal/ (https://nypost.com/2019/12/24/hunter-biden-owns-massive-home-in-swanky-hollywood-hills-court-docs-reveal/)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 24, 2019, 02:55:14 pm
How you fail to see a Quid pro Quo in the preconditioning of military support and financial help on the announcement of an inquiry (into a political opponent of Trump), is puzzling (to say the least).

Everybody is entitled to his opinion. Knowing something about the subject is optional.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 24, 2019, 05:07:48 pm
Everybody is entitled to his opinion. Knowing something about the subject is optional.

Exactly as with photography, art and sex!

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 24, 2019, 05:54:10 pm
Thanks for confirming that indeed Soudland had nothing but PRESUMPTION on which to base his claim of a Quid Pro Quo.  And of course that is the entire point.  He has no clue at all if Trump ordered a Quid Pro Quo.  He is only guessing.  And you want to impeach the President on a guess.  Amazing. 

This of course is why the Democrates are fearful of this case going to trial, because they have no real evidence.  If there case was ice on a lake there would be a big red flag stating "Danger Thin Ice! No Skating!"

I wonder if you have understood what I wrote as a result of a totally objective listening of the counter examination. Let me summarize it once more for you:
- in July time the common understanding among all the stakeholders was that the freeing of the aid was conditioned by the release of a statement by Ukraine that an investigation would be opened about Barisma
- among the closest colleborators of Trump, including Bolton, nobody objected to this understanding during meetings about this topic, therefore confirming this understanding, therefore confirming his presumption
- this group of people was confirmed to be the offiicial channel about Ukraine, involving Trump himself

So what Sonderland answered to the republican questioning is in essence “a group of people tightly connected to Trump confirmed that the freeing of aid was related to the Ukraine investigation of Barisma”. This isn’t guessing at all.

If that’s not good enough for you it shows that you have no understanding about the way sensitive diplomatic matters are handled. What is your personal level of experience dealing with diplomats if I may ask? Do you understand the way they speak? I prefer to ask because the English they use is very different from the one used in other professions such as photography and you may not be familiar with it.

But yes, Sonderland didn’t get a direct order from Trump, he just got the blessing from his first line. Who cares really. A President is accountable for what his first line does, is he not? Even if his first line did it without Trump knowing about it makes no difference at all. Trump picked his first line and they act on his behalf. CEOs resign when their first line messes up. It’s called accountability.

If you still disagree with what I wrote please point out accurately what you disagree with, because what I am writing here is 100% logical and honnest.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 24, 2019, 08:18:16 pm
I wonder if you have understood what I wrote as a result of a totally objective listening of the counter examination. Let me summarize it once more for you:
- in July time the common understanding among all the stakeholders was that the freeing of the aid was conditioned by the release of a statement by Ukraine that an investigation would be opened about Barisma
- among the closest colleborators of Trump, including Bolton, nobody objected to this understanding during meetings about this topic, therefore confirming this understanding, therefore confirming his presumption
- this group of people was confirmed to be the offiicial channel about Ukraine, involving Trump himself

So what Sonderland answered to the republican questioning is in essence “a group of people tightly connected to Trump confirmed that the freeing of aid was related to the Ukraine investigation of Barisma”. This isn’t guessing at all.

If that’s not good enough for you it shows that you have no understanding about the way sensitive diplomatic matters are handled. What is your personal level of experience dealing with diplomats if I may ask? Do you understand the way they speak? I prefer to ask because the English they use is very different from the one used in other professions such as photography and you may not be familiar with it.

But yes, Sonderland didn’t get a direct order from Trump, he just got the blessing from his first line. Who cares really. A President is accountable for what his first line does, is he not? Even if his first line did it without Trump knowing about it makes no difference at all. Trump picked his first line and they act on his behalf. CEOs resign when their first line messes up. It’s called accountability.

If you still disagree with what I wrote please point out accurately what you disagree with, because what I am writing here is 100% logical and honnest.

Cheers,
Bernard
But the Bidens appeared to have played the system to enrich themselves and should be investigated. They are not above the law because they are politicians any more than Trump is above the law because he is a politician.  Requiring the Ukraine to clean up their corruption including that with the Bidens is the responsible thing to do.  If there is political fallout, well, VP Biden was told there would be by his staff and others in the Obama administration,  But he did not recuse himself as a was told.  In fact, he went on to use his office to get the Ukrainian prosecutor fired allowing his son to continue to collect $50K a month.  So either VP Biden is a schmuck or he knew what he was doing helping the company his son worked for by getting the prosecutor fired.  You keep pointing to what Trump did.  But you don't explain why Biden should get away with corruption which would happen if Trump did not ask for an investigation.   

You seem to be a fair person, Bernard.  Don't you think someone should investigate the VP's action to see if there was corruption as there appears to be to ordinary people who look at the situation?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 24, 2019, 09:22:14 pm
What Biden or his son did or didn't do isn't material to what Trump did. There is no equivalence.  Stop trying to create some.

Biden wasn't the president. Neither did he withhold congressionally-approved military aid from a foreign power to aid his own election status.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 24, 2019, 10:19:15 pm
What Biden or his son did or didn't do isn't material to what Trump did. There is no equivalence.  Stop trying to create some.

Biden wasn't the president. Neither did he withhold congressionally-approved military aid from a foreign power to aid his own election status.
First, what I said was that Biden appears to have corrupted his office and should be investigated.  The president called for his investigation. Perfectly legal.  What you;re doing is getting into the mind of the president rather than looking whether his action is legal.  Especially since it was part of an overall call for investigation into Ukraine corruption that even the previous administration called for.

You can't prosecute people for what they think and they may think different things at the same time.  The question is whether his call for an investigation is legal.  Biden was stupid for opening himself up to an investigation by appearing to act corruptly.   This reminds be of the Muslim travel ban.  People opposed were saying he had it in for Muslims.  That Supreme Court didn;t look at that.  What they looked at were which of the actions he issued a presidential order were legal.  They didn't try to read his mind.  We don't do that in American jurisprudence except when we want to hang a politician.

Second, what Biden did is absolutely related to what the president did.  If Biden acting por appeared to act corruptly, then the president;s call for an investigation is correct and legal.  In a Senate trial, the Bidens will be called to testify.  OF course, they won;t.  So others will be called to testify about what Biden did to show that there was corruption on his part, a valid reason to ask for an investigation.  Regardless,  Biden will be hurt and his Democratic opponents are drooling over the senate trial in helping them defeat Biden for the nomination.  MAybe that's why Pelosi is holding up the transmittal of the impeachment to the Senate.  She's looking for a guarantee Biden won;t be called or involved.  Of course, McConnell won;t give that to her because he intends to bury Biden.  remember, the Republican can slant the process in the Senate as much as the Democrats slanted it in the House.    This is all about politics and who wins the presidency.  It had=s nothing to do with the Constitution, quid pro quos, or anything else your read about the impeachment.  That's just conversation. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 25, 2019, 02:03:00 am
... CEOs resign when their first line messes up...

And Japanese CEOs commit harakiri. Which must be your wet dream, when it comes to Trump  ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 25, 2019, 04:18:43 am
And Japanese CEOs commit harakiri. Which must be your wet dream, when it comes to Trump  ;)

But are they not "men of honour, or is that only an Italian concept? If it is, expect no changes any time soon.

Beautiful sunny day, this 2019 X'mas in Mallorca, so no snaps this time round. But boy, it was cold last night!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KK6sMo8NBY

Love that girl.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 25, 2019, 05:37:58 am
And Japanese CEOs commit harakiri. Which must be your wet dream, when it comes to Trump  ;)

That’s gone out of fashion, nowadays they leave with a thick and contractual package.

I would be fine with a substantial bonus for Trump to. ;) Especially since it won’t come from my taxes.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on December 25, 2019, 06:08:29 am
So what Sonderland answered to the republican questioning is in essence “a group of people tightly connected to Trump confirmed that the freeing of aid was related to the Ukraine investigation of Barisma”. This isn’t guessing at all.

It is, however, what is known as hearsay. It is admissible as evidence that that's what the the "group of people tightly connected to Trump" said, but not as evidence that what they said was in fact the case. That's the position in English law, at least. It may be different in the US.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 25, 2019, 06:55:54 am
It's not different in the U.S.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on December 25, 2019, 06:58:58 am
It would be enlightening to hear Zelenski's view on the matter; but that will not happen.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 25, 2019, 07:47:10 am
It would be enlightening to hear Zelenski's view on the matter; but that will not happen.

Didn’t he actually say that he didn’t feel pressured or quid pro quo?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 25, 2019, 08:56:11 am
And Japanese CEOs commit harakiri. Which must be your wet dream, when it comes to Trump  ;)
When we screw up in America, we file for bankruptcy.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: DP on December 25, 2019, 09:16:39 am
If NATO countries don't pay their 2%
btw, why 2% ? they either shall match USA spending on defense or f$$$k off
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 25, 2019, 09:27:12 am
It is, however, what is known as hearsay. It is admissible as evidence that that's what the the "group of people tightly connected to Trump" said, but not as evidence that what they said was in fact the case. That's the position in English law, at least. It may be different in the US.

Jeremy
There are Federal exceptions to hearsay.  See link. But I don't think the Sondland situation would fall under them since the President never told these people there's a quid pro quo.
http://jec.unm.edu/education/online-training/stalking-tutorial/hearsay-exceptions (http://jec.unm.edu/education/online-training/stalking-tutorial/hearsay-exceptions)

What's interesting is that all the links we copy into our posts to "prove" our points are hearsay because no one can cross examine the writers of the articles.  There's no way anyone can know the truth or accuracy of the linked articles.  All  of us try to impress the others with hearsay info which would never be allowed under American or apparently English law. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 25, 2019, 09:33:21 am
"Then Existing Mental, Emotional or Physical Condition" certainly applies to the Democrats who were testifying --  especially their mental condition.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on December 25, 2019, 09:38:00 am
Didn’t he actually say that he didn’t feel pressured or quid pro quo?
sources?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 25, 2019, 09:39:52 am
btw, why 2% ? they either shall match USA spending on defense or f$$$k off
NATO countries including the US in 2014 agreed that each country would spend a minimum of 2% of their GDP for defence by 2024.  I don't have a problem with the fact we spend a higher percentage.  After all, our defense expenditures cover geographic areas other than the defense of Europe's NATO countries. 

Frankly, I wonder the value of NATO today.  Europe is rich and could afford to defend themselves.  The Soviet Union is gone.  What are we there for?  Sometimes I think our policy makers figure we're there not to defend against Russia.  But rather to prevent another war among the European nations.  They do have  a habit of starting wars among themselves after all.   :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 25, 2019, 09:40:42 am
sources?
Sources would be hearsay.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 25, 2019, 09:44:07 am
"Then Existing Mental, Emotional or Physical Condition" certainly applies to the Democrats who were testifying --  especially their mental condition.
That's not hearsay.  I know they're crazy.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 25, 2019, 09:46:24 am
sources?
Here's a source that Zelensky said there was no quid pro quo.  Proof!  Well, hearsay proof.  :)
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/zelensky-criticizes-withholding-aid-claims-no-quid-pro-quo.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 25, 2019, 10:02:20 am
sources?

From a magazine obviously not friendly to Trump:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/zelensky-criticizes-withholding-aid-claims-no-quid-pro-quo.html

Quote
”Look, I never talked to the president from the position of a quid pro quo,” Zelensky said.

Quote
Then he insisted that “nobody pushed me.”



Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 25, 2019, 10:33:17 am
btw, why 2% ? they either shall match USA spending on defense or f$$$k off


1.  Because 2% of what you have hurts equally;

2.   because nobody else has the money to spend that America does;

3.   because it suits American interests to have some of its rockets and early warning systems ensconced in NATO countries;

4.   because those extra minutes may give the POTUS time to get airborne and somewhere else.

Anything else you'd like me to add? You do know there a rocking chair on the moon?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=scR1qiAcKBo

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 25, 2019, 10:33:29 am
Thank you for your summary Bernard, but it appears the subject we are discussing is beyond your ken.  Lets see if it’s possible for you to become enlightened.

First lets describe what the process is going forward in respect to impeaching President Trump.

1.   The House must make its case for impeachment before the Senate based upon the charges and evidence they have gathered and documented in their Impeachment report.  This is the hand they have to play.  Nothing more,  Unless the Senate grants them the ability to call even more witnesses. They must make their case with this evidence.
2.   These House manages must convince 67 Senators that the evidence they have gathered is strong enough to convict Trump of demanding a Quid Pro Quo for the release of the aid and a White House meeting – and doing so for PERSONAL GAIN. 
3.   The President or his attorneys will be allowed to mount a defense against these charges.  They will be allowed to poke holes in the testimony of the House’s witnesses.  They need to only convince 34 Senators that reasonable doubt exists to such an extent that they exonerate the President of the charges.
4.   The Senators may or may not be allowed to ask questions either verbally or in writing as dictated by the rules the Senate may enact to govern the proceedings.  Only 51 Senators are required to approve the rules package for the trial.
5.   This will be a decidedly lawyerly proceeding.  Most likely the house manages will be attorneys.  Most likely the White House defense team will be attorneys.  The proceedings will be presided over by a Supreme Court Justice…an attorney.  A good number of the Senators who will be the “Jurors” are attorneys.
6.   Even though this is not a criminal trial, but rather a political one, it will most likely be argued and judged based on criminal or civil law standards, and the burden of proof such a trial demand.

The long and short of all of this is the QUALITY and RELIABILITY of the evidence is really going to matter. What the House will need to prove is that Trump ordered this Quid Pro Quo and the only reason for doing so was for this personal gain.
 
Now let see how your “understanding” fits the criteria described above.

I wonder if you have understood what I wrote as a result of a totally objective listening of the counter examination. Let me summarize it once more for you:
in July time the common understanding among all the stakeholders was that the freeing of the aid was conditioned by the release of a statement by Ukraine that an investigation would be opened about Barisma

A Common Understanding is not proof that Trump ordered a Quid pro Quo.  At the very best it’s Presumption.  Not a single player in this group made a statement that they knew of or heard of Trump making this demand.  To the contrary, many spoke of asking why the aid was withheld and not receiving an answer.  This is big time loser for the House team.

- among the closest colleborators of Trump, including Bolton, nobody objected to this understanding during meetings about this topic, therefore confirming this understanding, therefore confirming his presumption
- this group of people was confirmed to be the offiicial channel about Ukraine, involving Trump himself

What a convoluted piece of logic.  No one said no, so they must have meant yes.  And that means Trump made the demand.  My oh my.  This one gets you laughed right out of court.  If this is the main trust of your argument, you have dealt yourself a death blow…and handed me a win.  Great work Bernard.

So what Sonderland answered to the republican questioning is in essence “a group of people tightly connected to Trump confirmed that the freeing of aid was related to the Ukraine investigation of Barisma”. This isn’t guessing at all.

But that’s not what happened at all.  No one confirmed that Trump ordered the Quid Pro Quo for personal gain.  Let me repeat that so it might have a chance to sink in.  NO ONE CONFIRMED that Trump ordered a Quid Pro Quo for personal gain.

What Sondland said that it was a PRESUMPTION. And he repeated this many times over. He had NO personal contact with Trump that confirmed it, and in fact Trump told him he want NO Quid Pro Quo.  And no one TOLD Sondland or any of the other House witnesses that they heard  or witnessed Trump  ordering a Quid Pro Quo.

Remember this is a trial.  A trial by attorneys for attorneys and most likely governed by legal rules standards.  This testimony might not even be allowed to see the light of day in a trial because it holds no true evidentiary value.


If that’s not good enough for you it shows that you have no understanding about the way sensitive diplomatic matters are handled. What is your personal level of experience dealing with diplomats if I may ask? Do you understand the way they speak? I prefer to ask because the English they use is very different from the one used in other professions such as photography and you may not be familiar with it.

Oh please, climb down off your high horse and put it in the stable. Be careful not to step in the horse dung you are flinging about. I might just be a Trump liking, deplorable Midwestern photographer, but I’m capable of understanding the language spoken by these people in the course of their testimony.  And lets be very clear here. Soudland is not a “diplomat”.  He is the owner of a chain of Hotels…a businessman.  And I speak businessman.

But yes, Sonderland didn’t get a direct order from Trump, he just got the blessing from his first line. Who cares really. A President is accountable for what his first line does, is he not? Even if his first line did it without Trump knowing about it makes no difference at all. Trump picked his first line and they act on his behalf. CEOs resign when their first line messes up. It’s called accountability.

This shows the complete intellectual dishonest of your position.  Sondland got the “blessing” from no one.  He received no order to carry out a Quid Pro Quo. In fact he was told point blank there was no Quid Pro Quo.  Who cares?  Sheesh. This is a trial to convict and remove the duly elected … sitting…. President of the United States.  It’s the most severe form of punishment that can be inflicted on a sitting President. As such it requires well founded charges backed by unimpeachable evidence.   Evidence that proves unequivocally that the President is guilty of committing the specifics of the charge.  In Bernardland, all that takes it seems is conjecture, innuendo and presumption.  Thank goodness I don’t live there.

If you still disagree with what I wrote please point out accurately what you disagree with, because what I am writing here is 100% logical and honnest.

Cheers,
Bernard

I think that should cover it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 25, 2019, 10:51:59 am

1.  Because 2% of what you have hurts equally;

2.   because nobody else has the money to spend that America does;

3.   because it suits American interests to have some of its rockets and early warning systems ensconced in NATO countries;

4.   because those extra minutes may give the POTUS time to get airborne and somewhere else.

Anything else you'd like me to add? You do know there a rocking chair on the moon?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=scR1qiAcKBo

:-)
2. America doesn;t have the money that America spends.  We print it or borrow to the tune of $1 trillion this year.  During the next financial crisis, America will reduce its military budget changing the way we handle NATO responsibilities and driving up Europe's share for their own defense.
3.  American missiles and radar in Europe protect Europe as well.  That's the whole point of NATO.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 25, 2019, 11:10:14 am
Thank you for your summary Bernard, but it appears the subject we are discussing is beyond your ken.  Lets see if it’s possible for you to become enlightened.

First lets describe what the process is going forward in respect to impeaching President Trump.

1.   The House must make its case for impeachment before the Senate based upon the charges and evidence they have gathered and documented in their Impeachment report.  This is the hand they have to play.  Nothing more,  Unless the Senate grants them the ability to call even more witnesses. They must make their case with this evidence.
2.   These House manages must convince 67 Senators that the evidence they have gathered is strong enough to convict Trump of demanding a Quid Pro Quo for the release of the aid and a White House meeting – and doing so for PERSONAL GAIN. 
3.   The President or his attorneys will be allowed to mount a defense against these charges.  They will be allowed to poke holes in the testimony of the House’s witnesses.  They need to only convince 34 Senators that reasonable doubt exists to such an extent that they exonerate the President of the charges.
4.   The Senators may or may not be allowed to ask questions either verbally or in writing as dictated by the rules the Senate may enact to govern the proceedings.  Only 51 Senators are required to approve the rules package for the trial.
5.   This will be a decidedly lawyerly proceeding.  Most likely the house manages will be attorneys.  Most likely the White House defense team will be attorneys.  The proceedings will be presided over by a Supreme Court Justice…an attorney.  A good number of the Senators who will be the “Jurors” are attorneys.
6.   Even though this is not a criminal trial, but rather a political one, it will most likely be argued and judged based on criminal or civil law standards, and the burden of proof such a trial demand.

The long and short of all of this is the QUALITY and RELIABILITY of the evidence is really going to matter. What the House will need to prove is that Trump ordered this Quid Pro Quo and the only reason for doing so was for this personal gain.
 
Now let see how your “understanding” fits the criteria described above.

A Common Understanding is not proof that Trump ordered a Quid pro Quo.  At the very best it’s Presumption.  Not a single player in this group made a statement that they knew of or heard of Trump making this demand.  To the contrary, many spoke of asking why the aid was withheld and not receiving an answer.  This is big time loser for the House team.

What a convoluted piece of logic.  No one said no, so they must have meant yes.  And that means Trump made the demand.  My oh my.  This one gets you laughed right out of court.  If this is the main trust of your argument, you have dealt yourself a death blow…and handed me a win.  Great work Bernard.

But that’s not what happened at all.  No one confirmed that Trump ordered the Quid Pro Quo for personal gain.  Let me repeat that so it might have a chance to sink in.  NO ONE CONFIRMED that Trump ordered a Quid Pro Quo for personal gain.

What Sondland said that it was a PRESUMPTION. And he repeated this many times over. He had NO personal contact with Trump that confirmed it, and in fact Trump told him he want NO Quid Pro Quo.  And no one TOLD Sondland or any of the other House witnesses that they heard  or witnessed Trump  ordering a Quid Pro Quo.

Remember this is a trial.  A trial by attorneys for attorneys and most likely governed by legal rules standards.  This testimony might not even be allowed to see the light of day in a trial because it holds no true evidentiary value.


Oh please, climb down off your high horse and put it in the stable. Be careful not to step in the horse dung you are flinging about. I might just be a Trump liking, deplorable Midwestern photographer, but I’m capable of understanding the language spoken by these people in the course of their testimony.  And lets be very clear here. Soudland is not a “diplomat”.  He is the owner of a chain of Hotels…a businessman.  And I speak businessman.

This shows the complete intellectual dishonest of your position.  Sondland got the “blessing” from no one.  He received no order to carry out a Quid Pro Quo. In fact he was told point blank there was no Quid Pro Quo.  Who cares?  Sheesh. This is a trial to convict and remove the duly elected … sitting…. President of the United States.  It’s the most severe form of punishment that can be inflicted on a sitting President. As such it requires well founded charges backed by unimpeachable evidence.   Evidence that proves unequivocally that the President is guilty of committing the specifics of the charge.  In Bernardland, all that takes it seems is conjecture, innuendo and presumption.  Thank goodness I don’t live there.

I think that should cover it.

\Craig, While I agree with all your points, I don;t agree with the thrust.  The American people are not lawyers.  They don;t understand hearsay eveidence.  Plus, the media will be biasing the presentation against Trump. 

You have to make the whole process easy to understand for the average American.  Here it is.

Trump called for an investigation of Ukrainian corruption just as Obama did.  The Bidens are involved with Ukrainian corruption so Trump called for their investigation as well. The Bidens are crooks because his son took $50K for a no-show job with a corrupt Ukrainian company.  VP Biden got the prosecutor fired who was investigating his son;s company.  Case closed.

You see, it's the Biden's corruption that helped drive Trump's call for the investigation.  Ignoring that part of it is a loser because it's the thing that supports Trump call for the investigation.  Without it, it looks like Trump called for an investigation for personal, political reasons.  So Bidens' corruption or apparent corruption is key.  It also has the additional benefit of helping to eliminate Joe Biden as a Democrat nominee, which probably is Trump's most dangerous competitor for the 2020 election.  The Senate trial should be used by Republicans to destroy Biden as payback for the Democrats using impeachment to try to destroy Trump.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 25, 2019, 12:49:23 pm
First, what I said was that Biden appears to have corrupted his office and should be investigated.  The president called for his investigation. Perfectly legal. 

Agreed.

What wasn't perfectly legal was withholding the congressionally-approved aid in return for the investigation. 

(or, apparently, just the mere announcement of same)


.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 25, 2019, 01:03:42 pm
Agreed.

What wasn't perfectly legal was withholding the congressionally-approved aid in return for the investigation. 

(or, apparently, just the mere announcement of same)


.

Wrong again Peter.  This is really hard for you it seems.  If that actually happened ( and there is no proof that it did) Trump would be perfectly justified and legallly allow to do so, provided it was not for HIS PERSONAL GAIN ONLY.  So if you want to claim it was not perectly legal you will need to prove that there was no national interest in investigating the 2016 election interference and the Biden issues.  Thats going to be really tough for you to do. 

I suggest you do some in depth investigation into what has been happening for years in Ukraine, especially how over 5 billion in aid has simply vanished from the public coffers and was funneled back to the US and into the pockets of a whole bunch of people including some connected to some very high ranking public officials.  Just a word of warning. Other than a few pieces about the Bidens a few years ago, the MSM has been missing in action.  You will neeed to dig much deeper ...if you dare.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on December 25, 2019, 01:27:53 pm
2.   These House manages must convince 67 Senators that the evidence they have gathered is strong enough to convict Trump of demanding a Quid Pro Quo for the release of the aid and a White House meeting – and doing so for PERSONAL GAIN.
No quid pro quo is required to prove abuse of power. The ask is enough.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 25, 2019, 01:54:14 pm
Wrong again Peter.  This is really hard for you it seems.  If that actually happened ( and there is no proof that it did) Trump would be perfectly justified and legallly allow to do so, provided it was not for HIS PERSONAL GAIN ONLY.  So if you want to claim it was not perectly legal you will need to prove that there was no national interest in investigating the 2016 election interference and the Biden issues.  Thats going to be really tough for you to do. 

I suggest you do some in depth investigation into what has been happening for years in Ukraine, especially how over 5 billion in aid has simply vanished from the public coffers and was funneled back to the US and into the pockets of a whole bunch of people including some connected to some very high ranking public officials.  Just a word of warning. Other than a few pieces about the Bidens a few years ago, the MSM has been missing in action.  You will neeed to dig much deeper ...if you dare.
Wouldn't it be something if there were a whole bunch of American politicians who got Kickbacks besides the Biden's from Ukrainian money that was sent over there? Maybe that's why Pelosi is holding up the impeachment because it might come out and she was told she better hold up on this whole thing because a lot of Democrats and Republicans are going to get burned by this whole thing. Now that would be an imppeachment news story. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 25, 2019, 01:57:05 pm
No quid pro quo is required to prove abuse of power. The ask is enough.
There's no such crime as an abuse of power.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on December 25, 2019, 02:01:28 pm
There's no such crime as an abuse of power.
You don't need a violation of a criminal statute. Abuse of power is sufficient for impeachment.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 25, 2019, 02:10:13 pm
You don't need a violation of a criminal statute. Abuse of power is sufficient for impeachment.
You've been watching CNN or MSNBC too much.   The Democrats have been trying to impeach for  years.   So now they claim abuse of power is enough.   But there is no crime as abuse of power.   The crime must be Treason,  Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  A Crime.  And it must be a High Crime similar in seriousness to Treason or Bribery.   
It can't be for holding up funds to a foreign Nation or spitting on the street or spending too much time at the golf course. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 25, 2019, 02:21:59 pm
No quid pro quo is required to prove abuse of power. The ask is enough.

You have to prove his ask was in fact it dependant on a Quid Pro Quo.  Then you need to prove That the Quid Pro Quo , if it happened , was only for personal gain and had no national interest. Asking for a Quid Pro Que is perfectly  legal
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on December 25, 2019, 03:56:12 pm
You've been watching CNN or MSNBC too much.   The Democrats have been trying to impeach for  years.   So now they claim abuse of power is enough.   But there is no crime as abuse of power.   The crime must be Treason,  Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  A Crime.  And it must be a High Crime similar in seriousness to Treason or Bribery.   
It can't be for holding up funds to a foreign Nation or spitting on the street or spending too much time at the golf course.
You are not up on your constitutional law. It's understandable because neither is Fox News.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on December 25, 2019, 03:57:08 pm
You have to prove his ask was in fact it dependant on a Quid Pro Quo.  Then you need to prove That the Quid Pro Quo , if it happened , was only for personal gain and had no national interest. Asking for a Quid Pro Que is perfectly  legal.
Nope. No quid pro quo required.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 25, 2019, 04:44:37 pm
Nope. No quid pro quo required.

Ok.  So where does that leave you ?  You are still left with trying to prove the ask was only for personal gain and has no national interest.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 25, 2019, 05:18:34 pm
Has anyone asked any of the Democratic candidates for president if they think it would be fair to ask Biden to testify to swear his innocence so Trump has a better possibility of being convicted in the Senate?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 25, 2019, 05:19:53 pm
Ok.  So where does that leave you ?  You are still left with trying to prove the ask was only for personal gain and has no national interest.

I understand your point but it's not really that much of a reach in this case, is it?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 25, 2019, 05:21:22 pm
Has anyone asked any of the Democratic candidates for president if they think it would be fair to ask Biden to testify to swear his innocence so Trump has a better possibility of being convicted in the Senate?

Have there been any moves toward investigating Biden(s) by either the White House or the Senate? Seems like they've had ample time to start one.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 25, 2019, 05:39:06 pm
I understand your point but it's not really that much of a reach in this case, is it?
Trump can walk and chew gum at the same time just like the Democrats.  The Dems are trying to personally destroy Trump's chances for re-election.  But they have to find some nexus to a crime so they can justify the impeachment.  Trump is doing the same thing.  Biden gave him an opening by acting stupidly and getting involved firing the prosecutor who was investigating his son;s company.  So Trump can claim it's perfectly legal, and it is, while at the same time getting personal political benefit from the appearance Biden commited a crime.  Both sides are doing the same thing.  Democrats don't care about the constitution and Trump doesn't care about Biden's guilt.  It's all about power politics. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 25, 2019, 05:49:25 pm
I understand your point but it's not really that much of a reach in this case, is it?

Sure it is.  2016 election interference is a slam dunk for Trump.  Binet is not a hard case to make for Trump either.  Imagine the Dems trying to pretend they can get inside Trumps thinking to prove his intentions.  In any case it would not be that hard to argue the Ukraine corruption including the Bidens is in the national interest.  Why do you think the Dem have tried so hard to push the qpq aspect?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 25, 2019, 06:04:20 pm
Have there been any moves toward investigating Biden(s) by either the White House or the Senate? Seems like they've had ample time to start one.

Graham has stated he will be bring the Bidens before the Judicial  committee after impeachment is finished in the Senate

I’ve also read but have not confirmed that five members of the former Ukraine government have been trying to come to the US to talk about corruption.  They were supposedly denied visas by Amb Yovanovitch and Amb Taylor.

I can’t prove beyond a doubt but there is lots of talk and evidence that covers members of both parties in high places here with major connections to the Ukraine corruption.  Lots and lots of billions have gone missing and a lot of folks may have help with laundering it or fond ways to take it for themselves.   Again you gotta look outside the main stream news to find this stuff and of course it needs to be taken with the appropriate caution.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 25, 2019, 07:35:15 pm
This shows the complete intellectual dishonest of your position.  Sondland got the “blessing” from no one.  He received no order to carry out a Quid Pro Quo. In fact he was told point blank there was no Quid Pro Quo.  Who cares?  Sheesh. This is a trial to convict and remove the duly elected … sitting…. President of the United States.  It’s the most severe form of punishment that can be inflicted on a sitting President. As such it requires well founded charges backed by unimpeachable evidence.   Evidence that proves unequivocally that the President is guilty of committing the specifics of the charge.

I apologize, you have also failed to convince me of your honesty on this matter.

Because Sunderland clearly did get a blessing from the first line of Trump, without the shadow of a doubt. And the logic linking an pre-existing view about a quid pro quo and it's non denial by key aids of Trump isn't convoluted at all, it is crystal clear.

Anyway, I have lost hope for a frank conversation on this, you are obviously entranched in your position for whatever political motive.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 25, 2019, 08:00:33 pm
I apologize, you have also failed to convince me of your honesty on this matter.

Because Sunderland clearly did get a blessing from the first line of Trump, without the shadow of a doubt. And the logic linking an pre-existing view about a quid pro quo and it's non denial by key aids of Trump isn't convoluted at all, it is crystal clear.

Anyway, I have lost hope for a frank conversation on this, you are obviously entranched in your position for whatever political motive.

Cheers,
Bernard

Oh my, you really are grasping at straws.  Your logic is flawed, your deductions are faulty and your worldview is warping your opinions.

Yes, it’s best you move along.  This is not going well for you.  Maybe you will have better luck trying to convince anyone who will listen that Nikon rules the roost.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 25, 2019, 08:04:05 pm
Oh my, you really are grasping at straws.  Your logic is flawed, your deductions are faulty and your worldview is warping your opinions.

Yes, it’s best you move along.  This is not going well for you.  Maybe you will have better luck trying to convince anyone who will listen that Nikon rules the roost.

Whatever works for you Craig.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 25, 2019, 08:04:49 pm
Imagine the Dems trying to pretend they can get inside Trumps thinking to prove his intentions.

You keep insisting that [prosecutor] can never establish [motive] without [defendant] confessing to [witness] the exact shady reason why he/she committed the act under examination. 

That’s not how it works, and this (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W2G2sac9s34) pretty much never happens.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 25, 2019, 08:13:49 pm
You keep insisting that [prosecutor] can never establish [motive] without [defendant] confessing to [witness] the exact shady reason why he/she committed the act under examination. 

That’s not how it works, and this (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W2G2sac9s34) pretty much never happens.

 Sorry but you gotta have proof.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  In this case you can’t read Trumps mind,   And inference surely is not going to cut it for at least 34 Senators.  The “prosecutor” in this case..the House...has already made its case.  Unless they somehow convince the Senate to allow them to call more witnesses ( don’t bet the farm on that happening ) their case is set.  Needless to say they have a pretty poor case to present as it pertains to Trumps mindset.  And that of course is why they are seemingly in a state. Of panic over a trial in the Senate.  The defense is going to cut them to ribbons. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 25, 2019, 08:15:51 pm
Whatever works for you Craig.

Cheers,
Bernard

It appears your logic is once again faulty...it’s not about me Bernard, it’s about you.   I’m still here, ready to continue.  But I do understand why you prefer to disengage.  This is going very poorly for you.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 25, 2019, 08:18:16 pm
You keep insisting that [prosecutor] can never establish [motive] without [defendant] confessing to [witness] the exact shady reason why he/she committed the act under examination. 

That’s not how it works, and this (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W2G2sac9s34) pretty much never happens.

Indeed, this is another example of the flawed logic that Trump supporters need to deploy to stay afloat.

What's unclear is whether he is convinced that he is making sense or whether he is fully aware of the wickedness of his thinking. Unfortunately I lean towards the latter based on his latest comments. Which would mean that conversing with him is simply a waste of time.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 25, 2019, 08:19:25 pm
This is going very poorly for you.

Keep writing it Craig, you may at least convince yourself. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 25, 2019, 08:22:00 pm
Sorry but you gotta have proof.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  In this case you can’t read Trumps mind,   And inference surely is not going to cut it for at least 34 Senators.  The “prosecutor” in this case..the House...has already made its case.  Unless they somehow convince the Senate to allow them to call more witnesses ( don’t bet the farm on that happening ) their case is set.  Needless to say they have a pretty poor case to present as it pertains to Trumps mindset.  And that of course is why they are seemingly in a state. Of panic over a trial in the Senate.  The defense is going to cut them to ribbons.

Would you agree Craig that having testimony from the first line of Trump is becoming absolutely essential now?

We know from Sonderland testimony and counter examination that the first line of Trump confirmed the relevance of the Quid Pro quo in July time frame.

I share your view that we don't have direct proof that Trump requested Sonderland to support the Quid Pro Quo.

Anyone truly seeking the truth should therefore want Bolton and his friends to testify, right?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 25, 2019, 08:36:07 pm
Would you agree Craig that having testimony from the first line of Trump is becoming absolutely essential now?

We know from Sonderland testimony and counter examination that the first line of Trump confirmed the relevance of the Quid Pro quo in July time frame.

I share your view that we don't have direct proof that Trump requested Sonderland to support the Quid Pro Quo.

Anyone truly seeking the truth should therefore want Bolton and his friends to testify, right?

Cheers,
Bernard

Well why don’t we have that testimony Bernard?  it’s up to the House to seek and obtain that testimony.  They decided they didn’t need it.  No time to wait and all that rot.   But the irony is that Bolton, who was under subpoena when to court to try and get a judge to tell him if he could testify.  He stated he wanted to come.  And then Shiff withdrew the subpoena.  So if you want this testimony...go tell it to the Dems. Seems they really didn’t even want it.  I wonder why?.


We DON’T know from Sondland’s testimony and counter examination that the first line of Trump confirmed the relevance of the Quid Pro quo in July time frame.  You made that up from whole cloth.   The fact is Sondland never did get an answer as to WHY the aid was withheld.  And that destroys your silly no means yes theory.

I have no problem with Bolton.  But you need to take this one up with the Dems...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 25, 2019, 09:21:44 pm
Sorry but you gotta have proof.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  In this case you can’t read Trumps mind,   And inference surely is not going to cut it for at least 34 Senators.  The “prosecutor” in this case..the House...has already made its case.  Unless they somehow convince the Senate to allow them to call more witnesses ( don’t bet the farm on that happening ) their case is set.  Needless to say they have a pretty poor case to present as it pertains to Trumps mindset.  And that of course is why they are seemingly in a state. Of panic over a trial in the Senate.  The defense is going to cut them to ribbons.

You’ve moved the goalposts though...  Up to this point you’ve been insisting that it’s impossible to divine Trump’s intent without a direct admission from Trump himself, which is simply not correct.

Now you’re shifting to a different assertion - that THIS senate would never convict / remove THIS president without direct admission of guilt. And I concur - though I suspect that Trump himself could appear and admit he “ordered the code red” for no other reason than to torpedo Biden and the Senate still wouldn’t convict.

But of course this is a reflection of the Trump base, their hold on the party, and their irrationality, as opposed to any inherent problem with the Democrats or the case against Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 25, 2019, 09:24:58 pm
Well why don’t we have that testimony Bernard?  it’s up to the House to seek and obtain that testimony.  They decided they didn’t need it.  No time to wait and all that rot.   But the irony is that Bolton, who was under subpoena when to court to try and get a judge to tell him if he could testify.  He stated he wanted to come.  And then Shiff withdrew the subpoena.  So if you want this testimony...go tell it to the Dems. Seems they really didn’t even want it.

Yep - This is probably the most incomprehensible thing the Dems have done during this process.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 25, 2019, 10:01:26 pm
You’ve moved the goalposts though...  Up to this point you’ve been insisting that it’s impossible to divine Trump’s intent without a direct admission from Trump himself, which is simply not correct.

Now you’re shifting to a different assertion - that THIS senate would never convict / remove THIS president without direct admission of guilt. And I concur - though I suspect that Trump himself could appear and admit he “ordered the code red” for no other reason than to torpedo Biden and the Senate still wouldn’t convict.

But of course this is a reflection of the Trump base, their hold on the party, and their irrationality, as opposed to any inherent problem with the Democrats or the case against Trump.

No, if you refer to my long post to Bernard, my context has been about what the Senate would do with the evidence presented.  The goalposts have not moved an inch.

And the statement not being able Devine Trumps intent without him expressing it.  You can’t read his mind., he has to tell it to someone, or write it if you wish before you could actually know his intent.  But if you wish to explain how we could know what his true intent might be with his expression of that intent, please try.

I must disagree that there is no inherent problems with the Democrats case against Trump.  They have one huge problem and that’s lack of a case at all.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 25, 2019, 10:43:16 pm
We DON’T know from Sondland’s testimony and counter examination that the first line of Trump confirmed the relevance of the Quid Pro quo in July time frame.  You made that up from whole cloth.   The fact is Sondland never did get an answer as to WHY the aid was withheld.  And that destroys your silly no means yes theory.

You have not listened to his answers carefully enough Craig. Or you have and don't want to draw the obvious conclusions not matching your narrative. Either way, it's 100% clear.

I have no problem with Bolton.  But you need to take this one up with the Dems...

If that's the case, and I have not checked this and am unfortunately not sure I can trust your claims, then it's indeed a mistake on their part.

Cheers,
Bernard

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 25, 2019, 10:59:39 pm
You have not listened to his answers carefully enough Craig. Or you have and don't want to draw the obvious conclusions not matching your narrative. Either way, it's 100% clear.

If that's the case, and I have not checked this and am unfortunately not sure I can trust your claims, then it's indeed a mistake on their part.

Cheers,
Bernard

So why don’t you quote the passage.  And then I’ll quote the passage and the context where Soudland never got a clear answer as to why the aid was not being delivered.  It’s really quite clear Bernard and if you can’t deal with that reality no one can help you.

This is not about reaching conclusions, your presumptions are really meaningless.  Show us some actual facts.  Like when Sondland was told there was a QPQ for aid.  Or better yet some real fact that shows Trump was only interested in himself and not the country.  I would really appreciate someone bringing this fact forward as evidence of Trumps Abuse of Power.  It would be enlightening to be sure.

Btw, I just this evening listened to the cross of Sondland in its entirety.  Your are simply making up,your claims from whole cloth. That is very clear.

But hey.  Post the testimony you claim makes your point.  Let’s see if it really says what you say it does.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 25, 2019, 11:26:26 pm
Yep - This is probably the most incomprehensible thing the Dems have done during this process.
What if the Dems realized that Bolton would just say that Trump did not want a quid pro quo?  That all Trump wanted was Ukraine to clean up the corruption regarding the 2016 campaign including the apparent corruption of Biden.  That would blow their argument against Trump and hurt their leader Biden as well.  They wanted the impeachment regardless.  After all, they know they are going to lose in the Senate in any case.  The whole point is just to smear Trump by impeaching him.  The facts and evidence, be damned.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 25, 2019, 11:45:56 pm
...conversing with him is simply a waste of time.

Cheers,
Bernard

Yup.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 26, 2019, 02:34:34 am
So why don’t you quote the passage.  And then I’ll quote the passage and the context where Soudland never got a clear answer as to why the aid was not being delivered.  It’s really quite clear Bernard and if you can’t deal with that reality no one can help you.

This is not about reaching conclusions, your presumptions are really meaningless.  Show us some actual facts.  Like when Sondland was told there was a QPQ for aid.  Or better yet some real fact that shows Trump was only interested in himself and not the country.  I would really appreciate someone bringing this fact forward as evidence of Trumps Abuse of Power.  It would be enlightening to be sure.

Btw, I just this evening listened to the cross of Sondland in its entirety.  Your are simply making up,your claims from whole cloth. That is very clear.

But hey.  Post the testimony you claim makes your point.  Let’s see if it really says what you say it does.

Craig,

I gave you the exact time in the video already.

Being about to catch a plane I am sorry, I won’t be able to quote the exact phrases today.

But I advise you consider both the testimony of Sonderland and the famous July 25th call whose transcript we have. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 26, 2019, 09:51:19 am
Talk about painting yourself into a corner. Poor Nancy. Sooner or later she's gonna have to do it or get off the pot. Either way she's in trouble. Stand by for chapter ? in this laughable soap opera production by the Democrats.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 26, 2019, 10:04:50 am
Craig,

I gave you the exact time in the video already.

Being about to catch a plane I am sorry, I won’t be able to quote the exact phrases today.

But I advise you consider both the testimony of Sonderland and the famous July 25th call whose transcript we have. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

I’ve reviewed those sections multiple times Bernard, but they simply don’t support your claims.   

But this tidbit pretty much sums the whole thing nicely.  From Castors second round of questioning...

CASTOR: And you've been very honest and we're not trying to give you a hard time on all the times you don't recall. We're just trying to say that a lot of important events that have happened that the committees asked you about and you've honestly said I don't recall. But the call with President Trump on September 9th or the 8th you recall it vividly, right?
SONDLAND: I recall it vividly because if was keyed by the frantic emails from Ambassador Taylor, I had again prior to that call had all kinds of theories as to why things weren't moving? Why there was no White House meeting? Why there was no aid? Why there was no this? Why there was no that? And I was getting tired of going around in circles, frankly. So I made the call and I asked as I said the open ended question what do you want from Ukraine? And that's when I got the answer
CASTOR: He was unequivocal?
SONDLAND: Nothing. What I said in the text is what I heard.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 26, 2019, 11:28:18 am
Here are the passages Bernard has referenced:

SONDLAND: Well I sent that e-mail to Secretary Pompeo to set up a potential meeting between President Trump and President Zelensky in Warsaw and when I referred to the log jam, I referred to the log jam in a very inclusive way.
Everything was jammed up at that point and Secretary Pompeo essentially gave me the green light to brief President Zelensky about making those - those announcements.

For more context, this followed:

CASTOR: OK so you're asking Secretary Pompeo whether we should block time in - I mean, is there any discussion of specific investigations, is there any discussion of Biden or Burisma or anything linking to aid in this - in this e-mail that you sent to Pompeo?
SONDLAND: No, this - this was a proposed briefing that I was going to give President Zelensky. And I was going to call President Zelensky and ask him to say what is in this e-mail and I was asking essentially President Pompeo's permission to do that.
CASTOR: Right.
SONDLAND: Which he said yes.

Next:
SONDLAND: Well again, I'm not going to dispute Ambassador Volker's recollection if he - particularly if he had notes. I know that the desire to have the 2016 election DNC server in Burisma were already being discussed by them. Again, I had no direct contact with Mr. Giuliani on July 10 but through Ambassador Volker.
And I probably mentioned that this needs to happen in order to move the process forward. That seemed to be the conventional wisdom at the time. I don't recall any abrupt ending of the meeting or people storming out or anything like that. That would have been very memorable if someone would have stormed out of a meeting based on something I said.


And finally:
CASTOR: OK. And just getting back to the irregular channel, did anyone else express any concerns to you about this - the so-called irregular channel?
SONDLAND: I'm not sure how someone could characterize something as an irregular channel when you're talking to the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, the Chief of Staff of the White House, the Secretary of Energy. I don't know how that's irregular.
If a bunch of folks that are not in that channel are aggrieved for some reason for not being included, I don't know how they can consider us to be the irregular channel and they to be the regular channel when it's the leadership that makes the decisions.


So here is Bernards argument:

Having now had time to listen to this once again in details, the key fragment starts at 8:20-8:40 where he speaks of his email to Pompeo, then 19:10-19:20 when he clearly states that the conventional wisdom at the time (mid July) was that the investigation of the 2016 election and Barisma (although he mentions no explicit mention of Biden) were needed for the thing (the unlocking of the aid) to move forward, nobody including Bolton reacted to his statements.

Then the fragment between 29:30 and 30:30, when contrary to the intend of the Republican questioner, Sonderland clearly states that everybody up to the president himself was clearly involved in these discussions that were the main channel of communication about Ukraine.

Which means that the presumtion of Sonderland [that the freeing of the aid was conditioned by a declaration from Ukraine about an investigation] was confirmed by the non objection of key stakeholders including Bolton in July time frame and that these discussions were clearly fully known by all the chain of command up to Trump himself.

And again... we are talking here about the top diplomat of the US to the European Union, having been requested to devote special attention to Ukraine (which he confirmed), who has a clear and lasting presumption for 2 months that doesn't get challenged by any of the contacts he has with stakeholders. ;) It takes a very low level of honesty to consider this cross-examination a proof that there was no quid pro quo. If anything this fully confirms the clear impression from a key witness that there was one.


So, lets unpack that.

Bernard claims that since no one told Soudland there was no Quid Pro Quo, that this in fact confirms there is one.  In other words no means yes.  It should be noted that Sondland never asked in this context that there was a Quid Pro Qou.  It must be "diplomatic english" that only people like Bernard understands were no means yes.  In Bernards world no one objecting is confirmation that something exists even though the question was never asked.  Amazing. 

Bernard clearly states it was only a PRESUMPTION on Sondlard's part but since no one objected it must be true.  It was his "clear impression"  Then  Sondland actually asks and gets his answer...from the top of the food chain...President Trump.

CASTOR: And you've been very honest and we're not trying to give you a hard time on all the times you don't recall. We're just trying to say that a lot of important events that have happened that the committees asked you about and you've honestly said I don't recall. But the call with President Trump on September 9th or the 8th you recall it vividly, right?
SONDLAND: I recall it vividly because if was keyed by the frantic emails from Ambassador Taylor, I had again prior to that call had all kinds of theories as to why things weren't moving? Why there was no White House meeting? Why there was no aid? Why there was no this? Why there was no that? And I was getting tired of going around in circles, frankly. So I made the call and I asked as I said the open ended question what do you want from Ukraine? And that's when I got the answer
CASTOR: He was unequivocal?
SONDLAND: Nothing. What I said in the text is what I heard.


Of course President Trump stated he wanted no Quid Pro Quo.

Lets cut to the chase. As I said eariler Sondland is a train wreck of a witness for both sides.  He is conflicted on so many parts of his story...it changes depending on who is asking it seems.  If you are planning on pinning your hopes on Sondland for either side of the argument.you will be in bad shape.  Either side can spin his confliction to suit their needs. 

To claim Sondland proves a Quid Pro Quo is a fools errand.



Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 26, 2019, 11:41:20 am
Here are the passages Bernard has referenced:

SONDLAND: Well I sent that e-mail to Secretary Pompeo to set up a potential meeting between President Trump and President Zelensky in Warsaw and when I referred to the log jam, I referred to the log jam in a very inclusive way.
Everything was jammed up at that point and Secretary Pompeo essentially gave me the green light to brief President Zelensky about making those - those announcements.

For more context, this followed:

CASTOR: OK so you're asking Secretary Pompeo whether we should block time in - I mean, is there any discussion of specific investigations, is there any discussion of Biden or Burisma or anything linking to aid in this - in this e-mail that you sent to Pompeo?
SONDLAND: No, this - this was a proposed briefing that I was going to give President Zelensky. And I was going to call President Zelensky and ask him to say what is in this e-mail and I was asking essentially President Pompeo's permission to do that.
CASTOR: Right.
SONDLAND: Which he said yes.

Next:
SONDLAND: Well again, I'm not going to dispute Ambassador Volker's recollection if he - particularly if he had notes. I know that the desire to have the 2016 election DNC server in Burisma were already being discussed by them. Again, I had no direct contact with Mr. Giuliani on July 10 but through Ambassador Volker.
And I probably mentioned that this needs to happen in order to move the process forward. That seemed to be the conventional wisdom at the time. I don't recall any abrupt ending of the meeting or people storming out or anything like that. That would have been very memorable if someone would have stormed out of a meeting based on something I said.


And finally:
CASTOR: OK. And just getting back to the irregular channel, did anyone else express any concerns to you about this - the so-called irregular channel?
SONDLAND: I'm not sure how someone could characterize something as an irregular channel when you're talking to the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, the Chief of Staff of the White House, the Secretary of Energy. I don't know how that's irregular.
If a bunch of folks that are not in that channel are aggrieved for some reason for not being included, I don't know how they can consider us to be the irregular channel and they to be the regular channel when it's the leadership that makes the decisions.


So here is Bernards argument:

Having now had time to listen to this once again in details, the key fragment starts at 8:20-8:40 where he speaks of his email to Pompeo, then 19:10-19:20 when he clearly states that the conventional wisdom at the time (mid July) was that the investigation of the 2016 election and Barisma (although he mentions no explicit mention of Biden) were needed for the thing (the unlocking of the aid) to move forward, nobody including Bolton reacted to his statements.

Then the fragment between 29:30 and 30:30, when contrary to the intend of the Republican questioner, Sonderland clearly states that everybody up to the president himself was clearly involved in these discussions that were the main channel of communication about Ukraine.

Which means that the presumtion of Sonderland [that the freeing of the aid was conditioned by a declaration from Ukraine about an investigation] was confirmed by the non objection of key stakeholders including Bolton in July time frame and that these discussions were clearly fully known by all the chain of command up to Trump himself.

And again... we are talking here about the top diplomat of the US to the European Union, having been requested to devote special attention to Ukraine (which he confirmed), who has a clear and lasting presumption for 2 months that doesn't get challenged by any of the contacts he has with stakeholders. ;) It takes a very low level of honesty to consider this cross-examination a proof that there was no quid pro quo. If anything this fully confirms the clear impression from a key witness that there was one.


So, lets unpack that.

Bernard claims that since noe one told Soudland there was no Quid Pro Quo, that this in fact confirms there is one.  In other words no means yes.  It should be noted that Sondland never asked or claimed in this context that there was a Quid Pro Qou.  It must be "diplomatic english" that only people like Bernard understands were no means yes.  In Benards world no one objecting is confirmation that something existes even though the question was never asked.  Amazing. 

Bernard clearly states it was only a PRESUMPTION on Sondlard's part but since no one objected it must be true.  Then  Sondland actually asked and got his answer...from the top of the food chain...President Trump.

CASTOR: And you've been very honest and we're not trying to give you a hard time on all the times you don't recall. We're just trying to say that a lot of important events that have happened that the committees asked you about and you've honestly said I don't recall. But the call with President Trump on September 9th or the 8th you recall it vividly, right?
SONDLAND: I recall it vividly because if was keyed by the frantic emails from Ambassador Taylor, I had again prior to that call had all kinds of theories as to why things weren't moving? Why there was no White House meeting? Why there was no aid? Why there was no this? Why there was no that? And I was getting tired of going around in circles, frankly. So I made the call and I asked as I said the open ended question what do you want from Ukraine? And that's when I got the answer
CASTOR: He was unequivocal?
SONDLAND: Nothing. What I said in the text is what I heard.




If this thing was so illegal, why did everyone up the line know what was happening? Trump would have kept it quiet and just had a one-on-one conversation with Zelensky. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 26, 2019, 12:00:56 pm
Talk about painting yourself into a corner. Poor Nancy. Sooner or later she's gonna have to do it or get off the pot. Either way she's in trouble. Stand by for chapter ? in this laughable soap opera production by the Democrats.
Trump can sue the House of Representatives to sh#t or get off the pot as his name has been smeared and by not sending the articles of impeachment over to the Senate for trial, he cannot be cleared or convicted as required by the Constitution.  Of course, the House could have another vote to drop the charges, which would be even more embarrassing for Pelosi and the Democrats. Trump loves to sue so I could see him doing this.  The Constitution clearly states that the articles of impeachment must be sent over to the Senate for trial.  The House is in violation of the constitution.  The Senate does not have to negotiate with the House how they're going to handle the Senate trial any more than the House had to negotiate with the Senate how they handled the House impeachment process.  The Constitution deliberately kept the processes separate to avoid conspiracies between the House and Senate to "get a president".   

"Trump vs. Cong. Nancy Pelosi and The House of Representatives."    Wouldn't that be something? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on December 26, 2019, 12:13:54 pm
The Constitution clearly states that the articles of impeachment must be sent over to the Senate for trial.
No it doesn't.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 26, 2019, 12:26:33 pm
Trump would have kept it quiet and just had a one-on-one conversation with Zelensky.

HA!  LOL!  Imagine Trump keeping quiet about anything.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 26, 2019, 12:32:52 pm
HA!  LOL!  Imagine Trump keeping quiet about anything.
Of course he knows how to keep things quiet.   Didn;t he have a one-on-one conversation with Putin?  Everyone wanted to know what they talked about but he wouldn't say.  Presidents do that all the time with foreign leaders.  They couldn't have trusting relationships with them if their conversations weren't kept private.  In this Ukraine example, if there was an attempt to do something illegal, Trump would not have discussed it with Zelensky with everyone listening in. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 26, 2019, 05:42:43 pm
If he did nothing wrong then the impeachment process will exonerate him. You have to trust the legal procedures that were put into place by your constitution, otherwise why bother having them.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 26, 2019, 06:44:07 pm
If he did nothing wrong then the impeachment process will exonerate him. You have to trust the legal procedures that were put into place by your constitution, otherwise why bother having them.

Last I checked, Trump is calling for a trial in the Senate.  Pelosi is the one holding it up. 

BTW, since when do liberals think this is a legal process?  I have been told for months now on this forum it is not; it is a political process. 

Well get ready for the politics of the Senate to take over. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 26, 2019, 07:43:43 pm
Nancy and the Dems have shot themselves in the foot. Now. . . in order not to miss the other foot, we'll hold up passing the articles to the Senate. Blam. Blam. That'll do it. Ouch.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 27, 2019, 09:20:23 am

BTW, since when do liberals think this is a legal process?  I have been told for months now on this forum it is not; it is a political process. 
 

I thought that's what Alan has been saying. Are you calling Alan a liberal?  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on December 27, 2019, 09:51:02 am
Not wanting to offend anyone at all, but so far, the "arguments" in this thread have turned out to be far more creatively inventive than 99% of the photography on the site.

And to think that art was supposed to be the realm of fantasy!

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 27, 2019, 10:21:51 am
I thought that's what Alan has been saying. Are you calling Alan a liberal?  :)

Classical liberal? 

In all seriousness, many on here have been insisting it is a political process, which the House has completely shown it to be the case.  Well, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.  So if the House insisted on making it political, let the Senate follow suit. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 27, 2019, 10:33:39 am
It's weird that some of you think Pelosi waiting until people like McConnell and Graham agree to a fair trial (after already publicly stating that the "jury" intends to collaborate with the "defendant") makes her look bad.  But whatever... Trumpers gonna Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 27, 2019, 10:48:37 am
And to think that art was supposed to be the realm of fantasy!

;-)

Most of what you're reading here, Rob, is in the realm of fantasy. Too bad it can't be directed toward photography.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 27, 2019, 11:20:07 am
It's weird that some of you think Pelosi waiting until people like McConnell and Graham agree to a fair trial (after already publicly stating that the "jury" intends to collaborate with the "defendant") makes her look bad.  But whatever... Trumpers gonna Trump.

Totally opinion on my part but my belief that Pelosi and company know that have a loser and this tactic is just to give them political cover after lose the trial.  "Those Republican refused to fairly try the President so the results simply can't be trusted."  The other thing that might be in play is that there will be a court hearing on Jan 3 for Don McGann being forced to show up for a hearing for the House that is investigating obstruction. They might be waiting to add another article if they can. Its my understanding of this case is that its for him to be required to appear. He can still claim attorney - client  and executuive privilege and refuse to answer questions.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on December 27, 2019, 11:49:19 am
Totally opinion on my part but my belief that Pelosi and company know that have a loser and this tactic is just to give them political cover after lose the trial.

Taking Trump/McConnell/Pelosi out of it, and what would you do if you wanted to hand down an indictment and the jury said they were going to coordinate with the defendant?   That'd make you want some assurances, would it not?

If McGann does show and testify, though, yes, that would be a reason to delay as well, though in that case they should have just said they were waiting for additional testimony, unless McGann just stonewalls, as he certainly could.

Again, taking D/R out of it, the main problem here is that the people that have the best information are refusing to testify/not being allowed to testify.  I'm not sure how that reflects poorly on anyone other than Trump, but that's my opinion of course, and others clearly disagree.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on December 27, 2019, 11:50:03 am
. . . there will be a court hearing on Jan 3 for Don McGann being forced to show up for a hearing for the House that is investigating obstruction. . . .  Its my understanding of this case is that its for him to be required to appear. He can still claim attorney - client  and executuive privilege. . . .

A claim of executive privilege may only be asserted by the president, not by a subordinate or former subordinate.

Don McGahn served as White House Counsel, a government staff position, not as President Trump's personal lawyer; the attorney-client privilege would not apply to their conversations.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 27, 2019, 11:52:13 am
A claim of executive privilege may only be asserted by the president, not by a subordinate or former subordinate.

Don McGahn served as White House Counsel, a government staff position, not as President Trump's personal lawyer; the attorney-client privilege would not apply to their conversations.

Thanks, I didnt know that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 27, 2019, 12:09:31 pm
Taking Trump/McConnell/Pelosi out of it, and what would you do if you wanted to hand down an indictment and the jury said they were going to coordinate with the defendant?   That'd make you want some assurances, would it not?

If McGann does show and testify, though, yes, that would be a reason as well, though in that case they should have just said they were waiting for additional testimony, unless McGann just stonewalls, as he certainly could.

Again, taking D/R out of it, the main problem here is that the people that have the best information are refusing to testify/not being allowed to testify.  I'm not sure how that reflects poorly on anyone other than Trump, but that's my opinion of course, and others clearly disagree.

Since this is a political process and the Senate gets to make the rules, just like the House got to make their rules, the House really has no say. 

McConnell says he wants to play by the Clintion Impeachment Rules.  This is a fairly decent account of what played out.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-26/trump-senate-impeachment-trial-finds-scant-precedent-in-history



I guess my take is that Pelosi knew how things would play out.  She was willing to go there. 

The House surely could have tried to force the testimony of those player. They chose not to do so.  I agree its would have been far better for them to testify.  But I do understand that saving them for a trial where you have more favorable odds might benefit Trump.  He claims he wants to call witnesses and defend himself in the Senate.  However I'm confident his Attorneys are telling him to take a quiet and easy win and move on if possible.  It will be interesting to see what happens.  I've stocked up on popcorn.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 27, 2019, 01:11:47 pm
It's weird that some of you think Pelosi waiting until people like McConnell and Graham agree to a fair trial (after already publicly stating that the "jury" intends to collaborate with the "defendant") makes her look bad.  But whatever... Trumpers gonna Trump.

Okay, so are you also for Warren, Bernie, Booker and Klobuchar recusing themselves?  All of them have been saying Trump is guilty and in need of being removed from office long before Ukraine was even an issue, and they have only doubled down on this of late. 

To use your jury analogy from above, would you want members of a jury who openly stated they felt the defendant was guilty before seeing any evidence? 

I would be all for a fair trial following a fair inquiry, but we did not get the latter by any stretch. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 27, 2019, 01:37:36 pm
Okay, so are you also for Warren, Bernie, Booker and Klobuchar recusing themselves?  All of them have been saying Trump is guilty and in need of being removed from office long before Ukraine was even an issue, and they have only doubled down on this of late. 

To use your jury analogy from above, would you want members of a jury who openly stated they felt the defendant was guilty before seeing any evidence? 

I would be all for a fair trial following a fair inquiry, but we did not get the latter by any stretch. 
Not only has the house jury decided on the outcome, but the chief prosecutor Nancy Pelosi has recently said that she's been working on impeaching the president for 2 and 1/2 years. 

The whole thing reeks of politics. That's why the founders of the Constitution required a two-thirds majority to convict the president because they knew that politics would be used too often to get rid of a president.   They wanted the four-year election process to be used. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 27, 2019, 06:00:40 pm
Not only has the house jury decided on the outcome, but the chief prosecutor Nancy Pelosi has recently said that she's been working on impeaching the president for 2 and 1/2 years.

Really? 

Quote
The whole thing reeks of politics. That's why the founders of the Constitution required a two-thirds majority to convict the president because they knew that politics would be used too often to get rid of a president.   They wanted the four-year election process to be used.

The founders clearly did not want to wait for the next election in the cycle, otherwise they wouldn't have added an impeachment process. Besides, with a president trying to manipulate the election process, that's the last thing one should want to use to call someone who behaves like an old style king or dictator to order.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 27, 2019, 07:12:22 pm

The founders clearly did not want to wait for the next election in the cycle, otherwise they wouldn't have added an impeachment process. Besides, with a president trying to manipulate the election process, that's the last thing one should want to use to call someone who behaves like an old style king or dictator to order.

 ??? ??? ???

Please tell me how Trump is manipulating the election process. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on December 27, 2019, 07:28:51 pm
The founders clearly did not want to wait for the next election in the cycle, otherwise they wouldn't have added an impeachment process. Besides, with a president trying to manipulate the election process, that's the last thing one should want to use to call someone who behaves like an old style king or dictator to order.

Correct.  The July 20, 1787, comments by Virginia delegate James Madison (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_720.asp)―later the fourth president of the United States―concisely summarize the rationale that resulted in the impeachment clauses which ultimately were adopted by the U.S. constitutional convention:

Quote
[Madison, quoting himself in his notes on the convention, argued that it was] indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst. the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers. The case of the Executive Magistracy was very distinguishable, from that of the Legislature or of any other public body, holding offices of limited duration. It could not be presumed that all or even a majority of the members of an Assembly would either lose their capacity for discharging, or be bribed to betray, their trust. Besides the restraints of their personal integrity & honor, the difficulty of acting in concert for purposes of corruption was a security to the public. And if one or a few members only should be seduced, the soundness of the remaining members, would maintain the integrity and fidelity of the body. In the case of the Executive Magistracy which was to be administered by a single man, loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.

There are other aspects of the impeachment provisions in the constitution that are arguable, but the determination by the convention delegates to create a short-circuit mechanism between elections to remove an executive who abused his power really is not open to reasonable dispute.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 27, 2019, 07:51:24 pm
Correct.  The July 20, 1787, comments by Virginia delegate James Madison (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_720.asp)―later the fourth president of the United States―concisely summarize the rationale that resulted in the impeachment clauses which ultimately were adopted by the U.S. constitutional convention:

There are other aspects of the impeachment provisions in the constitution that are arguable, but the determination by the convention delegates to create a short-circuit mechanism between elections to remove an executive who abused his power really is not open to reasonable dispute.

Much of what you quoted that falls around actions that are not illegal acts are disputable, which is why a 2/3s majority vote is needed.  This brings it to beyond dispute. 

Anyway, perhaps with your much more esteemed experience in USA law then Bart can tell us exactly how Trump is manipulating the election, since, you know, you quoted that portion of his statement. 

As an aside, I was watching a recap of Brexit and the Trump election that pretty much stated the intense dislike in each case was the direct result of elitists loosing for the first time.  Elitists had the first election in a very long time where the outcome was not something they foresaw nor could handle.  So they made a simplistic excuse for why it happened, focusing on racism and other misguided thoughts, and then tried to undo the election.  This then lead to the recent landslide victory in Britain for the conservative party, and will more then likely lead to the re-election of Trump.  Cant say I disagree. 

Personally I welcome a complete landslide for both Trump and the republicans.  It is beyond obvious the Dems in this country still wont listen to the average person (just look at their out of touch proposals like medicare for all), and feel an abject defeat is the only way to get the Dems to start listening again.  Maybe after that we will have a healthy system of two parties pay attention to the center of the country, instead of only one with the other listening to the far left.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 27, 2019, 08:38:18 pm
Much of what you quoted that falls around actions that are not illegal acts are disputable, which is why a 2/3s majority vote is needed.  This brings it to beyond dispute. 

Anyway, perhaps with your much more esteemed experience in USA law then Bart can tell us exactly how Trump is manipulating the election, since, you know, you quoted that portion of his statement.

How about, asking a leader of a foreign country to announce an investigation into a political opponent of his own? And to investigate an already debunked theory (about an non-existing server in Ukraine), a fiction that was created by Russia, as a diversion. And later asking 'China' to also engage into an investigation.

I am not sure whether withholding a support package approved by Congress, in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into a political opponent (Biden was mentioned, corruption wasn't), amounts to bribery (according to local law). The fact that (most of?) the aid was later released (after the whistleblower's revelations), is immaterial to it being used as a Quid pro Quo.

Besides the esteemed opinion of others, how do YOU feel about that?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 27, 2019, 08:52:37 pm
...Besides the esteemed opinion of others, how do YOU feel about that?

I feel perfectly fine with that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 27, 2019, 08:55:32 pm
I feel perfectly fine with that.

Not surprised (if a fan of Trump's 'style' of governing), but good to know you are okay with corruption of government.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 27, 2019, 09:07:22 pm
Really? 

...
Yes Pelosi stated that they;ve been working on impeachment for 2 1/2 years, long before Ukraine.  The whole thing has been political.  They just couldn't accept the fact that Trump won and Clinton lost.
https://www.independentsentinel.com/pelosi-gleefully-announces-shes-been-at-impeachment-for-2-1-2-years/

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 27, 2019, 09:19:43 pm
Correct.  The July 20, 1787, comments by Virginia delegate James Madison (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_720.asp)―later the fourth president of the United States―concisely summarize the rationale that resulted in the impeachment clauses which ultimately were adopted by the U.S. constitutional convention:

There are other aspects of the impeachment provisions in the constitution that are arguable, but the determination by the convention delegates to create a short-circuit mechanism between elections to remove an executive who abused his power really is not open to reasonable dispute.
Chris No one's arguing impeachment doesn;t exist in the Constitution.  The argument is that it should not be done for political reasons but tied to specific serious crimes like Treason and Bribery and other similarly serious crimes and misdemeanors.  The fact that the Trump impeachment was voted along party lines and the Senate trial will most certainly be voted along party lines as well, is exactly what the founders did not want.  Political decisions about a president should be left to the public in their vote every four years.  It;'s only if Treason, Bribery and other High Crimes are done that they wanted Congress to step, in.  In that case, such as with Nixon, both parties wanted him out.  This whole process, since the beginning as Pelosi say when the impeachment process was started by Democrats, reeks of politics in search of a crime.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 27, 2019, 09:26:28 pm
Yes Pelosi stated that they;ve been working on impeachment for 2 1/2 years, long before Ukraine.

No, that's a lie.

She was referring to the Mueller investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 elections investigation, not an impeachment.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 27, 2019, 09:31:17 pm
How about, asking a leader of a foreign country to announce an investigation into a political opponent of his own? And to investigate an already debunked theory (about an non-existing server in Ukraine), a fiction that was created by Russia, as a diversion. And later asking 'China' to also engage into an investigation.

I am not sure whether withholding a support package approved by Congress, in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into a political opponent (Biden was mentioned, corruption wasn't), amounts to bribery (according to local law). The fact that (most of?) the aid was later released (after the whistleblower's revelations), is immaterial to it being used as a Quid pro Quo.

Besides the esteemed opinion of others, how do YOU feel about that?

The Bidens are crooks and should be investigated.  Biden again announced he will not appear at the trial if subpoenaed by the Senate.  He must be worried.  How would he answer qusesions like: "Did you know that Burisma was being investigated by the prosecutor you forced to be fired?"  "How much money was your son being paid by Burisma on a monthly basis?  How much did Burisma pay him over the years? ""  "Did you ever discuss Burisma and their corruption problems with your son?" "How many times did you contact the Ukrainian government to fire the prosecutor?"  "DId your son ever give you any of the money he made from Burisma?" "Did you ever meet with any executives from Burisma with or without your son?  "Did you ever meet with the executives from the CHinese corporation that you son was paid?"  "What did you son do for these corporations?"  "What were your son's qualification in the Burisma oil industry?  "Did you son speak Ukrainian". "What were you son's exact responsibilities working for Burisma?"

Finally, "How will your appearance here today to answer these questions affect your chances to win the Democrat nomination for President?"  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 27, 2019, 09:35:22 pm
No, that's a lie.

She was referring to the Muller investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 elections investigation, not an impeachment.
That was a Freudian slip on her part.  The Democrats intended to use the Mueller investigation as the reason to impeach.  It's just that Mueller did not go along with their game.  But their intent to impeach was there from the day he took the office of president, probably earlier when he won.  Anyone who does not realize that has been out to lunch for three years. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 27, 2019, 09:59:52 pm
That was a Freudian slip on her part.

No it wasn't, just take responsibility for your own actions, propagating a fake news lie.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 27, 2019, 10:57:08 pm
No it wasn't, just take responsibility for your own actions, propagating a fake news lie.
It's not fake news.  Here's Pelosi saying they've been trying to impeach since the Mueller investigation began.
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/video-shows-pelosi-admitting-trying-impeach-trump-2-1-2-years
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 27, 2019, 11:36:40 pm
Here's another video showing Pelosi bragging how they've worked 2 1/2 years to get an impeachment.  It appears Bart that you're the one who's propagating fake news lies.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1204127423975047171
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 28, 2019, 04:16:37 am
No it wasn't, just take responsibility for your own actions, propagating a fake news lie.

Oh, for God’s sake, this is the question and her answer:

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 28, 2019, 04:18:50 am
Not surprised (if a fan of Trump's 'style' of governing), but good to know you are okay with corruption of government.

No, I am not good with corruption. I just don’t see it as corruption.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 28, 2019, 05:28:49 am
Oh, for God’s sake, this is the question and her answer:

And it was about the Mueller investigation, not impeachment.

P.S. Trump was not even the President during the investigated collusion/no collusion situation, so for that he could not even be impeached.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 28, 2019, 06:51:39 am
And it was about the Mueller investigation, not impeachment.

P.S. Trump was not even the President during the investigated collusion/no collusion situation, so for that he could not even be impeached.

Now you're really making up untruths.   Pelosi and the Democrats were waiting for  Mueller to indicate Trump colluded so they could impeach.   Then when that didn't work,  they hoped to use obstruction of justice to impeach him
  That fell apart when Mueller testified before Congress.   That's when the Democrats came up with the Ukraine charge.   2 1/2 years Pelosi was working on impeachment.  Just like she said.   You're denying what she admits.   That's why anyone who is fair about this whole thing,  sees it as a political act trying to find a crime to justify it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on December 28, 2019, 07:00:01 am
Trump was not even the President during the investigated collusion/no collusion situation, so for that he could not even be impeached.

Interesting suggestion.  The point is certainly arguable.  In a forum composed of legal scholars and historians, all thoroughly familiar with the contemporaneous documents on the drafting and adoption of the U.S. constitution as well as the Anglo-American precedents on impeachment, it might be a subject for a lively theoretical debate.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 28, 2019, 07:08:16 am
And it was about the Mueller investigation, not impeachment.

P.S. Trump was not even the President during the investigated collusion/no collusion situation, so for that he could not even be impeached.

Bart, these are ludicrous statements. 

Say what you will about the Mueller investigation, of which there are plenty of criticisms (brought to light by the IG report), you can not criticizes it for moving too fast.  However, the Ukraine inquiry was criticized repeatably for being too fast of an investigation. 

So, during this interview, which took place a couple of weeks ago, when the interviewer brought up the criticisms of the speed being too fast, the comment directly related to the Ukraine investigation, not the Mueller investigation. 

Pelosi, whether she realized it or not, confirmed with her answer that none of this has been about protecting the constitution or the country or any specific actions, but about trying to impeach Trump at any cost.  The Mueller and Ukraine investigations are not separate events (to the Dems), but both are part of a larger agenda of getting the president removed.  That is what her 22 months answer confirmed. 

It has been nothing but political. 

Second, the idea that the collusion investigation had nothing to do with impeachment just because Trump was not in office yet is equally absurd.  This was initiated as an insurance policy against Trump in case he won that could be turned into an impeachable offense.  Storkz and Paige confirmed as much.  Not to mention, many on the left have been calling for impeach literally since the day after the election, before Trump took office.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 28, 2019, 09:37:14 am
Despite all his Tweets, despite the radical tax cuts favoring the rich, despite record Federal deficits, despite the reversion to a policy that has consistently failed the test of history (e.g. tariffs), and despite record low interest rates, not to mention his railing against the Federal Reserve; the stock market during the first three years of President Trump's reign fails to provide results to investors that the markets did during President's Clinton & Obama.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/28/trumps-stock-market-rally-is-very-good-still-lags-obama-clinton/   The numbers don't lie but some will still call this Fake News.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 28, 2019, 11:49:45 am
Despite all his Tweets, despite the radical tax cuts favoring the rich, despite record Federal deficits, despite the reversion to a policy that has consistently failed the test of history (e.g. tariffs), and despite record low interest rates, not to mention his railing against the Federal Reserve; the stock market during the first three years of President Trump's reign fails to provide results to investors that the markets did during President's Clinton & Obama.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/28/trumps-stock-market-rally-is-very-good-still-lags-obama-clinton/   The numbers don't lie but some will still call this Fake News.

I was just wondering...did I miss in that article you posted, any discussion of the economic conditions that surrounded the first three years of each President's term?

If I didn't miss it, don't you think that might be a factor in the percentages of growth under comparison?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 28, 2019, 11:58:29 am
Well said, Craig. That's exactly the point. Goldhammer won't admit it, but the way he put the argument it's nothing but fake news. Actually, Clinton did a pretty good job on the economy after he was forced to by the Republicans. Obama came in at the bottom of a crash. The economy didn't have any direction to go but up.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 28, 2019, 12:08:20 pm
Interesting suggestion.  The point is certainly arguable.  In a forum composed of legal scholars and historians, all thoroughly familiar with the contemporaneous documents on the drafting and adoption of the U.S. constitution as well as the Anglo-American precedents on impeachment, it might be a subject for a lively theoretical debate.
The Constitution does not put a time frame around the crime.  If a president took a bribe from a foreign country prior to his election as president, it still would be grounds for impeachment after his inauguration.

Impeachment for crimes may also be available after he no longer holds the position as president.  ALthough there might be more legal objection to this process.  After all, part of the removal process is to prevent the person from ever holding office again.  Impeachment and conviction could remove that possibility. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on December 28, 2019, 12:17:56 pm
Impeachment for crimes may also be available after he no longer holds the position as president. 

Only individuals who are currently in office may be impeached.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 28, 2019, 12:21:53 pm
Despite all his Tweets, despite the radical tax cuts favoring the rich, despite record Federal deficits, despite the reversion to a policy that has consistently failed the test of history (e.g. tariffs), and despite record low interest rates, not to mention his railing against the Federal Reserve; the stock market during the first three years of President Trump's reign fails to provide results to investors that the markets did during President's Clinton & Obama.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/28/trumps-stock-market-rally-is-very-good-still-lags-obama-clinton/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/28/trumps-stock-market-rally-is-very-good-still-lags-obama-clinton/)   The numbers don't lie but some will still call this Fake News.

As others have said, Obama came in at the beginning of a recession when the market could only go up.   However, I think we all are also giving Trump too much credit.  So I agree with you there.  We have a trillion dollar deficit this year.  We';re printing $60 billion a month again in phoney greenbacks.  The national debt has grown by trillions in three years since he became president.  All this deficit spending has pushed the GDP up and created an illusion the economy is doing great.  However,  all we're doing is kicking the can and day of reckoning down the road.  The next recession is going to be  a beaut.

I don;t know how many remember the 1970's into the 1980's when we had stagflation, 12% interest rates, and high unemployment?  A $100 in 1970 was to be worth only $45 by 1982.  That's a 55% inflation rate in 12 years.  While that might be good for government debt, it's a disaster for people who have money in the bank, assets, and salaries which took a huge hit in value.  We're setting ourselves up for something as bad, maybe worse.  Trump, the king of debt, could declare bankruptcy, and get bailed out.  But what will America do? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 28, 2019, 12:24:13 pm
Only individuals who are currently in office may be impeached.
Has that ever been tested?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on December 28, 2019, 12:50:32 pm
And it was about the Mueller investigation, not impeachment.

P.S. Trump was not even the President during the investigated collusion/no collusion situation, so for that he could not even be impeached.

Oh, for Pete's sake, Bart, get real!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 28, 2019, 01:08:36 pm
  However,  all we're doing is kicking the can and day of reckoning down the road.  The next recession is going to be  a beaut.

In other words, stealing trillions of dollars from your kids and grandkids.  Who cares about them?  WE'RE doing great!

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 28, 2019, 01:57:27 pm
Has that ever been tested?

How could one abuse Presidential powers when not in function as President?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 28, 2019, 06:23:54 pm
In other words, stealing trillions of dollars from your kids and grandkids.  Who cares about them?  WE'RE doing great!


WE'RE? Aren't you Canadian?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 28, 2019, 06:26:54 pm
How could one abuse Presidential powers when not in function as President?
Can the be an impeachment after their term if they violated them while they were president?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 28, 2019, 07:23:59 pm
Can the be an impeachment after their term if they violated them while they were president?

They can be charged criminally. Which is not impeachment. Just an ordinary court case.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 28, 2019, 08:02:25 pm
They can be charged criminally. Which is not impeachment. Just an ordinary court case.

Yes, that's my take on it as well. Same goes for the pre-presidential period.

One can only impeach a president while they're a president.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/impeachment
Quote
the act of making a formal statement that a public official might be guilty of a serious offence in connection with his or her job, especially in the US

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impeachment
Quote
to charge with a crime or misdemeanor
specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 29, 2019, 09:11:13 am
President Trump may have violated the Whistleblower Protection Act by retweeting the alleged name of the CIA staffer who began the whole Impeachment mess by voicing concern over the Ukraine telephone call.  In the days of the Wild West we had gunslingers with itchy trigger fingers; today we have a President with an itchy Twitter finger.  Not sure which is/was better.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 29, 2019, 09:39:43 am
President Trump may have violated the Whistleblower Protection Act by retweeting the alleged name of the CIA staffer who began the whole Impeachment mess by voicing concern over the Ukraine telephone call.  In the days of the Wild West we had gunslingers with itchy trigger fingers; today we have a President with an itchy Twitter finger.  Not sure which is/was better.

Nope. 

Actually the Whistleblower Protection Act only prohibits the Inspector General from revealing his/her name, but that is pretty much the extent.  Anyone else can reveal the name without violating the law.  Rand Paul made a point of this early on in the investigation.  Below is a more thorough article on the meaning of the law from a lawyer. 


Explainer: Is it illegal for Trump or Congress to name the impeachment whistleblower? (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-whistleblower-e/explainer-is-it-illegal-for-trump-or-congress-to-name-the-impeachment-whistleblower-idUSKBN1XH2QS)

"There is only one provision in the ICWPA that deals specifically with whistleblower anonymity, said Kel McClanahan, a national security lawyer in Washington.

That provision says the inspector general should not disclose the whistleblower’s identity without their consent, unless the watchdog determines that “such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.”

Once the complaint is out of the inspector general’s hands the law does little to guarantee the whistleblower anonymity, said McClanahan, the executive director of National Security Counselors, a public interest law firm."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 29, 2019, 09:43:47 am
President Trump may have violated the Whistleblower Protection Act by retweeting the alleged name of the CIA staffer who began the whole Impeachment mess by voicing concern over the Ukraine telephone call.  In the days of the Wild West we had gunslingers with itchy trigger fingers; today we have a President with an itchy Twitter finger.  Not sure which is/was better.
The Impeachment process would in any case override any laws protecting the whistleblower if the accused requires the whistleblower to testify in his defence as a witness.  The requirements of the Constitution would trump specific laws. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 29, 2019, 09:59:50 am
Biden's Democrat competitors start poking him.  No wonder Pelosi isn't sending the articles of impeachment over to the Senate. 

Warren: 'If there's a lawful order for a subpoena, I assume' Biden would comply
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/476145-warren-if-theres-a-lawful-order-for-a-subpoena-i-assume-biden-would-comply (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/476145-warren-if-theres-a-lawful-order-for-a-subpoena-i-assume-biden-would-comply)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on December 29, 2019, 11:54:45 am
In the Christmas spirit, Trump tweeted the name of the presumed whistle-blower in the Ukraine scandal, which is a federal offense.
The Atlantic has just published David Frum's article analyzing the latest Trump's actions.

Quote
Amid a two-day binge of post-Christmas rage-tweeting, President Donald Trump retweeted the name of the CIA employee widely presumed to be the whistle-blower in the Ukraine scandal. On Thursday night, December 26, Trump retweeted his campaign account, which had tweeted a link to a Washington Examiner article that printed the name in the headline. Then, in the early hours of Friday morning, December 27, Trump retweeted a supporter who named the presumed whistle-blower in the text of the tweet.

Trump’s post-Christmas mania confirms House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s prediction that Trump would impeach himself.

Donald Trump will not be bound by any rule, even after he has been caught. He is unrepentant and determined to break the rules again—in part by punishing those who try to enforce them. He is a president with the mind of a gangster, and as long as he is in office, he will head a gangster White House.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/donald-trumps-gangster-white-house/604216/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on December 29, 2019, 12:03:48 pm
Yes, that's my take on it as well. Same goes for the pre-presidential period.

One can only impeach a president while they're a president.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/impeachment
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impeachment

As a Dutchman you are quoting a British dictionary with regards to an American matter. That's rich!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 29, 2019, 12:38:11 pm
In the Christmas spirit, Trump tweeted the name of the presumed whistle-blower in the Ukraine scandal, which is a federal offense.
The Atlantic has just published David Frum's article analyzing the latest Trump's actions.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/donald-trumps-gangster-white-house/604216/

Please note my response to Alan above along with this quote from a lawyer working in DC specializing in this field:

"There is only one provision in the ICWPA that deals specifically with whistleblower anonymity, said Kel McClanahan, a national security lawyer in Washington.

That provision says the inspector general should not disclose the whistleblower’s identity without their consent, unless the watchdog determines that “such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.”

Once the complaint is out of the inspector general’s hands the law does little to guarantee the whistleblower anonymity, said McClanahan, the executive director of National Security Counselors, a public interest law firm."

The fact is, it is only a federal offense for the IG to announce the name.  However, by law, anyone else, including the President, can say this person's name all he wants without threat of being prosecuted.  Now whether or not Trump should do this is another matter, but the fact is it is not illegal for him to do so. 

You Dems really are clutching at straws to try and get Trump out at this point.  It would be comical if it were not so sad. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 29, 2019, 12:44:43 pm
In the Christmas spirit, Trump tweeted the name of the presumed whistle-blower in the Ukraine scandal, which is a federal offense.
The Atlantic has just published David Frum's article analyzing the latest Trump's actions.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/donald-trumps-gangster-white-house/604216/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/donald-trumps-gangster-white-house/604216/)
David Frum, who wrote the article, is a unrepentant neo-con who's never seen a war America should avoid.  For these reasons, he's been opposed to Trump since before he ran for president.  The President has a right to defend himself against attacks by anyone including a whistleblower.  The accused in America are allowed to face their accused.  The whistleblower can't hide behind secrecy laws when their accusations can cause a president to be impeached or for anyone to have to face criminal charges.   The purpose of the whistleblower law is to prevent the whistleblower's job from being terminated or facing discrimination by the government organization they work for.  It was not set up to prevent accused people from defending themselves nor to block their testimony in a civil or criminal trial or impeachment.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on December 29, 2019, 12:45:54 pm
In the Christmas spirit, Trump tweeted the name of the presumed whistle-blower in the Ukraine scandal, which is a federal offense.

Probably not.  There is a statute that makes it a crime for government officials or other individuals with access to national secrets ("classified information") to reveal the identity of a covert intelligence officer or operator.  However, the whistleblower reportedly is an intelligence analyst, and while there is a convention within the government that the names of intelligence analysts should not gratuitously be made public, they are not considered to be operating under cover and I'm not aware of any law or regulation that attempts to restrict the publication of their names.

The statutory Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protections and an associated presidential directive prohibit retaliation against intelligence agency employees who use specified procedures to report violations of law or regulations, mismanagement, waste of funds, abuse of authority, or dangers to public health or safety.  However, they define retaliation in terms of prohibited adverse personnel actions, and do not include a general restriction on revealing a whistleblower's identity.

Congress could consider revealing the identity of an employee of an intelligence agency with a retaliatory intent or to induce others to harm that employee as grounds for an article of impeachment, but I think it is a stretch to argue that Trump's tweet constitutes a statutory or regulatory violation.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 29, 2019, 01:08:38 pm
The real question: Can this thread get any sillier? Stand by for the next episode of "The Impeaching Trump Comedy." Listen for the laugh track in the background.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 29, 2019, 01:33:34 pm
Probably not.  There is a statute that makes it a crime for government officials or other individuals with access to national secrets ("classified information") to reveal the identity of a covert intelligence officer or operator.  However, the whistleblower reportedly is an intelligence analyst, and while there is a convention within the government that the names of intelligence analysts should not gratuitously be made public, they are not considered to be operating under cover and I'm not aware of any law or regulation that attempts to restrict the publication of their names.

The statutory Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protections and an associated presidential directive prohibit retaliation against intelligence agency employees who use specified procedures to report violations of law or regulations, mismanagement, waste of funds, abuse of authority, or dangers to public health or safety.  However, they define retaliation in terms of prohibited adverse personnel actions, and do not include a general restriction on revealing a whistleblower's identity.

Congress could consider revealing the identity of an employee of an intelligence agency with a retaliatory intent or to induce others to harm that employee as grounds for an article of impeachment, but I think it is a stretch to argue that Trump's tweet constitutes a statutory or regulatory violation.

I lose myself in the legal ins/outs of outing a whistleblower. Bottom line though, isn't it kind of a lousy thing to do regardless of whether it's actually technically legal or not? And I don't think it was the first time that the Pres has mentioned names in public. If I were in the employ of the US civil service, working on behalf of the country would seem a lot less noble to me under this administration.

Just curious to hear what the Trumpeteers out there have to say. Do you REALLY think that Trump is more important than the country? Isn't that kind of very shortsighted? I mean, in the end he's just another politician who will be gone in a while. The country and the citizens will remain. The politicians are just the guys that citizens hire for a while to do a job. I find this level of hero worship a bit silly, frankly.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on December 29, 2019, 01:45:15 pm
According to the previously quoted Atlantic article, a president is forbidden to name the whistleblower's names. Below is an excerpt of another article on the same subject by CNN.

Quote
Of all the posts in Trump's Friday night tweetstorm, his whistleblower-related post was the most noteworthy because nearly every public official involved in the impeachment inquiry agreed that the identity of the original complainant should be protected.
Trump has shared more than 100 posts about the whistleblower since September, almost entirely critical, but until this week he had refrained from sharing any content directly pointing to a person's name.
Some far-right media outlets and personalities have published stories claiming to know the name of the whistleblower, but his or her identity is not known and has not been reported by mainstream outlets -- including CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/28/politics/trump-ukraine-whistleblower-twitter/index.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 29, 2019, 02:19:36 pm
The real question: Can this thread get any sillier? Stand by for the next episode of "The Impeaching Trump Comedy." Listen for the laugh track in the background.

I'm pretty certain at some point in time it will come out that Trump farted in the oval office, and the Dems and the media will then be using this as an excuse for impeachment. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 29, 2019, 03:32:35 pm
I'm pretty certain at some point in time it will come out that Trump farted in the oval office, and the Dems and the media will then be using this as an excuse for impeachment.

They'll need a recording of the fart, Joe, and if history is any guide, the FBI will be able to provide the recording.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 29, 2019, 04:16:25 pm
They'll need a recording of the fart, Joe, and if history is any guide, the FBI will be able to provide the recording.

Audio?  Or video?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 29, 2019, 04:17:39 pm
They'll need a recording of the fart, Joe, and if history is any guide, the FBI will be able to provide the recording.

Well, his administration definitely stinks.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 29, 2019, 04:25:28 pm
Audio?  Or video?

Video if the FBI can con the sleepy FISA court the way they did the last couple times, Peter.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 29, 2019, 04:44:35 pm
I lose myself in the legal ins/outs of outing a whistleblower. Bottom line though, isn't it kind of a lousy thing to do regardless of whether it's actually technically legal or not? And I don't think it was the first time that the Pres has mentioned names in public. If I were in the employ of the US civil service, working on behalf of the country would seem a lot less noble to me under this administration.

Just curious to hear what the Trumpeteers out there have to say. Do you REALLY think that Trump is more important than the country? Isn't that kind of very shortsighted? I mean, in the end he's just another politician who will be gone in a while. The country and the citizens will remain. The politicians are just the guys that citizens hire for a while to do a job. I find this level of hero worship a bit silly, frankly.


The Democrats only care about covering up his identity because he's a Democrat.  They're afraid voters will see it a just another attempt at a political impeachment.  A phoney setup like the Democrat Clinton dossier.  Otherwise they wouldn't care a hoot about this guy.  That's why Trump wants this guy revealed and the Democrats want it kept quiet.  If you were the one accused, you'd want his identity known.  Defending oneself against secret testimony is done in secret courts like in the Soviet Union, not in America.  Especially when everyone agrees there are no laws that protect the guy's identity.  This is just spin from the anti-Trump press. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on December 29, 2019, 04:53:23 pm
The Democrats only care about covering up his identity because he's a Democrat.  They're afraid voters will see it a just another attempt at a political impeachment.  A phoney setup like the Democrat Clinton dossier.  Otherwise they wouldn't care a hoot about this guy.  That's why Trump wants this guy revealed and the Democrats want it kept quiet.  If you were the one accused, you'd want his identity known.  Defending oneself against secret testimony is done in secret courts like in the Soviet Union, not in America.  Especially when everyone agrees there are no laws that protect the guy's identity.  This is just spin from the anti-Trump press.
You guys sure are getting worked up about this.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 29, 2019, 04:58:59 pm
According to the previously quoted Atlantic article, a president is forbidden to name the whistleblower's names. Below is an excerpt of another article on the same subject by CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/28/politics/trump-ukraine-whistleblower-twitter/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/28/politics/trump-ukraine-whistleblower-twitter/index.html)
Les, you haven;t read the other posts.  It's perfectly legal.  Otherwise anyone could make a political charge and protect themselves from cross-examination  by claiming whistleblower status.  Meanwhile the accused person's reputation can be destroyed and their legal rights stricken.  I don;t know how Canada works.  But that's not how America works.  If there's a trial in the Senate, the whistleblower's testimony will be paramount.  It was his claim that started the whole thing.  Any judge would require him to testify.

The judge will also require the Bidens to testify because their guilt or seeming guilt will justify Trump's call for an investigation.  That would make Trump innocent of all impeachment charges.  Of course, just like the whistleblower, the press is spinning Biden's testimony as unrelated to the impeachment charge.  That's ridiculous.  Because he just could be guilty of corruption and will have to deny or admit it publicly under oath.  So will Biden's son.  There's no way the Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts who will sit and adjudicate the Senate trial will let these two witnesses not testify.  He won't buy into the spin we get every day from the media.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 29, 2019, 05:04:47 pm
You guys sure are getting worked up about this.
Frank, It's the Democrats who have impeached.  They've been worked up against Trump for three years.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on December 29, 2019, 05:18:39 pm
Frank, It's the Democrats who have impeached.  They've been worked up against Trump for three years.  :)
And yet they are not the ones losing it on LuLa.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 29, 2019, 05:20:59 pm
And yet they are not the ones losing it on LuLa.
I think its the other way around with the people suffering from TDS.  The hysterics seem to come from the haters. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on December 29, 2019, 05:26:05 pm
David Frum, who wrote the article, is a unrepentant neo-con who's never seen a war America should avoid.  For these reasons, he's been opposed to Trump since before he ran for president.  The President has a right to defend himself against attacks by anyone including a whistleblower.  The accused in America are allowed to face their accused.  The whistleblower can't hide behind secrecy laws when their accusations can cause a president to be impeached or for anyone to have to face criminal charges.   The purpose of the whistleblower law is to prevent the whistleblower's job from being terminated or facing discrimination by the government organization they work for.  It was not set up to prevent accused people from defending themselves nor to block their testimony in a civil or criminal trial or impeachment.

Pure ignorance, Alan. Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding and the same rules do not apply. No right to face accusers, no ban on hearsay evidence (not that there's a complete ban in criminal proceedings anyway), no right to call one's own witnesses, no right to have a lawyer present. If you insist on drawing a parallel with criminal proceedings, impeachment is like a grand jury. It is NOT a trial. At a criminal grand jury, the purported defendant has NOTHING to do with it and the proceedings are secret. The house's impeachment process has been wide open (as it should be) with dozens of Republicans participating, questioning witnesses, and with (limited) subpoena powers. So the GOP and Trump have nothing to whine about.

And if Trump is so interested in have the truth come out, why has he forbidden 4 aides from testifying? You and I both know the answer.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on December 29, 2019, 05:26:18 pm
There's no way the Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts who will sit and adjudicate the Senate trial will let these two witnesses not testify.
So the Republicans are definitely going to call the Bidens? I thought McConnell wasn't going to call any witnesses. When did their strategy change?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on December 29, 2019, 05:41:10 pm
The Democrats only care about covering up his identity because he's a Democrat.  They're afraid voters will see it a just another attempt at a political impeachment.  A phoney setup like the Democrat Clinton dossier.  Otherwise they wouldn't care a hoot about this guy.  That's why Trump wants this guy revealed and the Democrats want it kept quiet.  If you were the one accused, you'd want his identity known.  Defending oneself against secret testimony is done in secret courts like in the Soviet Union, not in America.  Especially when everyone agrees there are no laws that protect the guy's identity.  This is just spin from the anti-Trump press.

Alan, you seem determined to keep embarrassing yourself. The purported whistleblower is a woman. This is pretty indicative of how little you know about the whole situation.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on December 29, 2019, 06:02:29 pm
So the Republicans are definitely going to call the Bidens? I thought McConnell wasn't going to call any witnesses. When did their strategy change?

No, McConnell (the chinless worm) has not changed his strategy, which is to avoid calling any witnesses who might throw any light on the issues at hand, just those that allow the GOP to go off on irrelevant tangents. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on December 29, 2019, 06:54:07 pm
Audio?  Or video?

For the best results, one would use thermal or infrared photography.

Quote
Magnus Gålfalk of Linköping University explains that the camera works using infrared spectroscopy. Called "hyperspectral imaging," the method simultaneously captures a spectrum of infrared light for every pixel in a photo. Many gases absorb infrared light, Gålfalk says, not just methane (CH4). But the camera is fine-tuned to see the signature of methane gas.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/a-camera-that-sees-methane
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 29, 2019, 07:42:14 pm
Right, Les. But it'll take a lot of lyin' to get the FISA court to buy that approach. But what the hell, the FBI's probably up to it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 29, 2019, 08:05:57 pm
Pure ignorance, Alan. Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding and the same rules do not apply. No right to face accusers, no ban on hearsay evidence (not that there's a complete ban in criminal proceedings anyway), no right to call one's own witnesses, no right to have a lawyer present. If you insist on drawing a parallel with criminal proceedings, impeachment is like a grand jury. It is NOT a trial. At a criminal grand jury, the purported defendant has NOTHING to do with it and the proceedings are secret. The house's impeachment process has been wide open (as it should be) with dozens of Republicans participating, questioning witnesses, and with (limited) subpoena powers. So the GOP and Trump have nothing to whine about.

And if Trump is so interested in have the truth come out, why has he forbidden 4 aides from testifying? You and I both know the answer.
I'm surprised you didn't suggest bringing back the rack and stretching Trump until he admitted his guilt and squealed for mercy.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 29, 2019, 08:09:24 pm
Alan, you seem determined to keep embarrassing yourself. The purported whistleblower is a woman. This is pretty indicative of how little you know about the whole situation.
I didn't know because it was secret.  It seems you on the other hand have been snooping around and violating the law.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 29, 2019, 08:34:27 pm
The hysterics seem to come from the haters.

Ha! You witnessed a Trump rally recently?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 29, 2019, 09:06:44 pm
Ha! You witnessed a Trump rally recently?

Trump rallies seem rather mild to me.  Of course they're milder at Democrat rallies.  No one goes. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 29, 2019, 09:31:24 pm
I'm surprised you didn't suggest bringing back the rack and stretching Trump until he admitted his guilt and squealed for mercy.

There ought to be an emoji for hyperbole.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 29, 2019, 09:44:00 pm
There ought to be an emoji for hyperbole.
I thought it was a rather catchy phrase.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 30, 2019, 10:11:29 am
They'll need a recording of the fart, Joe, and if history is any guide, the FBI will be able to provide the recording.

Will Swalwell do? (note: the fart noise was real and we have the video ...this is satire}

https://twitter.com/KPRCradio/status/1196815310772416513
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on December 30, 2019, 10:29:09 am
I didn't know because it was secret.  It seems you on the other hand have been snooping around and violating the law.

If reading a legitimate news source is snooping, then I am guilty as charged.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 30, 2019, 11:20:04 am
If reading a legitimate news source is snooping, then I am guilty as charged.
Just what Trump did.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 30, 2019, 12:46:59 pm
If reading a legitimate news source is snooping, then I am guilty as charged.

I would be interested in reading that article...whats the link?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 30, 2019, 03:43:28 pm
😉
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on December 31, 2019, 04:32:51 pm
For all you Trump fan-boys, here's something to read, from beginning to end, every word. Is this the man you want running the country?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/president-donald-trump-s-10-biggest-false-claims-2019-one-n1101151



Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: DP on December 31, 2019, 04:39:35 pm
Is this the man you want running the country?

yes,

stop asking stupid questions

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 31, 2019, 04:48:52 pm
For all you Trump fan-boys, here's something to read, from beginning to end, every word. Is this the man you want running the country?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/president-donald-trump-s-10-biggest-false-claims-2019-one-n1101151




What about the lies Hillary and Joe Biden told? How about Pocahontas?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on December 31, 2019, 05:05:20 pm
I would be interested in reading that article...whats the link?

Multiple sources. There was no specific mention of a name but just the person's handle on Twitter or some such place - "SurferMom" was part of it, obviously a woman.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on December 31, 2019, 07:40:05 pm
...obviously a woman.

Nowadays one never knows, Peter.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 31, 2019, 08:40:25 pm
What about the lies Hillary and Joe Biden told? How about Pocahontas?

Yah, what about them?

That whataboutism makes as much sense as your "The Chinese are carbon-polluting, so why can't we?"  argument.

ie None.  Zero.  Xilch.

And, even if they did tell a couple of lies, (one in Warren's case) does that make it okay for the President of the United States to tell them?
 
And is it okay to tell thousands of them?  Especially easily-disproven ones?

That's what baffles me the most.  That he would tell such obvious whoppers and expect you to swallow them.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 31, 2019, 08:48:51 pm
Yah, what about them?

That whataboutism makes as much sense as your "The Chinese are carbon-polluting, so why can't we?"  argument.

ie None.  Zero.  Xilch.

And, even if they did tell a couple of lies, (one in Warren's case) does that make it okay for the President of the United States to tell them?
 
And is it okay to tell thousands of them?  Especially easily-disproven ones?

That's what baffles me the most.  That he would tell such obvious whoppers and expect you to swallow them.
I guess I didn't make my point clear enough.  It was to point out that all politicians lied and lie, desemble, embellish, etc.  We had to make a choice between Hillary and Donald in 2016.  Already, the Democratic candidates are proving themselves to be liars.  Warren about her heritage.  Biden about a hundred things including the Ukraine, which if he did do something for his son is worse than anything Trump did.  In an election, you don;t vote against someone.  You have to vote for someone.  So far, all the candidates have a problem with veracity.  So in the end, we may have to use other standards to make a decision on who to vote for. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 31, 2019, 09:15:14 pm
Multiple sources. There was no specific mention of a name but just the person's handle on Twitter or some such place - "SurferMom" was part of it, obviously a woman.

Can you post one of those links?

Here is one I found...wanna try again?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50936816

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 31, 2019, 09:25:59 pm
That's what baffles me the most.  That he would tell such obvious whoppers and expect you to swallow them.

And they do swallow them, that's even more amazing. Apparently Trump has an instinct for gullible trumpettes ...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 31, 2019, 09:32:54 pm
And they do swallow them, that's even more amazing. Apparently Trump has an instinct for gullible trumpettes ...

Why don’t you go through all of them one by one and tell us all why each one is not fake news. Be exact and detail the facts.  And have a lot of fun with, the  “there is no evidence” claims.  Remember that the absence of evidence as spewed by the Lame stream media does not mean evidence of absence.

Best of Luck to you Bart, this is sure to be entertaining.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 31, 2019, 10:24:04 pm
Why don’t you go through all of them one by one and tell us all why each one is not fake news. Be exact and detail the facts.  And have a lot of fun with, the  “there is no evidence” claims.  Remember that the absence of evidence as spewed by the Lame stream media does not mean evidence of absence.

Best of Luck to you Bart, this is sure to be entertaining.

I post this link because it was familiar to me https://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/ (https://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/), but if you do a search on "Trump's lies" or variations thereof, you'll get dozens of sites, maybe more.

He has made literally hundreds of wild-ass statements, which are probably an order of magnitude greater in number and greater in absurdity than anyone would think possible. I distinctly remember him repeating the horse sh*t that vaccines cause autism. That's just one. Politicians say a lot of dumb things, but that's on the same level as believing in a flat earth.

I'm fully aware that you believe those are all fake news sites, that he never said those things, it's all invention of the "liberal" press. That's ok, you don't have to believe it for it to true.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 31, 2019, 10:44:46 pm
I post this link because it was familiar to me https://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/ (https://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/), but if you do a search on "Trump's lies" or variations thereof, you'll get dozens of sites, maybe more.

He has made literally hundreds of wild-ass statements, which are probably an order of magnitude greater in number and greater in absurdity than anyone would think possible. I distinctly remember him repeating the horse sh*t that vaccines cause autism. That's just one. Politicians say a lot of dumb things, but that's on the same level as believing in a flat earth.

I'm fully aware that you believe those are all fake news sites, that he never said those things, it's all invention of the "liberal" press. That's ok, you don't have to believe it for it to true.

Why not just deal with the 10 posted above, and let’s see how they hold up.  Then we can move on to the rest if you wish. 

How tough can it be for you since you seem to believe you are correct about all of this.  It should be a walk in the park for you.  It might be very enlightening and entertaining. 

Btw, you don’t have the first clue what I believe, but you proceeded to make up some fake news all on your own!  Great work!  I hear MSNBC might be hiring if Maddow loses the case filed against her by another news networks she claimed was being paid by Russia to spread propaganda. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on December 31, 2019, 11:39:26 pm
Most of the ten Trump is correct or partially correct or has his usual hyperbole which any 12 year old understands as salesmen's banter.  NBC, who's totally anti-Trump biased,  cherry picked their explanations by taking Trump's comments out of context or leaving off his whole comment.  Frankly, NBC is the one who;s lying.

Example 2:  Biden acted corruptly in Ukraine.  NBC says no he didn't.  How do they know?  Did they secretly investigate what the Bidens did?  It sure looks fishy to me what they did.  Certainly it appears something is corrupt.

Example 4: NBC claims Trump said "The constitution gives me the power to do everything I want."  NBC said no it doesn;t.  Well, NBC cherry picked what he said.  What they left out was the full statement he said in bold, ""Look, Article II. I would be allowed to fire Robert Mueller," Trump said in a portion of the interview that aired on ABC’s "This Week" Sunday. "He wasn't fired. Okay? Number one, very importantly. But more importantly, Article II allows me to do whatever I want. Article II would have allowed me to fire him."


Example 9 : Toilet flushes are up to 10, 12 and 15 flushes.  Well, it might not be that much, but Trump's point was that you can;t do it with one flush like it use to work.  I know that I have to flush 3,4 or 5 times.  Sometimes, it gets stuck and I have to plunge out the toilet to get it to flow and work at all.  So Trump's right.  The new requirements cause a lot of headaches.  (He ought to know as a real estate builder of apartments and condos.  It's a major headache for building maintenance people who he has to pay.)


The rest are similar.  NBC lying about it.  Trump supporters know already what game they're playing.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 01, 2020, 08:13:54 am
...
The rest are similar.  NBC lying about it.  Trump supporters know already what game they're playing.
However, it is not a game... otherwise i may have liked this satire.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 01, 2020, 08:32:57 am
yes,

stop asking stupid questions

👍👍👍 🤣🤣🤣
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 01, 2020, 08:37:16 am
However, it is not a game... otherwise i may have liked this satire.
No.  It's not a game.  The media twisted everything he says playing word games to fool the public who don;t have time to investigate the truth or all the details. They just read the headlines.  It's a concerted effort to destroy Trump so he';s not re-elected.  The press is doing a dis-service to America by distorting the news.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 01, 2020, 08:44:11 am
And they do swallow them, that's even more amazing...

Or maybe we are smart enough to recognize a hyperbole.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 01, 2020, 08:47:18 am
... I distinctly remember him repeating the horse sh*t that vaccines cause autism...

You better check your memory. He did not say that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 01, 2020, 08:53:46 am
Or maybe we are smart enough to recognize a hyperbole.
The press knows it's hyperbole.  They just ignore that fact so they can smear him by playing word games.  It's like when Trump said that Obama was tapping his phone.  The press went on and on reporting how Obama didn't do that, like people really believe he sneaked down into the Trump Tower with earphones on and tapped Trump's phone wires to listen in.  Of course, Trump meant he and his organization was being surveilled, spied on.  Normal people understood that.  Then when it came out that he was actually in fact surveilled, the press changed their tune and said well that isn't spying when the FBI investigates, twisting words some more.  That's why people don't trust the press.  It;s so obvious to anyone with half a brain what they're doing.  The ones who don't see it are so blind to hating Trump they can't see straight.  They believe any propaganda the media throws out.  The rest of the people don't have time in life to think beyond the headlines they read, unfortunately, so Trump gets a rap. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 01, 2020, 09:23:49 am
He has made literally hundreds of wild-ass statements, which are probably an order of magnitude greater in number and greater in absurdity than anyone would think possible. I distinctly remember him repeating the horse sh*t that vaccines cause autism. That's just one. Politicians say a lot of dumb things, but that's on the same level as believing in a flat earth.

I'm fully aware that you believe those are all fake news sites, that he never said those things, it's all invention of the "liberal" press. That's ok, you don't have to believe it for it to true.

Robert, you leftists ought to save your ammunition for four years from now when you'll have a currently unknown Republican to run against. Trump's a shoo-in this time around. But four years from now you guys might have somebody who makes even a little sense to run against the Republican -- somebody who's not a clown and not a communist at heart. This time you're just spinning your wheels and exhausting yourself for nothing.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 01, 2020, 10:06:54 am
What about the lies Hillary and Joe Biden told? How about Pocahontas?

The lies that Clinton and Biden have told might fill a tea cup. Trump's would fill a swimming pool. And who the hell is Pocohontas other than a possibly fictional Native American woman from 400 years ago?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 01, 2020, 10:31:55 am
The lies that Clinton and Biden have told might fill a tea cup. Trump's would fill a swimming pool. And who the hell is Pocohontas other than a possibly fictional Native American woman from 400 years ago?
Well, you're right that Warren is a fictional character.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 01, 2020, 11:53:09 am
👍👍👍 🤣🤣🤣

Questions are never stupid, but answers can be.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 01, 2020, 12:57:46 pm
Questions are never stupid, but answers can be.

Yea...still waiting for yours in regards to the 10 Trump "lies" list....
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 01, 2020, 02:07:52 pm
Yea...still waiting for yours in regards to the 10 Trump "lies" list....

Why would I want to that? I didn't bring op the topic, and you have apparently already made up your mind. So that would make it a futile exercise and a waste of time.

I can think of more pleasant ways to spend my time.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 01, 2020, 02:19:54 pm
Robert, you leftists ...

You slay me. Happy New Year.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 01, 2020, 02:38:01 pm
Why not just deal with the 10 posted above, and let’s see how they hold up.  Then we can move on to the rest if you wish. 

How tough can it be for you since you seem to believe you are correct about all of this.  It should be a walk in the park for you.  It might be very enlightening and entertaining. 

Btw, you don’t have the first clue what I believe, but you proceeded to make up some fake news all on your own!  Great work!  I hear MSNBC might be hiring if Maddow loses the case filed against her by another news networks she claimed was being paid by Russia to spread propaganda.

Oh well, the latest 10 "big" lies, or the previous 1000 lesser ones, let's not quibble over a few thousand "mis-spokes". It's all good.

I'd be a little worried about all those generals leaving Trump's employ but if you guys are ok with it, who am I to disagree. Ordinarily, attracting and keeping competent staff is a good barometer of leadership ability, but maybe this is the exception and Trump really is smarter than everyone else.

But seriously guys, do you really think it's ok for the President of the US to spread anti-vaccine nonsense? Is that one of those "truths" that only Trump supporters understand and that others somehow miss? Is that what conservatism is now. I wonder what William Buckley Jr. or George Gilder would this of this. Or do you think that Roy Cohn and Joe McCarty are better role models.

I sincerely hope for your country that some sane politicians emerge from this rabid bi-partisan sh*t show soon, but I'm not optimistic.


Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 01, 2020, 03:03:24 pm
Oh well, the latest 10 "big" lies, or the previous 1000 lesser ones, let's not quibble over a few thousand "mis-spokes". It's all good.

I'd be a little worried about all those generals leaving Trump's employ but if you guys are ok with it, who am I to disagree. Ordinarily, attracting and keeping competent staff is a good barometer of leadership ability, but maybe this is the exception and Trump really is smarter than everyone else.

But seriously guys, do you really think it's ok for the President of the US to spread anti-vaccine nonsense? Is that one of those "truths" that only Trump supporters understand and that others somehow miss? Is that what conservatism is now. I wonder what William Buckley Jr. or George Gilder would this of this. Or do you think that Roy Cohn and Joe McCarty are better role models.

I sincerely hope for your country that some sane politicians emerge from this rabid bi-partisan sh*t show soon, but I'm not optimistic.

Whats the matter? This too hard for you?  Your poor attempt at deflection is duly noted.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 01, 2020, 03:04:13 pm
Questions are never stupid, but answers can be.

Talk to any teacher, well maybe a tenured or retired teacher who does not need to answer to anyone, and you may rethink this. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 01, 2020, 03:06:29 pm
Why would I want to that? I didn't bring op the topic, and you have apparently already made up your mind. So that would make it a futile exercise and a waste of time.

I can think of more pleasant ways to spend my time.

You sure seemed to think it was a good topic to comment on Bart.  Now I can understand you not wanting to get destroyed, but its not a good look for you.  But who knows, you might have actually learned something.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 01, 2020, 03:52:35 pm
Whats the matter? This too hard for you?  Your poor attempt at deflection is duly noted.

All the best for 2020.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 01, 2020, 03:59:21 pm
All the best for 2020.

Same to all you guys, misguided as you may be in the political realm.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 01, 2020, 04:14:21 pm
All the best for 2020.

Absolutely, and right back at you.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 01, 2020, 05:42:31 pm
Happy New Year to everyone.  Let's shoot more and talk less. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 01, 2020, 06:43:25 pm
Happy New Year to everyone.  Let's shoot more and talk less.

Photos I assume.😎🍻
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 01, 2020, 07:04:05 pm
Photos I assume.😎🍻
Hmmm.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 02, 2020, 09:16:03 am
... But seriously guys, do you really think it's ok for the President of the US to spread anti-vaccine nonsense?...

Once again, he didn’t say that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 02, 2020, 10:29:07 am
Needless to say, no free gas has ever been dispensed.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 02, 2020, 10:34:03 am
Once again, he didn’t say that.

Slobodan is right on this one. Trump used to be a vaccine skeptic but has changed his tune. So, you can probably find some anti-vax quotes from his past, but he has changed his tune. I will add this to my list of good things he has done, which I keep on a post-it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 02, 2020, 10:39:41 am
Once again, he didn’t say that.

If you say so, but others may differ https://www.insider.com/how-donald-trump-became-an-anti-vaccinationist-2019-9 (https://www.insider.com/how-donald-trump-became-an-anti-vaccinationist-2019-9).

Is there a notarized, signed and witnessed statement from the man himself saying those exact words, maybe not, but he's come pretty damn close, I'd say. Pretty damn close. I can't find that short video clip from the campaign (I think) where he talks about some poor baby he had recently seen who was autistic because of vaccines. Was there such a baby? Who knows. Could easily have been just a show he was puttin' on.

I'm not even saying he really believes it. What I asked was, are you comfortable with a POTUS acting like this? How is this helpful to anyone? How do to the citizens of USA benefit?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 02, 2020, 10:42:59 am
Slobodan is right on this one. Trump used to be a vaccine skeptic but has changed his tune. So, you can probably find some anti-vax quotes from his past, but he has changed his tune. I will add this to my list of good things he has done, which I keep on a post-it.

Well, good then. I was not aware of that change of heart. I don't pay close enough attention to the daily news.

I'd still maintain though that it was not even close to ok to have held those beliefs in the first place or to have cynically used them to con gullible audiences.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 02, 2020, 10:56:45 am
Actually,  Trump stands by most of his positions and takes the heat when he implements them.  It's one of his admirable traits.   He tells or like it is.  Of course often in an obnoxious unpolitical way.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 02, 2020, 11:38:06 am
   He tells or like it is. 

If I hear that one more time, I'm gonna puke.

That and "Don't listen to what he says, listen to what he means."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 02, 2020, 11:46:00 am
... I'm not even saying he really believes it. What I asked was, are you comfortable with a POTUS acting like this? How is this helpful to anyone? How do to the citizens of USA benefit?

Let me give you my perspective. For the record, I vaccinated my child, and believe in vaccinations. Autism, vaccinations, and anti-vaccination movement are all very serious matters alone, let alone in combination. The anti-vaccination movement, right or wrong (and I do believe they are wrong), can not be easily dismissed. What needs to be done is to dissuade them, not simply dismiss them. That starts by listening to and acknowledging their concerns. Humans are hard-wired to look for cause-consequence in anything new or bad happening (e.g., the rise in autism). In that anecdote about an autistic baby, I believe he ended it with “Is there a link? I don’t know” (citing from memory).

Trump is a laymen in many areas, bar real estate development. That puts him on an equal footing with many among his constituents. That’s part of his folksy charm. People can relate to that. So, when faced with a mother with an autistic child, he can react to that at the same layman level, acknowledging her concerns as a minimum. Or he could label her as an ignorant deplorable. Well, we’ve seen how the latter worked for a certain presidential candidate.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 02, 2020, 12:02:17 pm
If I hear that one more time, I'm gonna puke.

That and "Don't listen to what he says, listen to what he means."
He speaks colloquially like most human beings.  The anti-Trump press deliberately misinterprets much of what he says because it's politically expedient.   His comment about Obama tapping his phone is a perfect example. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 02, 2020, 12:16:25 pm
Actually,  Trump stands by most of his positions and takes the heat when he implements them.  It's one of his admirable traits.   He tells or like it is.

Wrong, it's not like it is, but it's the way he sees things. And from the looks of it, his vision is impaired.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 02, 2020, 12:37:57 pm
Let me give you my perspektive. For the record, I vaccinated my child, and believe in vaccinations. Autism, vaccinations, and anti-vaccination movement are all very serious matters alone, let alone in combination. The anti-vaccination movement, right or wrong (and I do believe they are wrong), can not be easily dismissed. What needs to be done is to dissuade them, not simply dismiss them. That starts by listening to and acknowledging their concerns. Humans are hard-wired to look for cause-consequence in anything new or bad happening (e.g., the rise in autism). In that anecdote about an autistic baby, I believe he ended it with “Is there a link? I don’t know” (citing from memory).

Trump is a laymen in many areas, bar real estate development. That puts him on an equal footing with many among his constituents. That’s part of his folksy charm. People can relate to that. So, when faced with a mother with an autistic child, he can react to that at the same layman level, acknowledging her concerns as a minimum. Or he could label her as an ignorant deplorable. Well, we’ve seen how the latter worked for a certain presidential candidate.

Fair enough. Reacting in a human way is a good thing all round. He (and others) should do it more.

Abetting superstitions is not a good thing and doesn't help anyone. Sympathy and pandering are not the same, you can do one without the other without insulting the poor mother. Others manage this all the time. When you have a public platform, you need to think before speaking or you can do real harm regardless of intention. In that "autistic baby" case, he wasn't just acting as a caring uncle at the kitchen table, he was at a political rally.

It's also a bit difficult to assign that kind of human sympathy to him, however, when during that campaign he mocked the physical disabilities of a journalist he didn't like at another political rally. And it doesn't say much about the audience members who cheered when he did it. People get things wrong when they speak off script, of course, who hasn't, but that was going a little far.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 02, 2020, 02:08:59 pm
Fair enough. Reacting in a human way is a good thing all round. He (and others) should do it more.

Abetting superstitions is not a good thing and doesn't help anyone. Sympathy and pandering are not the same, you can do one without the other without insulting the poor mother. Others manage this all the time. When you have a public platform, you need to think before speaking or you can do real harm regardless of intention. In that "autistic baby" case, he wasn't just acting as a caring uncle at the kitchen table, he was at a political rally.

It's also a bit difficult to assign that kind of human sympathy to him, however, when during that campaign he mocked the physical disabilities of a journalist he didn't like at another political rally. And it doesn't say much about the audience members who cheered when he did it. People get things wrong when they speak off script, of course, who hasn't, but that was going a little far.

Yeah, Trump is definitely not scripted.  All the other politicians stick their fingers up in the air to check which way the wind is blowing.  They're all phonies which is why people don;t like or trust them.  Yet, when Trump tells it like it is, we all get uncomfortable, itchy.  We don;t know what we want.   Truth is messy.  It forces you to look at yourself.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 02, 2020, 02:12:50 pm
Yeah, Trump is definitely not scripted.  All the other politicians stick their fingers up in the air to check which way the wind is blowing.  They're all phonies which is why people don;t like or trust them.  Yet, when Trump tells it like it is, we all get uncomfortable, itchy.  We don;t know what we want.   Truth is messy.  It forces you to look at yourself.
What nonsense.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 02, 2020, 02:14:47 pm
What nonsense.

What's nonsense.  That politicians are phoney?  Or that Trump makes you uncomfortable by telling things like they are? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 02, 2020, 03:02:18 pm
If I hear that one more time, I'm gonna puke.

Barf bag ready, Peter? Okay:     He tells it like it is.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 02, 2020, 03:10:18 pm
What's nonsense.  That politicians are phoney?  Or that Trump makes you uncomfortable by telling things like they are?

Trump does make me uncomfortable. But that's not because he is "telling things like they are", but because he apparently thinks that his fictional world is real.

The man who thinks that e.g. Putin is a more reliable source of information than the CIA, he thinks that not Russia but Ukraine meddled in the 2016 elections, he thinks that he can pressure a foreign country into aiding in the 2020 elections by withholding Congressionally approved funds to a country at war (14000 people died already) coming from the man who cannot even fold an umbrella makes me uncomfortable, yes.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 02, 2020, 03:13:15 pm
Trump does make me uncomfortable. But that's not because he is "telling things like they are", but because he apparently thinks that his fictional world is real.

The man who thinks that e.g. Putin is a more reliable source of information than the CIA, he thinks that not Russia but Ukraine meddled in the 2016 elections, he thinks that he can pressure a foreign country into aiding in the 2020 elections by withholding Congressionally approved funds to a country at war (14000 people died already) coming from the man who cannot even fold an umbrella makes me uncomfortable, yes.

I think you better spend more for your own defense then since we're not that reliable. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 02, 2020, 03:23:18 pm
he thinks that not Russia but Ukraine meddled in the 2016 elections,

Lets just hold your feet to the fire on only one of your claims....

Please support the quoted claim with facts.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 02, 2020, 04:46:54 pm
Lets just hold your feet to the fire on only one of your claims....

Please support the quoted claim with facts.

try this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 02, 2020, 05:00:45 pm
try this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0

Try this.  It shows that the Ukrainians were up to their eyeballs helping Clinton against Trump in the 2016 election.  So who's right?  I don't think anyone knows for sure.   Well, the legal investigation that Trump called for with the new Ukrainian president would find out.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 02, 2020, 05:15:04 pm
try this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0

The question is...did Trump claim it was UKRAINE and not Russia that hacked the 2016 election.

Wanna try again? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 02, 2020, 05:19:03 pm
Lets just hold your feet to the fire on only one of your claims....

So you agree that the rest is correct.

Quote
Please support the quoted claim with facts.

You'll have to do with the following summary (I can't be bothered enough to search for Trump's literal quotes that the Crowdstrike computer server was in Ukraine):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories_related_to_the_Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal#Adoption_by_Trump
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 02, 2020, 05:24:15 pm
Barf bag ready, Peter? Okay:     He tells it like it is.


mmmmffffpppBLECHHHH!!!!!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 02, 2020, 05:27:30 pm
So you agree that the rest is correct.

We can get to those after you finish the first one.

Quote
You'll have to do with the following summary (I can't be bothered enough to search for Trump's literal quotes that the Crowdstrike computer server was in Ukraine):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories_related_to_the_Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal#Adoption_by_Trump

Epic fail.

It has nothing to do with any servers.  Its the explicit claim you made that Trump thought it was Ukraine and NOT Russia that hacked the 2016 election.  If you make a claim you need to be able to back it up.  Who knows, YOU might be the victim of fake news and are spreading it yourself.

Besides wiki is such a useless source.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 02, 2020, 05:32:54 pm
He speaks colloquially like most human beings. 

Horse poo.  I know nobody who speaks like him.  In fact, much of what comes of his mouth isn't speaking at all. It's just word salad.  Unintelligible.

Quote
The anti-Trump press deliberately misinterprets much of what he says because it's politically expedient.

Sigh. SO many times we've heard this specious, vacuous argument.  "It's not fair! They're all against him!"  Puhleeeeze.




Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 02, 2020, 05:34:28 pm
Let me give you my perspektive. For the record, I vaccinated my child, and believe in vaccinations. Autism, vaccinations, and anti-vaccination movement are all very serious matters alone, let alone in combination. The anti-vaccination movement, right or wrong (and I do believe they are wrong), can not be easily dismissed. What needs to be done is to dissuade them, not simply dismiss them. That starts by listening to and acknowledging their concerns. Humans are hard-wired to look for cause-consequence in anything new or bad happening (e.g., the rise in autism). In that anecdote about an autistic baby, I believe he ended it with “Is there a link? I don’t know” (citing from memory).

Trump is a laymen in many areas, bar real estate development. That puts him on an equal footing with many among his constituents. That’s part of his folksy charm. People can relate to that. So, when faced with a mother with an autistic child, he can react to that at the same layman level, acknowledging her concerns as a minimum. Or he could label her as an ignorant deplorable. Well, we’ve seen how the latter worked for a certain presidential candidate.

Perceptive post, Slobodan.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 02, 2020, 06:00:02 pm
Perceptive post, Slobodan.


Are you saying then, Slobodan and Peter, that as with many in the old British Labour Party still believe, an appeal to the great unwashed is the way to fly? It used to work until Blair proved that having a brain wasn't a bad thing. It won him several elections in a row, just as for Mrs Thatcher. It's had its day, this technique: this time it got them the lowest vote since the Middle Ages for playing that card.

If your theory about being dumb and folksy is cool, God help us all for where it's going to take us, us being the world at large. A pig ignorant world leader is not a good thing: it's a time bomb nobody seems to have the balls or wit to defuse.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 02, 2020, 07:21:56 pm

Are you saying then, Slobodan and Peter, that as with many in the old British Labour Party still believe, an appeal to the great unwashed is the way to fly? It used to work until Blair proved that having a brain wasn't a bad thing. It won him several elections in a row, just as for Mrs Thatcher. It's had its day, this technique: this time it got them the lowest vote since the Middle Ages for playing that card.

If your theory about being dumb and folksy is cool, God help us all for where it's going to take us, us being the world at large. A pig ignorant world leader is not a good thing: it's a time bomb nobody seems to have the balls or wit to defuse.

+10
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 02, 2020, 07:47:42 pm

Are you saying then, Slobodan and Peter...

You built a straw man, Rob.

As for “defusing the time bomb,” the deep state, Democrats, and the media, have been attempting a slow-motion coup for two and and half years. No pasarán.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 02, 2020, 08:02:41 pm
+10

Are you saying then, Slobodan and Peter, that as with many in the old British Labour Party still believe, an appeal to the great unwashed is the way to fly? It used to work until Blair proved that having a brain wasn't a bad thing. It won him several elections in a row, just as for Mrs Thatcher. It's had its day, this technique: this time it got them the lowest vote since the Middle Ages for playing that card.

If your theory about being dumb and folksy is cool, God help us all for where it's going to take us, us being the world at large. A pig ignorant world leader is not a good thing: it's a time bomb nobody seems to have the balls or wit to defuse.
I think everyone who votes should have at least a Masters Degree and own real estate.  Letting the hoi polloi vote is stupid.  We'll wind up like Britain.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 02, 2020, 09:53:16 pm
A game changer.  In a lot of areas.  Sends a message to Iran and Iraq.  Another to Kim and Xi. And to the Democrats who think they denuded Trump. 

Iran Confirms Death of Powerful  Revolutionary Guard Commander
Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani was killed in a strike in Baghdad, Iraqi and Lebanese media reported.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/world/middleeast/qassem-soleimani-iraq-iran-attack.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/world/middleeast/qassem-soleimani-iraq-iran-attack.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 02, 2020, 11:02:30 pm
I think everyone who votes should have at least a Masters Degree and own real estate.  Letting the hoi polloi vote is stupid.  We'll wind up like Britain.  :)

Owning real-estate should be optional.

(https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-there-is-a-cult-of-ignorance-in-the-united-states-and-there-has-always-been-the-strain-isaac-asimov-46-11-18.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 02, 2020, 11:52:31 pm
Owning real-estate should be optional.

(https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-there-is-a-cult-of-ignorance-in-the-united-states-and-there-has-always-been-the-strain-isaac-asimov-46-11-18.jpg)

Well, I've always lived in Democrat mainly states - New York and New Jersey.  Democrats always win. So my republican vote never counts anyway.  I might as well stay home on election eve and Photoshop my photos.   On the other hand I voted for the new democrat candidate for president, Bloomberg, when he ran for mayor of NY 2 times, then a third when he changed the restriction for running three times, a la FDR.  Of course he was a Republican before he was a Democrat and a Democrat before that and before that I think he was something else.  I voted for Nixon twice, and NY went for him.  Of course he was almost impeached.  On the other hand, I didn't vote for Bill Clinton either time, and he was impeached.  Now Trump who I voted for and won was also impeached, although Nancy says she's not sure about that.  American politics is very confusing.   Maybe we need a Queen like Canada and do away with elections.  You still have royalty, don;t you? :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 03, 2020, 04:18:15 am
You built a straw man, Rob.

As for “defusing the time bomb,” the deep state, Democrats, and the media, have been attempting a slow-motion coup for two and and half years. No pasarán.

Not a straw man: simply another way of illustrating the same thing that you described.

As for "deep state" well, hasn't every state a need for something more permanent than an elected govt., that changes every so often, when the reality of the world is that it does not act in accordance with another state's four- or five-year electoral plans, but continues apace at its own speed, which to complicate matters further, is erratic at best?

The effects of total changes of posture dependent on govt. in charge are already apparent in Israel, for example, where land-grabs are now presumed sanctioned by Big Bro USA whereas before there was at least a semblance of restraint and observance of international laws. In fact, come to think of it, Trump has taken America back to where history used to have England and France: at war or not at war, depending on which royal in England was married to whom in France. A Jewish son-in-law at the side of the US throne made all the difference. Or have you a better explanation? Or worse: is reality to be clouded, denied by the PC prohibition on calling it as it is?

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 03, 2020, 04:20:57 am
Owning real-estate should be optional...

False notion!? That is exactly what democracy is. Such a statement is precisely why there is the strain of anti-intellectualism - intellectual elitism.

Having “knowledge,” a master degree, or PhD, does not guarantee a unanimous political (or any other) opinion. Therefore, a lack of knowledge is not the reason for differing political opinions.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 03, 2020, 05:56:08 am
Wrong, it's not like it is, but it's the way he sees things. And from the looks of it, his vision is impaired.

Wrong. His vision is 2020  ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 03, 2020, 07:10:24 am
Wrong. His vision is 2020  ;)

He demonstrated that with the killing of the second most powerful man in Iran at great distance ...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50979463

Can you imagine Iran killing the most important military of the US?

It is his brain that worries me. The US is looking for war with Iran and many will be victim. Just what we need.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 03, 2020, 07:15:17 am
... Can you imagine Iran killing the most important military of the US?...

That’s why we have the military budget the size of the next 10 competitors... so that nobody dares to imagine that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 03, 2020, 08:17:17 am

That’s why we have the military budget the size of the next 10 competitors... so that nobody dares to imagine that.
So you say; The USA permits itself to use the law of the jungle for it is the strongest...
That is the problem- they are ... and therefore extremely dangerous to everyone else, especially with a man like Trump in charge.
A war and the danger of terror attacks on its soil will unite the US behind this 'strong' leader.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 03, 2020, 08:35:37 am
... A war....

What war?

What exactly war has Trump started in the last two and a half years?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 03, 2020, 09:42:51 am
What war?

What exactly war has Trump started in the last two and a half years?

I am afraid he possibly just ignited one.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 03, 2020, 09:44:29 am
What war?

What exactly war has Trump started in the last two and a half years?

Maybe the war that he's going to engage in, because it seems to unite the people, is good for the weapons industry and distracts from domestic issues?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 03, 2020, 09:47:04 am
So you say; The USA permits itself to use the law of the jungle for it is the strongest...
That is the problem- they are ... and therefore extremely dangerous to everyone else, especially with a man like Trump in charge.
A war and the danger of terror attacks on its soil will unite the US behind this 'strong' leader.
Stop complaining. America's military helped defeat the Nazis and kept the Soviet Union and Russia off your back for 70 years.  You're free to write these posts because of America. 

No American wants to get into war with Iran.  On the other hand, this Iranian helped kill almost 1000 Americans over the last ten years.  He was creating and adding to the mess in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.  He was a danger to the oil that heats your home.  Well, soon you;ll be relying on Russia natural gas.  In any case, I suspect Americans will start pulling back soon.  Then when  you'll have to spend more of your own money and blood defending yourselves, you'll miss the days when America was the world's policeman. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 03, 2020, 09:53:37 am
I am afraid he possibly just ignited one.

At the very least he's moved it a stage further ahead.

The basic problem is simple: the West generally fails to understand that some other peoples live hoping to die for their religious faith. That forms no part of Western culture, where even dying for country is hardly a wish many or any hold. The only thing I would willingly die to save is family. Close family, blood family.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 03, 2020, 10:03:36 am
Stop complaining. America's military helped defeat the Nazis and kept the Soviet Union and Russia off your back for 70 years.  You're free to write these posts because of America.

Please don't start about the WOII again  if you cannot find any arguments... we life now and yes I am free to think- i will always be and do not have to be grateful to anybody for that mr Alan Klein.
What are you thinking?

No American wants to get into war with Iran.
That is not what these serial of actions tell me. Iran will hit back for sure and then etc...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 03, 2020, 10:26:49 am
So you say; The USA permits itself to use the law of the jungle for it is the strongest...
That is the problem- they are ... and therefore extremely dangerous to everyone else, especially with a man like Trump in charge.
A war and the danger of terror attacks on its soil will unite the US behind this 'strong' leader.

Wow. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen that phrase: “the law of the jungle,” used to justify a nation lying back with its legs spread. A real antique, that argument.

International relations always have operated under the law of the jungle. To go back just a few years: there was Sweden’s Charles XII’s invasion of Russia, then there was Louis XIV against Marlborough, Napoleon against Europe and Russia, The Kaiser with WW I, Hitler with WW II, which included Japan against Asia, to skip over a plethora of less obvious examples.

You seem embarrassed to say where you’re from, Pieter, but I suspect it’s The Netherlands, which always has been a soft touch to any of history’s invasions. Over and over again other nations such as Britain and the U.S. have used the law of the jungle to pull your nuts out of the fire.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 03, 2020, 10:50:10 am
What war?

What exactly war has Trump started in the last two and a half years?

This one.  The one right here on these pages and on countless other similar sites.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 03, 2020, 10:54:18 am
This one.  The one right here on these pages and on countless other similar sites.

Right. We never argued before Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 03, 2020, 11:09:24 am
Wow. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen that phrase: “the law of the jungle,” used to justify a nation lying back with its legs spread. A real antique, that argument.

International relations always have operated under the law of the jungle. To go back just a few years: there was Sweden’s Charles XII’s invasion of Russia, then there was Louis XIV against Marlborough, Napoleon against Europe and Russia, The Kaiser with WW I, Hitler with WW II, which included Japan against Asia, to skip over a plethora of less obvious examples.

You seem embarrassed to say where you’re from, Pieter, but I suspect it’s The Netherlands, which always has been a soft touch to any of history’s invasions. Over and over again other nations such as Britain and the U.S. have used the law of the jungle to pull your nuts out of the fire.

Well, I think you should be embarrased for your respons(es); It does not matter where i am born to have any opinion. Sometime ago you started about my age being no aged enough...etc.
Please come with real arguments about what is happening NOW.
If you want to talk about ancient history start a 'the good old days' topic...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 03, 2020, 11:32:29 am
Best to leave adolescent jingoism behind and be cleared-eyed about these things. On a recent episode of NPR's Fresh Air, they interviewed a Washington Post journalist about the so-dubbed 'Afghanistan Papers', which that publication got hold of after FOI lawsuit(s). The podcast of the interview is here https://www.npr.org/2019/12/18/789275078/how-government-officials-misled-the-public-about-the-conflict-in-afghanistan (https://www.npr.org/2019/12/18/789275078/how-government-officials-misled-the-public-about-the-conflict-in-afghanistan). The info that emerged is pretty damning. There seemed to be a general lack of direction and strategy, which continues to this day. This is not the journalist talking, this is first-hand written testimony by Rumsfeld and several top-level military leaders at the time. It should make for disturbing reading/listening for Americans, especially for those who may have family members in the armed forces.

This is the 2nd paragraph from the text accompanying the podcast,
"Through Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, the Post secured material generated by an internal review of the Afghanistan war called Lessons Learned. The documents include records of interviews with hundreds of military leaders, diplomats, aid workers and Afghan officials. They tell a story of muddled strategic thinking, staggering waste and corruption and repeated failures to understand both their adversaries on the battlefield and the civilian population they were supposed to serve."

Do US citizens trust what their government is telling them enough to send their kids to be killed and/or maimed, that is the question. What is the purpose of the action, that needs to be asked and answered first and foremost.

Of course participants on this forum will reply by blaming it all on Obama, but you should listen to the podcast more carefully and realize that the mess goes back way earlier than the current or the previous administrations.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 03, 2020, 11:44:44 am
Right. We never argued before Trump.

More vacuity.

Why not: "We never had a war before this one"
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 03, 2020, 11:50:13 am
We should tell all leaders in Afghanistan that they can run their country however they want with one caveat.   That if they again allow terrorists to use their land as a jumping off point to hurt America, we will come back and bomb their country and kill all the leaders who allowed it.

Then our troops should pack their bags and and come home.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 03, 2020, 11:51:41 am

... the mess goes back way earlier than the current or the previous administrations.

Indeed. That mess you refer to is otherwise known as life.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 03, 2020, 11:55:28 am
More vacuity.

Why not: "We never had a war before this one"

What the hell are you talking about!?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 03, 2020, 11:58:02 am
Well, I think you should be embarrased for your respons(es); It does not matter where i am born to have any opinion. Sometime ago you started about my age being no aged enough...etc.
Please come with real arguments about what is happening NOW.
If you want to talk about ancient history start a 'the good old days' topic...

I’m never embarrassed to tell the truth, Pieter. I don’t remember remarking on your age, and I’m not sure how I could do that, since your listed age is N/A. That and the fact that you’re not telling us where you are tells me that for some reason you’re worried about people knowing those things.

I’ve mentioned history because history tells us a lot about human nature and what you call “the law of the jungle.” It’s best to be Tarzan in this jungle if you want to survive. On the other hand, you can depend on the nasty ol’ U.S.A. to be the Tarzan that protects you. That’s why, when I see a European sermon about “the law of the jungle,” I end up ROTFL.

What’s happening NOW? What’s happening now is that finally we have a president who’s willing to do what needs to be done to protect your country as well as the U.S.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 03, 2020, 12:06:17 pm
Best to leave adolescent jingoism behind and be cleared-eyed about these things. On a recent episode of NPR's Fresh Air. . .

Ah.... yes.... NPR. "Fresh Air." Now THERE's a reliable source  :o ;D

Quote
It should make for disturbing reading/listening for Americans, especially for those who may have family members in the armed forces.

Maybe you haven't noticed, Robert, that the U.S. no longer has a draft. It's all voluntary nowadays, and if you enlist but don't realize you may be facing what I'll call a tough situation, then it's simply Darwin at work.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 03, 2020, 12:32:07 pm
We should tell all leaders in Afghanistan that they can run their country however they want with one caveat.   That if they again allow terrorists to use their land as a jumping off point to hurt America, we will come back and bomb their country and kill all the leaders who allowed it.

Then our troops should pack their bags and and come home.

In that situation, if we could really "kill all the leaders who allowed it," I would be all in favor. But we cannot. Despite our best intentions we would, as history has shown over and over, kill lots of other people--bomb weddings, hospitals, schools, food caravans, and civilian homes. Is this what the U.S. wants to be known for? And doesn't this just recruit more jihadists who hate the US?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 03, 2020, 12:39:31 pm
Ah.... yes.... NPR. "Fresh Air." Now THERE's a reliable source  :o ;D

Maybe you haven't noticed, Robert, that the U.S. no longer has a draft. It's all voluntary nowadays, and if you enlist but don't realize you may be facing what I'll call a tough situation, then it's simply Darwin at work.

Fresh Air was merely the conduit for the interview. The author of the work in question was reporting on what the actors in the drama said themselves. Listen to the content of the information, try to set aside your own biases. Or maybe read the released papers themselves, they're part of the public record now.

Your second statement is interesting. It seems to reflect an attitude that since the members of the armed forces are no longer drafted that somehow this affects the rules of engagement. I hope you're NOT saying that. Are they now just a mercenary force that can be aimed at some target of convenience regardless of any wider benefit to the citizens of the US? Maybe dying for pay is ok for employees of private armies but it doesn't seem appropriate to me for the armed forces of a country. Please tell me I misunderstood what you wrote.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 03, 2020, 12:50:27 pm
Reading about the events of yesterday and today have brought up some really interesting material.  I had no clue.

This one really caught my attention:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11741235/Obamas-Iran-deal-has-just-granted-an-amnesty-to-the-worlds-leading-terrorist-mastermind.html

The money quote:
"So you can imagine my amazement when, leafing through the more obscure annexes of President Barack Obama’s “historic” deal with Iran (page 86 of the annex, to be precise), I found that Mr Suliemani – as the White House no doubt now refers to him – has been granted an amnesty and taken off the list of proscribed Iranians – together with a number of senior members of the Revolutionary Guards."

Here's my point.  What we WERE doing was not working.  Like it or not something different might be what is needed.  Time will tell if that's true. Staying where we were had no upside IMO
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 03, 2020, 01:25:56 pm
I fear that this will have a complete full and total destabilizing effect on the entire area, perhaps the globe too, and ultimately bring us into another world war. 

Just like what happened when we moved our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem at the beginning of Trumps presidency.  Thinking back to two years ago (has it only been that long?), when the embassy was moved and the total chaos that ensued, immense loss of life, numerous world leaders being killed, militaries being decimated, loss of a generation, just brings tears to my eyes. 

How could anyone really want that again.   ???
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 03, 2020, 01:47:47 pm
The Guardian editorial reflects my thoughts;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/03/the-guardian-view-on-trumps-biggest-gamble-assassinating-an-iranian-general-could-lead-to-war
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 03, 2020, 02:04:40 pm
The Guardian editorial reflects my thoughts;...

Surprise, surprise, a radical left media agrees with you (or vice versa).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 03, 2020, 02:11:31 pm
Surprise, surprise, a radical left media agrees with you (or vice versa).
radical? then everything left from extreme right is radical left for you.
Just stop with your radical left nonsense and come with some arguments why their vision is wrong.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 03, 2020, 02:16:46 pm
Any American president would be derelict in his job if he knew Soleimani was planning an attack on American troops and or civilians and did nothing to try to prevent it.   

What other option did he have?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 03, 2020, 03:03:10 pm
Fresh Air was merely the conduit for the interview.

And, since Fresh Air is the outfit that decides what goes on their broadcasts, it's inconceivable that they'd be biased, right Robert?

Quote
Your second statement is interesting. It seems to reflect an attitude that since the members of the armed forces are no longer drafted that somehow this affects the rules of engagement. I hope you're NOT saying that. Are they now just a mercenary force that can be aimed at some target of convenience regardless of any wider benefit to the citizens of the US? Maybe dying for pay is ok for employees of private armies but it doesn't seem appropriate to me for the armed forces of a country. Please tell me I misunderstood what you wrote.

You lost me on rules of engagement, Robert. Do you think they’d be different when people are drafted? I spent 26 years in the US Air Force. I went to war three times: once as a fighter-bomber pilot in Korea, once as commander of a radar site in the Vietnam delta, and once as commander of the group that owned our remaining radar sites in SEA when we were trying to hold back Pol Pot’s forces. During my first two wars there were draftees. During the third, everyone was a volunteer.

You seem to think that people who volunteer are mercenaries. All I can do with that idea is ask you how much military experience you’ve had. When I was at NORAD headquarters, and earlier when I was a grunt controller at a radar site in Beausejour, Manitoba, I had several close Canadian friends. They weren’t mercenaries any more than I was. You need to re-think your position.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 03, 2020, 04:56:13 pm
My condolences to Jihadi Jane, also known as Ilhan Omar, for losing her CO.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 03, 2020, 05:07:39 pm
https://globalnews.ca/news/6361577/donald-trump-obama-iran-war-2011-video/

Watch the video at the top of the page.

(edited to conform with forum rules)
Trump blaming Obama for trying to start a war with Iran.  In 2011.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 03, 2020, 05:12:01 pm
And, since Fresh Air is the outfit that decides what goes on their broadcasts, it's inconceivable that they'd be biased, right Robert?

You lost me on rules of engagement, Robert. Do you think they’d be different when people are drafted? I spent 26 years in the US Air Force. I went to war three times: once as a fighter-bomber pilot in Korea, once as commander of a radar site in the Vietnam delta, and once as commander of the group that owned our remaining radar sites in SEA when we were trying to hold back Pol Pot’s forces. During my first two wars there were draftees. During the third, everyone was a volunteer.

You seem to think that people who volunteer are mercenaries. All I can do with that idea is ask you how much military experience you’ve had. When I was at NORAD headquarters, and earlier when I was a grunt controller at a radar site in Beausejour, Manitoba, I had several close Canadian friends. They weren’t mercenaries any more than I was. You need to re-think your position.

Although I was a USAF volunteer during Vietnam when there was a draft, I never spent time in a combat zone.  So my resume is parse compared to yours, Russ.  While the military likes an all volunteer force as they feel they get more dedicated personnel, there are two areas that concerns me with no draft. 

The first is all Americans should have a stake in the country and know that it's no game to defend the country.  We all benefit from the defense of the country and we should all be willing to sacrifice if the need arises. 

Second, a draft gets politicians nervous about what the public thinks.  President Johnson use to stand by the window in the oval office watching the demonstrators marching against the Vietnam War in front of the White House.  It makes them more cautious about getting into conflict.  Knowing that your kid might be drafted to go die in some place you can;t pronounce keeps leaders on their toes. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 03, 2020, 06:26:03 pm

The first is all Americans should have a stake in the country and know that it's no game to defend the country.  We all benefit from the defense of the country and we should all be willing to sacrifice if the need arises. 


I agree with this. Then how can you accept that Trump avoided the draft with a phony medical exemption provided by a doctor who rented his office from Trump Sr. and owed him a favor? Heel spurs my ass. And the grief this chickenshit draft dodger gave McCain, a genuine hero? Lord have mercy.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 03, 2020, 07:42:51 pm
Of course Clinton never did anything like that. Right, Peter?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 03, 2020, 07:57:43 pm
I agree with this. Then how can you accept that Trump avoided the draft with a phony medical exemption provided by a doctor who rented his office from Trump Sr. and owed him a favor? Heel spurs my ass. And the grief this chickenshit draft dodger gave McCain, a genuine hero? Lord have mercy.

I'm not happy about that.  But we had a choice in 2016 for who to vote for.  And Trump was the better candidate.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 03, 2020, 08:50:58 pm
And, since Fresh Air is the outfit that decides what goes on their broadcasts, it's inconceivable that they'd be biased, right Robert?

You lost me on rules of engagement, Robert. Do you think they’d be different when people are drafted? I spent 26 years in the US Air Force. I went to war three times: once as a fighter-bomber pilot in Korea, once as commander of a radar site in the Vietnam delta, and once as commander of the group that owned our remaining radar sites in SEA when we were trying to hold back Pol Pot’s forces. During my first two wars there were draftees. During the third, everyone was a volunteer.

You seem to think that people who volunteer are mercenaries. All I can do with that idea is ask you how much military experience you’ve had. When I was at NORAD headquarters, and earlier when I was a grunt controller at a radar site in Beausejour, Manitoba, I had several close Canadian friends. They weren’t mercenaries any more than I was. You need to re-think your position.

That's fine, don't listen to the podcast. Given that almost half the air time was given to criticism of Obama era policies re Afghanistan, you might have found it interesting.

As for the rest of your response, re-read what I wrote earlier, you seem to have misunderstood. Or don't, up to you.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 04, 2020, 12:20:50 pm
I'm not happy about that.  But we had a choice in 2016 for who to vote for.  And Trump was the better candidate.

Yes, "we" had a choice of whom to vote for. And almost 3 million more of us voted for Clinton. Yet thanks to the idiotic electoral college we are saddled with Trump, who is busy screwing up the country and the world.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on January 04, 2020, 12:27:09 pm
Yes, "we" had a choice of whom to vote for. And almost 3 million more of us voted for Clinton. Yet thanks to the idiotic electoral college we are saddled with Trump, who is busy screwing up the country and the world.
Instead of calling the Electoral College idiotic, maybe you should study the issue a little and try to understand why our election system was created that way!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 04, 2020, 12:38:28 pm
Yes, "we" had a choice of whom to vote for. And almost 3 million more of us voted for Clinton. Yet thanks to the idiotic electoral college we are saddled with Trump, who is busy screwing up the country and the world.

Everyone knew the rules of the election going in and guess what, the popular vote is meaningless.  Hillary lost because she was so arrogant she failed to take ther message to states that were her undoing.  If you want to debate the Electorial College, thats fair game, but from my cheap seats the EC is what gives me, from flyover country, a real voice in who becomes President. Without it New York and California would rule the roost.   I can't remember where I read it (and I'll be happy to admit I have it wrong if I do) but Trump won the popular vote of 49 states combined if you leave out California. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 04, 2020, 02:05:31 pm
Everyone knew the rules of the election going in and guess what, the popular vote is meaningless.  Hillary lost because she was so arrogant she failed to take ther message to states that were her undoing.  If you want to debate the Electorial College, thats fair game, but from my cheap seats the EC is what gives me, from flyover country, a real voice in who becomes President. Without it New York and California would rule the roost.   I can't remember where I read it (and I'll be happy to admit I have it wrong if I do) but Trump won the popular vote of 49 states combined if you leave out California. 

What interesting is that you had an effect being in "flyover" country.  Living in NJ, my vote for Trump didn;t count since NJ electoral votes went for Clinton.  While the popular votes country wide was 3M more for Clinton, I'm curious what the popular not electoral votes total were for states won electorally?  I haven;t been able to find it in Google. DOes anyone have those numbers?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 04, 2020, 03:00:49 pm
Everyone knew the rules of the election going in and guess what, the popular vote is meaningless.  Hillary lost because she was so arrogant she failed to take ther message to states that were her undoing.  If you want to debate the Electorial College, thats fair game, but from my cheap seats the EC is what gives me, from flyover country, a real voice in who becomes President. Without it New York and California would rule the roost.   I can't remember where I read it (and I'll be happy to admit I have it wrong if I do) but Trump won the popular vote of 49 states combined if you leave out California.

The problem with this is that, by and large, “states” are arbitrarily drawn and aren’t individuals of singular mind and concern.  To say that “California” would determine national elections is irrelevant - the national concerns of one person in San Francisco vs one person in Lancaster CA are as different in some as they are mine, in Austin, Tx and Alan’s in NJ, or some other person in Wyoming.  What actually ends up happening is that rural communities aren’t given equal footing in the sense that a farmer in Idaho has the same impact as a tech magnate in San Jose, but rather that farmer has an impact that is proportionally *greater* than the man or woman in CA.

Why are we to value milk over silicon?  Wheat over fruit?  Just because 40 million people live within the geographical division we call “California” is no reason for them to have less representation when choosing a national leader than the good folks of North Dakota, is there?   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 04, 2020, 03:03:43 pm
Yes, "we" had a choice of whom to vote for. And almost 3 million more of us voted for Clinton. Yet thanks to the idiotic electoral college we are saddled with Trump, who is busy screwing up the country and the world.

This whole argument against the electoral college and that it is antiquated really annoys me. 

First off, the idea that it is old and need to be replaced with the popular vote, an idea that has existed since the dawn civilization, is absurd.  If you truly feel it is outdated, dont suggest replacing it with something that is older then it is by an extremely large margin because your argument makes no sense what so ever. 

Second, nearly everyone that proposes the popular votes seems to think there still would only be two major candidates.  This is just not the case.  The electoral college is what makes our country a two party system, because most likely any third party candidate would not get a single electoral vote on election day.  It is within the best interest of a party to consolidate national representation to ensure getting to most electoral votes, which is why we are a two party system.  This then decreases the choices we have, which means national elections become a binary situation.  In a popular vote system, there would be more then two viable candidates increasing the likelihood no single person would get more then 50% of the vote.  This would create dissidents within the country.

Third, these same people also seem to think (along with many others) that in most elections a single charismatic leader would arise and capture the majority.  But this is not how it works.  In most elections it is the opposite; you have a bunch of weak candidates who end up splitting the electorate.  Just look at the current candidates in the Democratic primary.  This, combined with the change in the rules the DNC made in the primary (bringing the primary very close to a popular vote) means there is a good chance the convention is going to be contested.  If this happens without an obvious FDR like figure (FDR was the result of a contested convention), this will more then likely create a larger amount of dissidents within the party then the nonsense complaints of the Bernie Bros in 2016.  In real time, we are seeing why popular votes are so bad. 

Considering these points, in a national election run by a popular vote, most elections would result in having many candidates all getting less than 50% and with (a good possibility) that the vote would be split regionally.  The majority of the country would not except a result like this more then a couple times in a row.  It would be a recipe for breaking up the country. 

The electoral college mitigates all of this.  It does completely eliminate it, but greatly reduces it.  It gives us only two real choices, making the result excepted by the majority nearly every time, and forces candidates to campaign throughout the country, not just in a few states. 

The fact is the popular vote has been around for eons, and history shows just how bad of an idea it is. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 04, 2020, 03:20:58 pm
If you want to see what happens when the "majority" rules, look at the French revolution.

But the argument is academic. In order to get rid of the Electoral College you'd have to get three-fourths of the states to vote for a Constitutional amendment. New York and California don't add up to three-fourths of the states.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 04, 2020, 03:22:31 pm
The problem with this is that, by and large, “states” are arbitrarily drawn and aren’t individuals of singular mind and concern.  To say that “California” would determine national elections is irrelevant - the national concerns of one person in San Francisco vs one person in Lancaster CA are as different in some as they are mine, in Austin, Tx and Alan’s in NJ, or some other person in Wyoming.  What actually ends up happening is that rural communities aren’t given equal footing in the sense that a farmer in Idaho has the same impact as a tech magnate in San Jose, but rather that farmer has an impact that is proportionally *greater* than the man or woman in CA.

Why are we to value milk over silicon?  Wheat over fruit?  Just because 40 million people live within the geographical division we call “California” is no reason for them to have less representation when choosing a national leader than the good folks of North Dakota, is there?   

James you're missing the fact that we are a Federal republic made up of 50 EQUAL states.  Just like the General Assembly in the UN gives each nation 1 vote regardless of their population or geographic size, some allowance was given in our constitution for similar concerns when the nation was United.  Otherwise you could also argue that the entire Senate is unrepresentative.  After all, it has two Senators for each state also regardless of population or geographic size.  Not only would you have to change the electoral process for Presidents.  You'd have to do away with the Senate in its current form because people would use the same argument for Sneators as they now do for the president. 

The other issue is that electoral voting gives one person a majority.  In the last election neither CLinton who got 48% and Trump who got 46% of the popular vote had a majority.  So the argument would change that neither has a mandate from the country.  But with the electoral vote, it came out 324 to 227.  Trump won with a 58% to 42% majority, a very comfortable win.  Ofm course the losing side always argues we should do away with the electoral college until it;s their guy who wins because of it.  So next time when the situation changes, we can both argue these points from the opposite side of the table.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 04, 2020, 04:11:42 pm
James you're missing the fact that we are a Federal republic made up of 50 EQUAL states.  Just like the General Assembly in the UN gives each nation 1 vote regardless of their population or geographic size, some allowance was given in our constitution for similar concerns when the nation was United.  Otherwise you could also argue that the entire Senate is unrepresentative.  After all, it has two Senators for each state also regardless of population or geographic size.  Not only would you have to change the electoral process for Presidents.  You'd have to do away with the Senate in its current form because people would use the same argument for Senators as they now do for the president.

Not at all.  I'm not arguing for a mob rule scenario where every aspect of the government is subject to the whim of a popular vote at some random point in time.  To the contrary, I think the bicameral legislature the founders created is a work of inspired genius.  In the place where federal law is made, protections to ensure that a large group cannot "vote away" the rights of a smaller group is both appropriate and essential.  Creating a system whereby a law must pass a body created both by proportional representation AND by a body of equals is about the best solution I can think of.

BUT... were not talking about laws that impact individual entities - we're talking about the election of a person to an office.  A person whose job is to represent the entirety of the people equally and to execute his/her duties to the benefit of the nation.  Why, in that scenario, would someone who lives in one physical space, whatever it is, be awarded disproportionate weight in that decision? 

The other issue is that electoral voting gives one person a majority.  In the last election neither CLinton who got 48% and Trump who got 46% of the popular vote had a majority.  So the argument would change that neither has a mandate from the country.  But with the electoral vote, it came out 324 to 227.  Trump won with a 58% to 42% majority, a very comfortable win.  Ofm course the losing side always argues we should do away with the electoral college until it;s their guy who wins because of it.  So next time when the situation changes, we can both argue these points from the opposite side of the table.  :)

I'm more sympathetic to this argument, I suppose, but it's hard to argue a "mandate" when 3 people vote for one guy, two others vote for the other guy, but because the first three people live 800 miles apart (but inside an arbitrary boundary), and the other two live 20 yards apart but across an invisible "state line" they carry the day, y'know?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 04, 2020, 04:19:05 pm
This whole argument against the electoral college and that it is antiquated really annoys me. 

First off, the idea that it is old and need to be replaced with the popular vote, an idea that has existed since the dawn civilization, is absurd.  If you truly feel it is outdated, dont suggest replacing it with something that is older then it is by an extremely large margin because your argument makes no sense what so ever. 

Second, nearly everyone that proposes the popular votes seems to think there still would only be two major candidates.  This is just not the case.  The electoral college is what makes our country a two party system, because most likely any third party candidate would not get a single electoral vote on election day.  It is within the best interest of a party to consolidate national representation to ensure getting to most electoral votes, which is why we are a two party system.  This then decreases the choices we have, which means national elections become a binary situation.  In a popular vote system, there would be more then two viable candidates increasing the likelihood no single person would get more then 50% of the vote.  This would create dissidents within the country.

Third, these same people also seem to think (along with many others) that in most elections a single charismatic leader would arise and capture the majority.  But this is not how it works.  In most elections it is the opposite; you have a bunch of weak candidates who end up splitting the electorate.  Just look at the current candidates in the Democratic primary.  This, combined with the change in the rules the DNC made in the primary (bringing the primary very close to a popular vote) means there is a good chance the convention is going to be contested.  If this happens without an obvious FDR like figure (FDR was the result of a contested convention), this will more then likely create a larger amount of dissidents within the party then the nonsense complaints of the Bernie Bros in 2016.  In real time, we are seeing why popular votes are so bad. 

Considering these points, in a national election run by a popular vote, most elections would result in having many candidates all getting less than 50% and with (a good possibility) that the vote would be split regionally.  The majority of the country would not except a result like this more then a couple times in a row.  It would be a recipe for breaking up the country. 

The electoral college mitigates all of this.  It does completely eliminate it, but greatly reduces it.  It gives us only two real choices, making the result excepted by the majority nearly every time, and forces candidates to campaign throughout the country, not just in a few states. 

The fact is the popular vote has been around for eons, and history shows just how bad of an idea it is.

Alan, your arguments hold no water.

1) We elect governors, senators, representatives, some judges, insurance commissioners, some state attorneys general, sheriffs, and so on by popular vote. None of the issues you describe have come up.

2) Your idea that the EC encourages candidates to campaign in every state is exactly opposite to the truth. If a state is sure to go for the other guy, why bother? And if it is sure to go for you, why bother? But if every vote counts, then 10,000 more Dem votes in Alabama, or 10,000 more GOP votes in NY, can make a difference. Hence it is actually a popular vote that would encourage candidates to campaign in more places.

3) California has ~285,000 eligible voters for each of its electoral votes. Alaska has ~112,000. This means that a voter in Alaska has two and a half times as much say in a presidential election. Please explain to me how this is democracy, fair, or right.

4) If the popular vote did lead to multiple candidates, it is easily handled by ranked choice voting. Look it up.

So, your arguments are nonsense. Please think about it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 04, 2020, 04:30:46 pm
Alan, your arguments hold no water.

1) We elect governors, senators, representatives, some judges, insurance commissioners, some state attorneys general, sheriffs, and so on by popular vote. None of the issues you describe have come up.

2) Your idea that the EC encourages candidates to campaign in every state is exactly opposite to the truth. If a state is sure to go for the other guy, why bother? And if it is sure to go for you, why bother? But if every vote counts, then 10,000 more Dem votes in Alabama, or 10,000 more GOP votes in NY, can make a difference. Hence it is actually a popular vote that would encourage candidates to campaign in more places.

3) California has ~285,000 eligible voters for each of its electoral votes. Alaska has ~112,000. This means that a voter in Alaska has two and a half times as much say in a presidential election. Please explain to me how this is democracy, fair, or right.

4) If the popular vote did lead to multiple candidates, it is easily handled by ranked choice voting. Look it up.

So, your arguments are nonsense. Please think about it.

First, I have not, to the best of my knowledge, changed my name to Alan.  It is still Joseph.   ;)

1.  You are talking about small regional elections, with the exception of the governor.  Small political issue are easier to handle than larger issues.  People largely except the results or move; you cant as easily move out of the country.  Now, for the governors, those elections are almost always between two people picked by either the Dem and Republican party.  Only two candidates, because even on a state level, the electoral college still influences having only two parties, and another binary choice.  So, the reason the issues I presented do not show up is because it is still a binary election influenced by the electoral college.  Plus, even in this case, you can move if you dont like it. 

2.  This is just flat out wrong; the short history of this country tells us so.  If you feel this way, then it is a sure fire process of not getting elected.  HRC felt this way about WI, PA and MI, but Trump did not.  He got those states to switch and vote for him even though everyone said he was crazy to campaign there.  Same thing was true with TX when Reagan ran.  TX was a reliable blue state, until Reagan.  WV was a reliable blue state until Bush got them to switch in 2000 (and that is actually what won him the election).  CA use to be a deep red state.  Fact is states have changed color several times over from politicians recognizing an opening and it is not going to stop.  History completely disproves your notion here.  I would not be surprised if CA voted red in 2024.  I think there is too much hate for Trump in CA for it to happen now.  However if the homeless issues do not get fixed by 2024 (and it does not look like it will), CA could be wide open for Republicans. 

3.  There is a census every ten years that addresses this issue.  In 2021, guess what, CA is getting more electoral votes due to population changes.  Other states are getting less. 

4.  Rank voting choices without a majority leader would not be a better option then a binary vote.  A 4 person election with each candidate not getting any more then 30% of the vote and then picking a ranked choice would not be excepted by the majority of the country.  With a binary election, in almost all cases, the majority gets it way and the election is excepted.  There are flukes, but better to live with those flukes (that get close to the majority) then deal with far below majority leaders who will be rejected by the majority of peopler. 

It really appears as if you need to think about it your arguments and do a little research too.  As I said, there are plenty of examples throughout history to show us just how bad popular votes are over a large geography. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 04, 2020, 04:36:48 pm
Not at all.  I'm not arguing for a mob rule scenario where every aspect of the government is subject to the whim of a popular vote at some random point in time.  To the contrary, I think the bicameral legislature the founders created is a work of inspired genius.  In the place where federal law is made, protections to ensure that a large group cannot "vote away" the rights of a smaller group is both appropriate and essential.  Creating a system whereby a law must pass a body created both by proportional representation AND by a body of equals is about the best solution I can think of.

BUT... were not talking about laws that impact individual entities - we're talking about the election of a person to an office.  A person whose job is to represent the entirety of the people equally and to execute his/her duties to the benefit of the nation.  Why, in that scenario, would someone who lives in one physical space, whatever it is, be awarded disproportionate weight in that decision? 

I'm more sympathetic to this argument, I suppose, but it's hard to argue a "mandate" when 3 people vote for one guy, two others vote for the other guy, but because the first three people live 800 miles apart (but inside an arbitrary boundary), and the other two live 20 yards apart but across an invisible "state line" they carry the day, y'know?
Never mind 800 miles across state lines.  How is it fair that my next door neighbor vote counts because he voted for CLinton while vote doesn't because all the electoral votes in my state of New Jersey went to Clinton?  Heck it could e my wife.  :)  But that's how states decides to handle the vote that in almost all state, the majority vote get ALL electors to vote for the president.

Also what you're not including is that the electoral vote give weight to the State to provide some equality so it can;t be only by popular vote.  In any case, it would require a constitutional change, something the smaller states won;t vote for.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 04, 2020, 04:39:29 pm
Thanks Joe for answering Peter.  I have to leave to go see a magic comedy show with my wife.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 04, 2020, 04:42:42 pm
Never mind 800 miles across state lines.  How is it fair that my next door neighbor vote counts because he voted for CLinton while vote doesn't because all the electoral votes in my state of New Jersey went to Clinton?  Heck it could e my wife.  :)  But that's how states decides to handle the vote that in almost all state, the majority vote get ALL electors to vote for the president.

Also what you're not including is that the electoral vote give weight to the State to provide some equality so it can;t be only by popular vote.  In any case, it would require a constitutional change, something the smaller states won;t vote for.

Alan, I *think* I agree with you on this, that each person's vote should count the same. But if I may make a suggestion, proofread your messages before sending.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 04, 2020, 04:55:30 pm
Never mind 800 miles across state lines.  How is it fair that my next door neighbor vote counts because he voted for CLinton while vote doesn't because all the electoral votes in my state of New Jersey went to Clinton?  Heck it could e my wife.  :)  But that's how states decides to handle the vote that in almost all state, the majority vote get ALL electors to vote for the president.

Exactly right - it's not fair at all.    A few states do do proportional assignment of electors, but then you basically have a representation of the popular vote, so...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 04, 2020, 05:05:31 pm
... In 2021, guess what, CA is getting more electoral votes due to population changes...

What population changes? People are leaving CA in droves. The only explanation is - illegals. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 04, 2020, 05:07:28 pm
Exactly right - it's not fair at all.    A few states do do proportional assignment of electors, but then you basically have a representation of the popular vote, so...

As I said before, if you really think the popular vote is so great, just sit back and watch Dem primary this year.  The rule changes in 2016 pretty much make it a popular vote amongst nothing but weak candidates, which is going to lead to a contested convention. 

Frankly, I dont know of any FDR figure in the background that will come in and unite the party, then the country, which is what the Dems will need if this happens. 

With a once in a lifetime politician like Obama (note I wrote politician and not leader  ;)), it would not matter.  But with nothing but weak candidates, it becomes a big issue.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 04, 2020, 05:12:07 pm
What population changes? People are leaving CA in droves. The only explanation is - illegals.

I thought of this initially as well, especially considering the state has had a net loss of population in the last 5 years.  Could be one of the reason the Dems fought so hard to keep the citizen question off of the census, even though for a large part of our history it was on there. 

By the way, the UN even states countries should do a census of citizens. 

Plus, the official changes are not out yet; what I read was a good calculation showing CA getting more votes in 2021.  My point though was that the amount of electoral votes a state gets changes, just like with redistricting. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 04, 2020, 05:17:45 pm
What population changes? People are leaving CA in droves. The only explanation is - illegals.

There's a net loss of people leaving vs. moving in, but apparently babies make up for the difference, and then some. (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article238941438.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 04, 2020, 05:41:01 pm
First, I have not, to the best of my knowledge, changed my name to Alan.  It is still Joseph.   ;)

1.  You are talking about small regional elections, with the exception of the governor.  Small political issue are easier to handle than larger issues.  People largely except the results or move; you cant as easily move out of the country.  Now, for the governors, those elections are almost always between two people picked by either the Dem and Republican party.  Only two candidates, because even on a state level, the electoral college still influences having only two parties, and another binary choice.  So, the reason the issues I presented do not show up is because it is still a binary election influenced by the electoral college.  Plus, even in this case, you can move if you dont like it. 

2.  This is just flat out wrong; the short history of this country tells us so.  If you feel this way, then it is a sure fire process of not getting elected.  HRC felt this way about WI, PA and MI, but Trump did not.  He got those states to switch and vote for him even though everyone said he was crazy to campaign there.  Same thing was true with TX when Reagan ran.  TX was a reliable blue state, until Reagan.  WV was a reliable blue state until Bush got them to switch in 2000 (and that is actually what won him the election).  CA use to be a deep red state.  Fact is states have changed color several times over from politicians recognizing an opening and it is not going to stop.  History completely disproves your notion here.  I would not be surprised if CA voted red in 2024.  I think there is too much hate for Trump in CA for it to happen now.  However if the homeless issues do not get fixed by 2024 (and it does not look like it will), CA could be wide open for Republicans. 

3.  There is a census every ten years that addresses this issue.  In 2021, guess what, CA is getting more electoral votes due to population changes.  Other states are getting less. 

4.  Rank voting choices without a majority leader would not be a better option then a binary vote.  A 4 person election with each candidate not getting any more then 30% of the vote and then picking a ranked choice would not be excepted by the majority of the country.  With a binary election, in almost all cases, the majority gets it way and the election is excepted.  There are flukes, but better to live with those flukes (that get close to the majority) then deal with far below majority leaders who will be rejected by the majority of peopler. 

It really appears as if you need to think about it your arguments and do a little research too.  As I said, there are plenty of examples throughout history to show us just how bad popular votes are over a large geography.

Sorry about the name error. But really, you seem to live in an alternate universe as regards facts and logic, so...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 04, 2020, 06:16:20 pm
There's a net loss of people leaving vs. moving in, but apparently babies make up for the difference, and then some. (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article238941438.html)

And whose babies are those? The culture that multiplies like rabbits? Natality of non-immigrant Americans (well, at least those here for several generations) continues to be in decline, below reproduction rate. Norwegian immigrants don’t multiply like rabbits either.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 04, 2020, 06:18:41 pm
Sorry about the name error. But really, you seem to live in an alternate universe as regards facts and logic, so...

And yet you cant refute a single point I made.

LOL

You claimed that we have popular votes on a local level, but leave out the fact that with major local races they are still binary elections between only two major candidates.  Those two candidate almost always come from the Democrat and Republican party, the two major parties in our country.  The only two parties due to the electoral college. 

Perhaps with city councilmen and judges, things are different, but do people pay nearly as much attention to those as mayor and governor?  No, or at least I know I dont.  Those elections, the major ones, are almost always binary due to our two party system brought on by the electoral college.  In Philly in last year's election there were like 12 people running for city council, with only the top 4 getting the spots.  The mayor had only two running, a Dem and a Republican.  I can tell you both who ran for mayor, but cant name any of my councilmen.  (But most importantly , I thought Krasner was up for election, and was annoyed when I found out I could not vote against him!)

You then complain that with the electoral college if a state is sure to vote for you or the other person, it makes no sense to campaign in those states.  Sorry, but that is the very reason Trump won.  WI, MI and PA were suppose to vote for Hillary, so (under your logic) HRC choose not to campaign there.  Trump (under my logic) did even though many said it was pointless.  That is what won the election, and it is the reason for several wins in the past. 

Like I said, look at WV in 2000.  Before the 2000 election, WV was very blue and only had 4 electoral votes in that election.  There was no reason for Bush to campaign there, under your logic.  However, he did, and won the state along with the 4 votes with an electoral win of 271 to 266.  If Bush did what you suggested, he would have lost the election to Gore with Gore getting 270 votes and Bush getting 267. 

You then ignore the census, which, reallocated electoral votes every 10 years, and complain that it is not fait because it does not take population into account.  This is false; it may not be even, perfectly, but the electoral votes are changed every 10 years to keep it as fair as possible. 

Last, rank voting does not work, which is why no country uses the popular vote to elect their national leader.  Having a president that only got 30% of the popular vote because the other 3 all got ~26% would never be fully excepted.  To say otherwise means you are not really thinking about it.  You are just using your sour grapes of loosing in 2016 to justify a bad idea that has failed repeatably throughout history. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 04, 2020, 06:24:38 pm
And?

Trump 2020.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 04, 2020, 06:27:41 pm
Trump 2020.

Because babies in CA?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 04, 2020, 07:49:09 pm
Why are you all even arguing about getting rid of the electoral college? First tell us which 38 states you think are going to vote in favor of that proposition.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 04, 2020, 08:08:04 pm
Because babies in CA?

Among other things.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on January 04, 2020, 08:48:38 pm
Why are you all even arguing about getting rid of the electoral college? First tell us which 38 states you think are going to vote in favor of that proposition.
+1
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 04, 2020, 09:23:52 pm
Why are you all even arguing about getting rid of the electoral college? First tell us which 38 states you think are going to vote in favor of that proposition.

Who cares about the electoral college, constitution, and the federal framework!? What we need is a revolution. And renaming the United States of America into “People’s Republic of America.”
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 04, 2020, 09:33:40 pm
Who cares about the electoral college, constitution, and the federal framework!? What we need is a revolution. And renaming the United States of America into “People’s Republic of America.”

...says the guy whose preferred candidate from president literally argues that the law doesn't apply to him, (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/10/11/trump-lawyers-say-presidents-have-immunity-from-criminal-investigations/3935796002/) and whose preferred party is on record repeatedly copping to cover suppression as an election tactic. 

Puh-leeez.

Spare me your crocodile tears as you weep for the republic.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 04, 2020, 09:41:12 pm
Why are you all even arguing about getting rid of the electoral college? First tell us which 38 states you think are going to vote in favor of that proposition.

Because it's an interesting discussion that involves history, politics, and law. 

For example, each state has the right to assign electors as they see fit, so you can work within the Constitutional framework and still directly elect the president. (https://www.nationalpopularvote.com)

PS - Joe - you should check out some of the sublinks there.. Data suggests that your reliance on the EC to make each state relevant is misplaced.  For example, in 2016 94% of campaign events were held in 12 states, comprising 30% of the population.  Check it. (https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/president-trump-reaffirms-his-long-standing-opposition-electoral-college-and-favors-nationwide-vote)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 04, 2020, 10:19:16 pm
Because it's an interesting discussion that involves history, politics, and law. 

For example, each state has the right to assign electors as they see fit, so you can work within the Constitutional framework and still directly elect the president. (https://www.nationalpopularvote.com)

PS - Joe - you should check out some of the sublinks there.. Data suggests that your reliance on the EC to make each state relevant is misplaced.  For example, in 2016 94% of campaign events were held in 12 states, comprising 30% of the population.  Check it. (https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/president-trump-reaffirms-his-long-standing-opposition-electoral-college-and-favors-nationwide-vote)
First, you won;t get enough states to sign on to that proposition.  Second it has not been tested in the Supreme COurt and would be thrown out as unconstitutional.  Third, it would cause some electors to flip to switch the winner at the last minute as all the electors from one or two states decide to ignore the state rules and vote for who they want.  As recently as in 2016, two Trump electors who should have voted for him flipped to vote for Clinton.  And 5 Clinton electors flipped and voted for Trump. 

Additionally, unless every state signs on, then those that don;t would have huge power to flip the election as all of their state's electors vote for one candidate while the other states divide their votes between two candidates or more.  It would also encourage more third party candidates hurting one or more popular candidates who could have won but now don;t because their vote was watered down.  PLus, if you can actually get all the states to sign on, then you should be able to get 38 states to approve an amendment to the constitution.  So what's the point?

This whole compact is a feel good bill that will accomplish nothing.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 04, 2020, 10:25:54 pm
PS The reason it's unconstitutional is because my vote is determine how others vote in other states.  My vote doesn;t count.  As an aside, how is that democratic?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: bwana on January 04, 2020, 10:36:21 pm
Well, it seems he needed to get the press of his back, so he decided to assassinate some random iranian and iraqi officials while congress was still on holiday.. no one is talking about impeachment anymore. True, demonstrators were attacking the US embassy in Iraq but the trail to those generals was not clear. I wish he had the NSA/CIA issue a statement showing how they identified the culprits first-but then I guess the Iranian/Iraqui would have denied it.

Asymmetric warfare has its own rules. Trump et. al. could have made it look like [pick one of the following] (Russians/Chinese/Saudis/Israelis) did it. Or they could have made it look like an accident. Polonium is quite effective as Russia demonstrated a few years ago.

I feel like our nation has become another Laurel and Hardy comedy. Can you just hear Congress (Oliver) saying to Trump (Stan) - 'now this is another fine mess you gotten us in to'.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 04, 2020, 10:44:37 pm
Well, it seems he needed to get the press of his back, so he decided to assassinate some random iranian and iraqi officials while congress was still on holiday.. no one is talking about impeachment anymore. True, demonstrators were attacking the US embassy in Iraq but the trail to those generals was not clear. I wish he had the NSA/CIA issue a statement showing how they identified the culprits first-but then I guess the Iranian/Iraqui would have denied it.

Asymmetric warfare has its own rules. Trump et. al. could have made it look like [pick one of the following] (Russians/Chinese/Saudis/Israelis) did it. Or they could have made it look like an accident. Polonium is quite effective as Russia demonstrated a few years ago.

I feel like our nation has become another Laurel and Hardy comedy. Can you just hear Congress (Oliver) saying to Trump (Stan) - 'now this is another fine mess you gotten us in to'.

The President says that Iranian General Soleimani, who has been credited with killing around 800 Americans troops directly with his troops or through allies of Iran over the last ten years,  flew into Baghdad Iraq and met with a leader of an Iraqi terrorist group that attacked the embassy the other day and were planning to attack again to kill American civilians and troops.  The president killed both of these enemies of America.   If the president did nothing, and we wound up with another American embassy taken over like what happened under Pres Carter with Americans killed like in Benghazi under Obama, everyone would blame Trump for not protecting Americans.  Trump did his job. 

While we don;t want to get into a war with Iran, we can't allow these forces to attack us.  What would you do in his situation? 


Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 04, 2020, 10:46:28 pm
First, you won;t get enough states to sign on to that proposition. 

A surprising number already have.

Second it has not been tested in the Supreme Court and would be thrown out as unconstitutional.

Both of these statements can't be true ;)   

Third, it would cause some electors to flip to switch the winner at the last minute as all the electors from one or two states decide to ignore the state rules and vote for who they want.  As recently as in 2016, two Trump electors who should have voted for him flipped to vote for Clinton.  And 5 Clinton electors flipped and voted for Trump.

As you suggest, as of now the electors are already not necessary bound by the state's popular vote.  Their right to act independently is, at worst, undetermined.  If anything, this would eliminate that problem.

Additionally, unless every state signs on, then those that don;t would have huge power to flip the election as all of their state's electors vote for one candidate while the other states divide their votes between two candidates or more.  It would also encourage more third party candidates hurting one or more popular candidates who could have won but now don't because their vote was watered down.

Plus, if you can actually get all the states to sign on, then you should be able to get 38 states to approve an amendment to the constitution.  So what's the point?

This whole compact is a feel good bill that will accomplish nothing.

Read the details - the compact doesn't take effect until states comprising 270 EC votes put it into law.  At that point, whatever another state/group of states does becomes irrelevant because 270 EC votes are already committed.

PS The reason it's unconstitutional is because my vote is determine how others vote in other states.  My vote doesn't count.  As an aside, how is that democratic?

It's democratic is the same way that your vote doesn't count now if you're on the losing side of a winner-take-all state.  The fact is, the ONLY way everyone's vote counts equally is in a direct popular vote. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 04, 2020, 10:49:00 pm


While we don;t want to get into a war with Iran, we can't allow these forces to attack us.  What would you do in his situation?

Not escalate in the first place.  Iran was under control, then Trump came in and dicked it all up. Because he's an "f'ing moron" (Tillerson's words, not mine).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 04, 2020, 10:55:14 pm
A surprising number already have.

Both of these statements can't be true ;)   

As you suggest, as of now the electors are already not necessary bound by the state's popular vote.  Their right to act independently is, at worst, undetermined.  If anything, this would eliminate that problem.

Plus, if you can actually get all the states to sign on, then you should be able to get 38 states to approve an amendment to the constitution.  So what's the point?

This whole compact is a feel good bill that will accomplish nothing.


Read the details - the compact doesn't take effect until states comprising 270 EC votes put it into law.  At that point, whatever another state/group of states does becomes irrelevant because 270 EC votes are already committed.

It's democratic is the same way that your vote doesn't count now if you're on the losing side of a winner-take-all state.  The fact is, the ONLY way everyone's vote counts equally is in a direct popular vote. 

You missed the point that I made regarding this.  What if one of those states changes their minds and ignore their compact and allows the electors to ALL vote for the other candidate?  How would you enforce it?  The electors according to the constitution go to Washington to give their vote.  There would be great incentive to change the vote from proportional to all electors if the popular vote went differently than what the state vote was.  In other words, let's say a Democrat state that voted Democrat popularly had to have their electors vote Republican because the country wide vote was Republican in majority.  There would be great incentive for that Democrat state to ignore the compact and  throw all their electors votes to the Democrat to swing the election to the Democrat.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 04, 2020, 10:59:06 pm
You missed the point that I made regarding this.  What if one of those states changes their minds and ignore their compact and allows the electors to ALL vote for the other candidate?  How would you enforce it?  The electors according to the constitution go to Washington to give their vote.  There would be great incentive to change the vote from proportional to all electors if the popular vote went differently than what the state vote was.  In other words, let's say a Democrat state that voted Democrat popularly had to have their electors vote Republican because the country wide vote was Republican in majority.  There would be great incentive for that Democrat state to ignore the compact and  throw all their electors votes to the Democrat to swing the election to the Democrat.

I think under the terms of the compact that would be illegal.  It's not just a casual agreement (like Obama made with Iran ;) ) - it would have the force of actual law behind it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 04, 2020, 10:59:48 pm
Not escalate in the first place.  Iran was under control, then Trump came in and dicked it all up. Because he's an "f'ing moron" (Tillerson's words, not mine).
Iran was not under control.  Sulaimani was killing Americans and moving Iran to control the Middle East long before Trump became president.  The compact was in force before Trump took over yet the Iranians were liong doing these things.  Additionally, the nuclear compact gave them a green light to do all these things as Obama did nothing deliberately to dissuade the Iranians from pushing themselves to control the ME.  Obama gave them billions to finance their designs. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 04, 2020, 11:03:45 pm
Iran was not under control.  Sulaimani was killing Americans and moving Iran to control the Middle East long before Trump became president.  The compact was in force before Trump took over yet the Iranians were liong doing these things.  Additionally, the nuclear compact gave them a green light to do all these things as Obama did nothing deliberately to dissuade the Iranians from pushing themselves to control the ME.  Obama gave them billions to finance their designs.

I don't think there's any way to rationally conclude that the ME is in a better situation today than it was on the last day of the Obama presidency.  Besides, according to the 7 Benghazi hearings we had to endure, this latest attack is entirely Trump's fault.  Or maybe Pompeo's. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 04, 2020, 11:05:15 pm
I think under the terms of the compact that would be illegal.  It's not just a casual agreement (like Obama made with Iran ;) ) - it would have the force of actual law behind it.
Well, it's a dream that will never happen because it requires states to give up their power and vote to other states and voters in other states.  The people who vote for this don;t understand the implications.   The first time a state has to change their votes to electors that their state didn't vote for, the whole compact will fall apart.  Can you imagine Democrat California changing their electoral vote to Republican because the majority popular vote in the country was Republican?  They'd hang the guy who pushed their legislature to pass this bill. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 04, 2020, 11:13:09 pm
I don't think it's any way to rationally conclude that the ME is in a better situation today than it was on the last day of the Obama presidency.  Besides, according to the 7 Benghazi hearings we had to endure, this latest attack is entirely Trump's fault.  Or maybe Pompeo's. 
Territorial ISIS was destroyed and its leader killed.  Iran is in trouble economically and could collapse like the Soviet Union did.  Those are positives.

Now it's possible that we could be in further conflict with Iran.  And it would be nice to get out of the ME totally.  A pox on all their houses.  They're going to continue to kill each other.  I don;t see why we have to act as referee and get bloodied by their tribalism and religious hatreds.  I don;t see the Germans, or Dutch, or Brits jumping in to take over from America.  Heck, we don;t need ME oil.  They do.  Let them keep a lid on the mess.  So we get stuck with the job.  Trump actually is losing his instinct to get out as he promised.  Maybe the Neocons got to him.     
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: bwana on January 05, 2020, 12:09:28 am
Unclear is why there were so many demonstrations against the US embassy only. Israel/Russia/China are all in close proximity to Iraq/Iran. They stand most to suffer from a nuclear 'accident' in the region. Yet they are not pushing for nuclear restraints on Iran nor are they being overtly hostile-though who knows what they are doing covertly. Mossad certainly has more people on the ground there and could have intervened against these generals who are more of a threat to them.

By thumping his chest, Trump has exposed all US citizens to risk. All US businesses in the region will suffer and now have to spend more on security - or leave those markets.Why isnt the US cultivating better relations with Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan? equally oil and gas rich nations? Turkey who was once a stalwart US supporter seems also to be turning to a more neutral stance. We will have no friendly allies in the region soon. The last thing we need is a swath of anti-US sentiment sweeping through that entire region.

Is this his idea of stopping the impeachment-starting another war?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 05, 2020, 12:19:44 am
Unclear is why there were so many demonstrations against the US embassy only. Israel/Russia/China are all in close proximity to Iraq/Iran. They stand most to suffer from a nuclear 'accident' in the region. Yet they are not pushing for nuclear restraints on Iran nor are they being overtly hostile-though who knows what they are doing covertly. Mossad certainly has more people on the ground there and could have intervened against these generals who are more of a threat to them.

By thumping his chest, Trump has exposed all US citizens to risk. All US businesses in the region will suffer and now have to spend more on security - or leave those markets.Why isnt the US cultivating better relations with Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan? equally oil and gas rich nations? Turkey who was once a stalwart US supporter seems also to be turning to a more neutral stance. We will have no friendly allies in the region soon. The last thing we need is a swath of anti-US sentiment sweeping through that entire region.

Is this his idea of stopping the impeachment-starting another war?
Except for Israel, I wasn't  aware of anyone else who likes us. The Saudis put up with us because we protect their butts.  The fact we're going against SHia Iran makes them and all the other Sunnis in the region happy.  They hate the Shias more than they hate us.  The thing to remember about the Middle East is strength is the only thing that counts.  Weakness on our part makes them aggressive.  They only understand violence.  If you kiss their butts, they'll kick yours. 

Why should America establish closer relations with Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan?  Actually I thought we were.  But, regardless,  we don't need their only.  Europe does.  They should be sending troops over there, not us, to protect the Strait of Hormuz.

Turkey under Erdogan, is looking for more power there and has drifted religious oriented.  Not Trump's fault.  He has worked to make Erdogan happy regarding the Kurds.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 05, 2020, 04:41:40 am
1. Unclear is why there were so many demonstrations against the US embassy only. 2. Israel/Russia/China are all in close proximity to Iraq/Iran. They stand most to suffer from a nuclear 'accident' in the region. Yet they are not pushing for nuclear restraints on Iran nor are they being overtly hostile-though who knows what they are doing covertly. 3. Mossad certainly has more people on the ground there and could have intervened against these generals who are more of a threat to them.

4.
By thumping his chest, Trump has exposed all US citizens to risk. All US businesses in the region will suffer and now have to spend more on security - or leave those markets.Why isnt the US cultivating better relations with Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan? equally oil and gas rich nations? 5. Turkey who was once a stalwart US supporter seems also to be turning to a more neutral stance. We will have no friendly allies in the region soon. 6. The last thing we need is a swath of anti-US sentiment sweeping through that entire region.

Is this his idea of stopping the impeachment-starting another war?

1. Easy: the US is the Great Satan in those eyes.

2. Israel is the US in all but name, or at least, that's the world perception, never more so than now, through marital/religious/fiscal/military/blind political connections, just as with all international alliances going back through history. A brief look at European history is all you need take to see how marriages made the borders change overnight.

Russia/China are not in love with the US; their foreign diplomacy is different: China buys into countries whereas Russia either takes, or battles its way into alliances of opportunity. The US (and much of Europe, for that matter) appears, to me at least, always to be caught a little behind the pace. That could be because from the top, there's only one place left you can go. And we all know everything changes.

3. That's certainly a nice truth or non-truth to have citizens of Israel believe.

4. That's been the case for decades, now. Trump's just another face of it.

5. Turkey plays all sides, always has. That's why it had an empire and why, when that period passed, it continued to be important in the region. The lands known as the Balkans have ever been a hotbed of intrigue. Think of the relationship as that of island Britain and Europe: some commercial friendship, some blood friendship, some competition, some love some hatred, and huge amounts of misunderstanding. Turkey isn't relatively isolated in the physical world: unlike the US it plays with guys next door who can throw stones through your windows. The US, today, is finding that countries who have rockets are closing those safety distance and it doesn't like that one bit. Welcome to the new world.

6. Far too late to prevent that. Sadly, it doesn't even take hostile US action to bring it about: a fundamental failing in human nature is manifest in the fact that being in positions of comparative wealth create their own gulfs. It's a kind of reversal of the Stockholm Syndrome, where people who help you eventually become disliked because of their very superiority in being able to help you in your lesser circumstances. Charity is best received anonymously. The Beatles told you: you can't buy love.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 05, 2020, 06:06:38 am
... It's a kind of reversal of the Stockholm Syndrome, where people who help you eventually become disliked because of their very superiority in being able to help you in your lesser circumstances...

Ain’t that the truth. In politics, and in personal relationships.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 05, 2020, 07:42:55 am
For example, each state has the right to assign electors as they see fit, so you can work within the Constitutional framework and still directly elect the president. (https://www.nationalpopularvote.com)

The first time a state flips their electors in the electoral college to the opposite from the way the majority in the state voted the fat will be in the fire. The election will be in the hands of the Supreme Court. There's little doubt how that'll turn out.

Interesting, James, you have strong opinions about U.S. politics, but you won't tell us where you are or how old you are. Hmmmm....
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 05, 2020, 08:05:55 am
... Interesting, James, you have strong opinions about U.S. politics, but you won't tell us where you are or how old you are. Hmmmm....

To be fair, James has provided plenty of personal info in the past. He is a cool guy.  We just happen to (politely) disagree politically.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 05, 2020, 08:12:28 am
I think under the terms of the compact that would be illegal.  It's not just a casual agreement (like Obama made with Iran ;) ) - it would have the force of actual law behind it.

But this is not the case.  The constitution gives the electors the right to vote for whom ever they want.  This has been tested in the Supreme Court and upheld.  The Pack would be a state law, whereas the elector's right to choose is a federal law.  Federal law trumps state law. 

It is kind of like how a mail truck has the right of way over a police car or ambulance, because it is a federal vehicle and the others are not.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 05, 2020, 08:16:55 am
To be fair, James has provided plenty of personal info in the past. He is a cool guy.  We just happen to (politely) disagree politically.

I know James is a good guy, Slobodan. I even like his photography. But I think everybody posting on The Coffee Corner should say where they're from and how old they are. That has nothing at all to do with their photography, but it has plenty to do with their political arguments.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 05, 2020, 08:30:10 am
Not escalate in the first place.  Iran was under control, then Trump came in and dicked it all up. Because he's an "f'ing moron" (Tillerson's words, not mine).

Both Trump and Obama drew a red line in the sand in the Middle East.  Obama did with Syria, and then, when Syria crossed it, Obama did nothing.  Not that I wanted a war with Syria, but if you are going to make a threat and not keep it, you make the country look weak and people will start to walk over you.   Best not to say anything. 

Trump said that if any Americans were killed, the USA would retaliate.  An American contractor was killed by Iranian backed forces last week near Kirkuk.  So, unlike Obama, Trump followed through.  Now, I certainly don't want a war with Iran, but threats and deterrents don't work unless you have the resolve to take action.   I would rather have this then ... just sending them a few palates of unmarked currency and hoping for the best. 

Furthermore, Iran was far from under control.  Have you missed the few stories on oil tankers being taken over?  Have you missed the stories on Iranian back militias causing havoc?  The fact is, evil people dont stop being evil just because you leave them alone.  Chamberlain taught us that with appeasement. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 05, 2020, 08:42:25 am
Here's an interesting question concerning the pack. 

Lets say a state votes for the republican but the national popular vote was for the democrat.  In the state, who's party's electors will be the ones who vote?  Will the republican party electors be sent to DC to vote?  Since the state voted for the republican, I would assume under law the republican party electors would be the ones that would have to be sent. 

In case you dont know, the electors of a party are some of the most ardent supporters of that party, which is why it was futile to try and get the electors to change there vote in 2016.  I just cant imagine, given the fact that electors are allowed to vote for whom them choose under federal policy, that the electors would actually follow through in this situation (or if the parties were reversed) and vote against their party. 

Has this been addressed in the pack?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 05, 2020, 09:03:14 am
Ain’t that the truth. In politics, and in personal relationships.

Yes, it's a lesson learned from having lived long enough, and in several different sets of circumstances, to see it happen before your very eyes.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 05, 2020, 09:53:45 am
I know James is a good guy, Slobodan. I even like his photography. But I think everybody posting on The Coffee Corner should say where they're from and how old they are. That has nothing at all to do with their photography, but it has plenty to do with their political arguments.
+1  Knowing what country you;re from puts understanding on that person's perspective. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 05, 2020, 10:00:45 am
Here's an interesting question concerning the pack. 

Lets say a state votes for the republican but the national popular vote was for the democrat.  In the state, who's party's electors will be the ones who vote?  Will the republican party electors be sent to DC to vote?  Since the state voted for the republican, I would assume under law the republican party electors would be the ones that would have to be sent. 

In case you dont know, the electors of a party are some of the most ardent supporters of that party, which is why it was futile to try and get the electors to change there vote in 2016.  I just cant imagine, given the fact that electors are allowed to vote for whom them choose under federal policy, that the electors would actually follow through in this situation (or if the parties were reversed) and vote against their party. 

Has this been addressed in the pack?
That's why it will become a constitutional issue.  If the state allows the losing party's electors to go to Washington, rather than the winning electors, the voters from the majority winning party will sue in court claiming their voting rights have been taken away.  The State in effect reversed the vote of their state. I just can';t imagine the Supreme COurt allowing the losing electors to vote for the president.  What kind of voting rights is that?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 05, 2020, 12:33:01 pm
  In any case, I suspect Americans will start pulling back soon.  Then when  you'll have to spend more of your own money and blood defending yourselves, you'll miss the days when America was the world's policeman.

One way or another.

Quote
Iraq’s Parliament called for the expulsion of U.S. troops from the country Sunday in reaction to the American drone attack that killed a top Iranian general.

Lawmakers approved a resolution asking the Iraqi government to end the agreement under which Washington sent forces to Iraq more than four years ago to help in the fight against the Islamic State group.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/01/05/iraqis-vote-to-kick-us-troops-out-following-killing-of-soleimani/


Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 05, 2020, 01:27:31 pm
The problem with this is that, by and large, “states” are arbitrarily drawn and aren’t individuals of singular mind and concern.  To say that “California” would determine national elections is irrelevant - the national concerns of one person in San Francisco vs one person in Lancaster CA are as different in some as they are mine, in Austin, Tx and Alan’s in NJ, or some other person in Wyoming.  What actually ends up happening is that rural communities aren’t given equal footing in the sense that a farmer in Idaho has the same impact as a tech magnate in San Jose, but rather that farmer has an impact that is proportionally *greater* than the man or woman in CA.

Why are we to value milk over silicon?  Wheat over fruit?  Just because 40 million people live within the geographical division we call “California” is no reason for them to have less representation when choosing a national leader than the good folks of North Dakota, is there?

I had a nice, long and detailed post written and I closed the window by mistake so I'll keep it short and sweet since I don't want to type it all again.

The system works and unless you plan on ditching the Republic of States in favor of the People's Republic the systems works perfectly. Each STATE is afforded the exact same number of elector votes for he President of the UNITED STATES as they are members and votes in both the House and the Senate.  No state is worth more or less than any other. As an Individual you are granted a one man, one vote compact within each STATE to vote for EC electors.  Your state decides how that vote is used.  No one is disadvantaged.  Everyone is treated equally.

Now if you want to change the system, have at it.  The framers gave us a process to do so.  Get the votes and you can amend the constituition.

The 270 pact is an interesting attempt to end run the constitution but I don't think it will suceed either on getting enough States to agree or pass muster from The SCOTUS.

Finally in answer to some other posters, I'm 67, and live in Indiana.  I have voted for Carter, Carter, Reagan , Bush , Perot, Clinton, Bush, Bush, McCain, Romney, Trump
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: DP on January 05, 2020, 01:41:58 pm
An American contractor was killed by Iranian backed forces last week near Kirkuk. 
everything was / is a proper payback for Mosaddegh... Americans and British started it... not Iranians
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 05, 2020, 01:43:13 pm
One way or another.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/01/05/iraqis-vote-to-kick-us-troops-out-following-killing-of-soleimani/



Only the majority Shiite Iraqi legislators voted for the Americans to leave. All the Sunni and Kurdish Iraqi  legislaters didn't even show up for the vote because they don't want America to leave. They're really afraid that once America leaves they will be abused by the majority Shiites.  The article should have stated that.  That's poor journalism and slanted news.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 05, 2020, 01:48:16 pm
Only the majority Shiite Iraqi legislators voted for the Americans to leave. All the Sunni and Kurdish Iraqi  legislaters didn't even show up for the vote because they don't want America to leave. They're really afraid that once America leaves they will be abused by the majority Shiites.  The article should have stated that.  That's poor journalism and slanted news.   
That was 60 years ago.   Your rationale is why Sunnis and Shias are still fighting 1400 later.   In any case what iran is doing in the middle east is about power politics,  not what happened 60 years ago. 

The only question for America is what we want to do about it. Does it make sense for us to be involved at all? Or should we just let all the parties Fight It Out Among themselves
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 05, 2020, 02:18:06 pm
everything was / is a proper payback for Mosaddegh... Americans and British started it... not Iranians

Going all the way back to 1953 are we.  Give me a break. 

You sound just as foolish as those old Cubans in Miami that cant get over something that took place 60 years ago.  Let at least keep things relevant to the last decade or so.  And by the way, the Iranian people are just as pleased as we are over this.  It's really the oppressive Mullahs that are at odds here. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 05, 2020, 03:23:58 pm
Going all the way back to 1953 are we.  Give me a break. 

You sound just as foolish as those old Cubans in Miami that cant get over something that took place 60 years ago.  Let at least keep things relevant to the last decade or so.  And by the way, the Iranian people are just as pleased as we are over this.  It's really the oppressive Mullahs that are at odds here.

Interesting because it has also looked to me that it's the USA that can't get over what happened 60 years ago. Seems like you guys took it really hard when Castro tossed out the New York mafia.  :)

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 05, 2020, 03:30:29 pm
Interesting because it has also looked to me that it's the USA that can't get over what happened 60 years ago. Seems like you guys took it really hard when Castro tossed out the New York mafia.  :)

I want us to get over it too. 

Well I don’t know.  Opening up Cuba would sky rocket Cuban cigar prices, something that I would not want to see even though I have a hefty collection.   8)

In all seriousness though I think it would be better.  However the swing state of FL has a lot of sway right now, so those angry Miamians are getting there way.  If FL was a reliant red or blue state, the embargo would be over by now. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 05, 2020, 03:38:24 pm
That was 60 years ago.   Your rationale is why Sunnis and Shias are still fighting 1400 later.   In any case what iran is doing in the middle east is about power politics,  not what happened 60 years ago. 

The only question for America is what we want to do about it. Does it make sense for us to be involved at all? Or should we just let all the parties Fight It Out Among themselves

Insofar as Iran is concerned, shouldn't we at least go as far back as the Shah. You seem to not like going back into history, but all you're doing is selecting the cut-off date that suits you. Why do you assume your date is correct.

I don't understand your comment about it being about power politics. Of course that's always part of the mix. What is wrong with that, it seems to be good enough for the USA. Why aren't other powers allowed the same motivations. That doesn't mean it can't be about other things too. Why is the USA aligned with Saudi Arabia? Is it because they're such good guys.

I can't begin to answer the question about whether the US should be involved. I thought that backing out of these issues was part of Trump's election platform. It's not as if the involvement of states outside the region have helped things very much.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 05, 2020, 05:13:23 pm
Insofar as Iran is concerned, shouldn't we at least go as far back as the Shah. You seem to not like going back into history, but all you're doing is selecting the cut-off date that suits you. Why do you assume your date is correct.

I don't understand your comment about it being about power politics. Of course that's always part of the mix. What is wrong with that, it seems to be good enough for the USA. Why aren't other powers allowed the same motivations. That doesn't mean it can't be about other things too. Why is the USA aligned with Saudi Arabia? Is it because they're such good guys.

I can't begin to answer the question about whether the US should be involved. I thought that backing out of these issues was part of Trump's election platform. It's not as if the involvement of states outside the region have helped things very much.

Why stop at the Shah that we put in power?  Let's go back a little further, - "Following the abdication of the shah in 1909, the Majlis placed his 6-years-old son, Ahmad Shah on the Iranian throne. World War I took place during his reign and Iran declared neutrality. However, it didn't stop the British forces and they occupied many parts of Iran, which caused the Great famine of 1917–1919 and death of 2 million Iranians."  Yep.  The Brits, again. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire)


The point is history creates the present.  Not much you can do to change it.  However, what's going on has to be dealt with within the current situation whatever caused it.  Iran has been trying to control the Middle East for their benefit. Nothing wrong with that.  However, if it's against our interest, then we conflict with them.  It's the way of he world.  They're not wrong. But neither are we.  Both sides look to advance their interests. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 05, 2020, 05:38:43 pm
... The point is history creates the present.  Not much you can do to change it.  However, what's going on has to be dealt with within the current situation whatever caused it.  Iran has been trying to control the Middle East for their benefit. Nothing wrong with that.  However, if it's against our interest, then we conflict with them.  It's the way of he world.  They're not wrong. But neither are we.  Both sides look to advance their interests. 

Well said, Alan.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 06, 2020, 05:14:02 am
Iraq now wants foreign troops to leave the country... They find they have had enough war in their land; Go make your war somewhere else...
A logical action in the light of what just happened and before... However this is not in the interest of the USA...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 06, 2020, 05:39:26 am
A bit of historic perspective:

“Did Britain meddle in a US presidential election?”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50752217

Quote
When US President George HW Bush craved "a smoking gun" in 1992 to politically kneecap his White House challenger Bill Clinton, the British government delved into its files for damaging information. So, did the Bush camp solicit foreign interference to help him win an election - the allegation that has seen President Trump impeached?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 06, 2020, 06:17:32 am
Iraq now wants foreign troops to leave the country... They find they have had enough war in their land; Go make your war somewhere else...
A logical action in the light of what just happened and before... However this is not in the interest of the USA...

The first sentence is true. However, what they will find out is not the end of the war, but beginning of another upheaval.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 06, 2020, 08:10:40 am
Iraq now wants foreign troops to leave the country... They find they have had enough war in their land; Go make your war somewhere else...
A logical action in the light of what just happened and before... However this is not in the interest of the USA...

Although I would like us to leave and would be happy to incur the results, the USA leaving Iraq would be a disaster for the Middle East.  As Les pointed out, it would not be the end of war, but the beginning of a new one. 

First, lets ask the obvious, why was an Iranian general so easily able to move throughout Iraq supporting Iranian backed militias?  Because the Shiite majority (in Iraq) largely align with the Mullahs in Iran.  The Shiites welcome this because of their hatred of the Sunnis and the Kurds. 

Second, why was the vote held?  The Shiites looked at the bombing as an opportunity to get rid of the USA, which would allow them to rule the country with impunity.  The reason we know this is because all of the Sunni and Kurd representatives did not show up for the vote out of protest.  So now the prime minister (who is a Shiite) faces the very serious question of supporting the resolution and aligning with his party, or allowing the USA to stay.  The former will more then likely start a civil war of Shiites vs. Sunni & Kurds, whereas the latter will not get him re-elected. 

Lets assume that the PM follows through and kicks the USA out.  It is only a matter of time before the Shiites start oppressing the Sunnis and Kurds, and, assuming the Sunnis and Kurds fight back, then all hell breaks loose.  Iraq borders Syria, with a strong Kurdish population in the North, and Jordan, a 95% Sunni country, both of which could get drawn into the fighting if a civil war begins.  Of course, if the Kurds in Syria and certainly if Jordan gets involved, so will Iran. 

Then Israel will need to make a decision on whether or not to get in.  It could be within Israel's best interest to ally themselves with the Sunnis since they are anti Iran (enemy of my enemy thing) and it would go a long way with their neighbor Jordan.  Not to mention allowing Iraq to become a proxy state of Iran would bring Iran too close for comfort for Israel.  Of course, if this happened, the USA is now back in the fight. 

This is a worse case scenario, but given the 1000s of years of Shiite and Sunni conflict, it is probably more likely then not civil unrest would result in Iraq. 

PS, something else to consider if the Middle East gets drawn into a war with Iran and Israel being involve, is how long would it be until Israel nukes Iran?  Unlike the West, Israel really has no qualms using their nukes, and eventually nuking Iran would become an option to them.  So, would the world just let the ME be, knowing there is a strong possibility of a nuclear war breaking out, or would the West intervene to prevent this?  Of course intervening to prevent nuclear weapons being used would mean support Israel's side, since supporting the opposing side would increase Israel's need to use their nuclear weapons. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on January 06, 2020, 09:21:32 am
A bit of historic perspective:

“Did Britain meddle in a US presidential election?”

Thanks for posting the link.  This well-reported piece, while not relevant to whether President Trump may have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors," offers an interesting parallel from a relatively recent election.  (As well as a rare published use of the word thaumaturge to refer to the political skills of former President Bill Clinton.)

Quote
Beyond the suspicions, no concrete proof has emerged of collusion between Bush and Major in the US election of '92.

But even if there was, isn't what President Trump allegedly did - brazenly soliciting the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to harm the election prospects of his potential White House challenger, Joe Biden - worse?

Not under US campaign finance law, according to Ann Ravel, former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission.

It is illegal for anyone to seek or accept anything of value from a foreign national in an American election, she points out.

As I previously have mentioned (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132282.msg1137967#msg1137967), that statute is 52 USC §30121 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121): "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit, accept, or receive [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 06, 2020, 11:06:17 am
Say, ya don't think that Trump ordering that Iranian general killed has anything to do with distracting people from the impeachment--do ya?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 06, 2020, 11:08:02 am
Say, ya don't think that Trump ordering that Iranian general killed has anything to do with distracting people from the impeachment--do ya?

Nope!

Say, ya dont think the lack of even mentioning the impeachment in the House's opening yearly statement means they know impeachment has been a loosing battle?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 06, 2020, 11:23:14 am
Thanks for posting the link.  This well-reported piece, while not relevant to whether President Trump may have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors," offers an interesting parallel from a relatively recent election.  (As well as a rare published use of the word thaumaturge to refer to the political skills of former President Bill Clinton.)

As I previously have mentioned (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132282.msg1137967#msg1137967), that statute is 52 USC §30121 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121): "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit, accept, or receive [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."
Chris you could use the word thaumaturge to describe Bill Clinton. But before he became president, everybody knew him as Slick Willy. :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 06, 2020, 11:36:36 am
Although I would like us to leave and would be happy to incur the results, the USA leaving Iraq would be a disaster for the Middle East.  As Les pointed out, it would not be the end of war, but the beginning of a new one. 

First, lets ask the obvious, why was an Iranian general so easily able to move throughout Iraq supporting Iranian backed militias?  Because the Shiite majority (in Iraq) largely align with the Mullahs in Iran.  The Shiites welcome this because of their hatred of the Sunnis and the Kurds. 

Second, why was the vote held?  The Shiites looked at the bombing as an opportunity to get rid of the USA, which would allow them to rule the country with impunity.  The reason we know this is because all of the Sunni and Kurd representatives did not show up for the vote out of protest.  So now the prime minister (who is a Shiite) faces the very serious question of supporting the resolution and aligning with his party, or allowing the USA to stay.  The former will more then likely start a civil war of Shiites vs. Sunni & Kurds, whereas the latter will not get him re-elected. 

Lets assume that the PM follows through and kicks the USA out.  It is only a matter of time before the Shiites start oppressing the Sunnis and Kurds, and, assuming the Sunnis and Kurds fight back, then all hell breaks loose.  Iraq borders Syria, with a strong Kurdish population in the North, and Jordan, a 95% Sunni country, both of which could get drawn into the fighting if a civil war begins.  Of course, if the Kurds in Syria and certainly if Jordan gets involved, so will Iran. 

Then Israel will need to make a decision on whether or not to get in.  It could be within Israel's best interest to ally themselves with the Sunnis since they are anti Iran (enemy of my enemy thing) and it would go a long way with their neighbor Jordan.  Not to mention allowing Iraq to become a proxy state of Iran would bring Iran too close for comfort for Israel.  Of course, if this happened, the USA is now back in the fight. 

This is a worse case scenario, but given the 1000s of years of Shiite and Sunni conflict, it is probably more likely then not civil unrest would result in Iraq. 

PS, something else to consider if the Middle East gets drawn into a war with Iran and Israel being involve, is how long would it be until Israel nukes Iran?  Unlike the West, Israel really has no qualms using their nukes, and eventually nuking Iran would become an option to them.  So, would the world just let the ME be, knowing there is a strong possibility of a nuclear war breaking out, or would the West intervene to prevent this?  Of course intervening to prevent nuclear weapons being used would mean support Israel's side, since supporting the opposing side would increase Israel's need to use their nuclear weapons. 
I'm tired of America being policeman.   Europe's needs Middle Eastern oil,  not us.  Lets get out of there and let the Brits,  French,  and others protect their oil.   Like in the Falklands War, will provide intelligence from our satellites and let the Brits do the fighting.

In any case, iran is weak now and in no way prepared to fight anyone.   Their economy is in the tank.   Their people hate the regime. Sure,  they'll do some remote attacks on a tess American troops.   Then we'll retaliate.   Then what are they going to do?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 06, 2020, 11:41:07 am
Say, ya don't think that Trump ordering that Iranian general killed has anything to do with distracting people from the impeachment--do ya?
It could also help get him re-elected by showing Americans that he has their interest at heart and will protect them. 

Also like Osama Bin Laden, this guy killed a lot of Americans. So killing him is good for Revenge.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 06, 2020, 11:46:40 am
I'm tired of America being policeman.   Europe's needs Middle Eastern oil,  not us.  Lets get out of there and let the Brits,  French,  and others protect their oil.   Like in the Falklands War, will provide intelligence from our satellites and let the Brits do the fighting.

In any case, iran is weak now and in no way prepared to fight anyone.   Their economy is in the tank.   Their people hate the regime. Sure,  they'll do some remote attacks on a tess American troops.   Then we'll retaliate.   Then what are they going to do?

I agree.  I was just pointing out that Iraq is a great buffer zone between warring factions.  If Iraq becomes an Iranian proxy, shit hits the fan.  It's only a matter of time. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 06, 2020, 11:52:16 am
... As I previously have mentioned (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132282.msg1137967#msg1137967), that statute is 52 USC §30121 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121): "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit, accept, or receive [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."

Weren’t you mentioning it earlier that the SCOTUS has been reluctant to treat intangibles as “anything of value”?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 06, 2020, 12:40:23 pm
I wonder if any of our resident experts can tell me why, if not for long-term financial, energy and political gain, successive US govts. have insisted on a presence in all Asian countries where they can get a foothold?

In those respects, they strike me as no different to any other country aware of the rest of the world.

I may be mistaken, but they do appear far less interested in Africa than is China; that too strikes me as an interesting thought.

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on January 06, 2020, 12:52:12 pm
Weren’t you mentioning it earlier that the SCOTUS has been reluctant to treat intangibles as “anything of value”?

I haven't researched the case law of that provision, much less its legislative history, but "thing of value" is a term that is also used in a number of other federal statutes―including 18 USC §201, Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201)―and the courts generally give it an expansive interpretation.  In any event, "a favor" that provides a service similar to opposition research would undoubtedly qualify because political campaigns often pay consultants to provide opposition research, and similarity to a paid service is one of the most common tests that federal courts apply to determine whether something meets the statutory requirement for having a "value."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 06, 2020, 02:00:17 pm
Weren’t you mentioning it earlier that the SCOTUS has been reluctant to treat intangibles as “anything of value”?
So
So if an American president ask the British prime minister to say something nice about him, that could be grounds for impeachment because he's asking a foreigner to impose himself on American politics. I don't think that's the kind of thing that the constitution is talking about. What it's referring to t bribery when when a foreign government pays the president privately a bunch of money to get America to do something for them. Zaza
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 06, 2020, 02:16:08 pm
I haven't researched the case law of that provision, much less its legislative history, but "thing of value" is a term that is also used in a number of other federal statutes―including 18 USC §201, Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201)―and the courts generally give it an expansive interpretation.  In any event, "a favor" that provides a service similar to opposition research would undoubtedly qualify because political campaigns often pay consultants to provide opposition research, and similarity to a paid service is one of the most common tests that federal courts apply to determine whether something meets the statutory requirement for having a "value."

Opposition research... shouldn’t then a bunch of Democrats be criminally charged for the Steele dossier?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 06, 2020, 03:15:00 pm
To be fair, James has provided plenty of personal info in the past. He is a cool guy.  We just happen to (politely) disagree politically.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 06, 2020, 03:17:58 pm
I know James is a good guy, Slobodan. I even like his photography.

Thank you also :)

But I think everybody posting on The Coffee Corner should say where they're from and how old they are. That has nothing at all to do with their photography, but it has plenty to do with their political arguments.

I guess I feel like I've mentioned it all before - my background info is no secret, but if it really helps everyone to have it listed I'll update my profile when I get a moment.   I'm a 47 YO white guy living in Austin TX.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on January 06, 2020, 03:35:54 pm
Opposition research... shouldn’t then a bunch of Democrats be criminally charged for the Steele dossier?

No: they paid for it.  The statute I cited prohibits contributions or donations of anything of value by foreign nationals.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 06, 2020, 03:38:06 pm
Nope!

Say, ya dont think the lack of even mentioning the impeachment in the House's opening yearly statement means they know impeachment has been a loosing battle?

Losing battle? He has already been impeached. Battle won.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 06, 2020, 03:40:54 pm
Thank you also :)

I guess I feel like I've mentioned it all before - my background info is no secret, but if it really helps everyone to have it listed I'll update my profile when I get a moment.   I'm a 47 YO white guy living in Austin TX.

I loved Austin. I was stationed there for a couple years right at the end of my military career. That was in 1955 through early 57. It was a relatively small town then. Not any more.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 06, 2020, 03:42:08 pm
Losing battle? He has already been impeached. Battle won.

You could hardly call what went on in the House a battle, Peter. But if it was, the Democrats won a battle and lost the war.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 06, 2020, 03:46:35 pm
Losing battle? He has already been impeached. Battle won.

Not according to Noah Feldman, the law professor the Dems called.  He is not impeached until the articles are sent.  Remember, this is your guy's point of view, not mine. 

But anyway, battle won, really?  Not according to the polls and campaign money that has been raised.  I have to agree with Russ here, battle won but the war has been lost.  Penny wise but dollar foolish, to put it another way. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 06, 2020, 03:52:48 pm
No: they paid for it.  The statute I cited prohibits contributions or donations of anything of value by foreign nationals.

Doesn't this still leave us with someone needing to prove that the request for a favor was actually for Trumps personal gain and not something that might be in the national interest.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 06, 2020, 05:20:47 pm
Not according to Noah Feldman, the law professor the Dems called.  He is not impeached until the articles are sent.  Remember, this is your guy's point of view, not mine.
You are cherry picking. The two other lawyers called by Democrats and the lawyer called by the Republicans (Tribe) disagreed with Feldman's interpretation. Lindsay Graham has threatened to amend the Senate rules and begin the impeachment trial even if Pelosi doesn't deliver the impeachment articles, so at least some Republicans lawmakers as well believe that delivery of the impeachment articles to the Senate is not required by the Constitution.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on January 06, 2020, 05:38:07 pm
[Referring to 52 USC §30121 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121): "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit, accept, or receive [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."]

Doesn't this still leave us with someone needing to prove that the request for a favor was actually for Trumps personal gain and not something that might be in the national interest.

In a proceeding before the Federal Election Commission, or a subsequent appeal of an adverse FEC decision to a federal court, probably not.  It is sufficient that the contribution or donation or other thing of value came from a foreign national and would have conferred a political benefit.

However, in a Senate trial of the impeachment, some of President Trump's more ardent defenders might try to argue that.  It's a weak argument, in my opinion, especially since every senator is aware that U.S. presidents don't ask foreign heads of state or government to initiate investigations of U.S. citizens.  (In those rare instances where federal agencies require assistance of that kind―almost always involving intelligence or counterintelligence matters―there are established channels for U.S. agency officials to submit official requests to their international partner agencies.)

If I were defending Trump, I would stipulate that, yes, he violated the federal election law, but argue that the violation does not rise to the level of an abuse of power (i.e., high crime and misdemeanor) sufficient to justify removal from office.

Of course, if the impeachment managers from the House of Representatives can establish that Trump withheld congressionally-appropriated assistance to Ukraine improperly―either to apply leverage on the Ukrainian president or in violation of federal law―the 52 USC §30121 violation would be rather trivial by comparison.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 06, 2020, 05:46:19 pm
Let's see what Bolton has to say...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 06, 2020, 05:53:39 pm
Let's see what Bolton has to say...
about the "drug deal".
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 06, 2020, 06:08:43 pm
No: they paid for it.  The statute I cited prohibits contributions or donations of anything of value by foreign nationals.

That distinction doesn’t make any sense to me. So, Trump should have offered Zelensky $1 and all is good? Or Putin need to find a single US citizen willing to pay him $1 and all meddling would be legal?

You initially argued that such a paid service (opposition research) would serve as a proxy that unpaid favor is a “thing of value.” Perhaps, but by the same token, one can not argue that paid is cool, but unpaid is illegal, no?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on January 06, 2020, 06:58:26 pm
Opposition research... shouldn’t then a bunch of Democrats be criminally charged for the Steele dossier?

No: they paid for it.  The statute I cited prohibits contributions or donations of anything of value by foreign nationals.

That distinction doesn’t make any sense to me. So, Trump should have offered Zelensky $1 and all is good? Or Putin need to find a single US citizen willing to pay him $1 and all meddling would be legal?

Contact the members of your congressional delegation and tell them you want them to change the law.

I know you have relocated to Belgrade, but as long as you remain a U.S. citizen and continue to pay taxes―thank you for your contribution to mitigating the federal budget deficit, by the way―I believe you are still represented by your Florida congressional representative (24th district?) and senators.

And make certain you're registered to vote: the Republicans are going to need you in November.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 06, 2020, 07:47:16 pm
Finally, we're starting to some reason from the Dems. 

"President Trump’s order to take out Qasem Soleimani was morally, constitutionally and strategically correct. It deserves more bipartisan support than the begrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far from my fellow Democrats."  Joe Lieberman 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 06, 2020, 10:26:03 pm
[Referring to 52 USC §30121 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121): "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit, accept, or receive [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."]

In a proceeding before the Federal Election Commission, or a subsequent appeal of an adverse FEC decision to a federal court, probably not.  It is sufficient that the contribution or donation or other thing of value came from a foreign national and would have conferred a political benefit.

However, in a Senate trial of the impeachment, some of President Trump's more ardent defenders might try to argue that.  It's a weak argument, in my opinion, especially since every senator is aware that U.S. presidents don't ask foreign heads of state or government to initiate investigations of U.S. citizens.  (In those rare instances where federal agencies require assistance of that kind―almost always involving intelligence or counterintelligence matters―there are established channels for U.S. agency officials to submit official requests to their international partner agencies.)

If I were defending Trump, I would stipulate that, yes, he violated the federal election law, but the violation does not rise to the level of an abuse of power (i.e., high crime and misdemeanor) sufficient to justify removal from office.

Of course, if the impeachment managers from the House of Representatives can establish that Trump withheld congressionally-appropriated assistance to Ukraine improperly―either to apply leverage on the Ukrainian president or in violation of federal law―the 52 USC §30121 violation would be rather trivial by comparison.

As long as the Bidens appear to have violated US law, a presidential request to a foreign government to assist in investigating those violations is perfectly legal.  If there is coincidental political fallout that the president gains something, that does not make it illegal.  Otherwise, if a Senator from the opposition party kills his wife and flees to France let's say, then the American president couldn't ask the French president to prosecute and send the senator back here to be held for murder because people could claim the president is doing it for political purposes and should be impeached.  That would make the murderer above the law as people are saying Biden should be - above the law. 

A similar example is the Federal Election law regarding payments Trump made women he had affairs with to keep quiet.  As long as the candidate would have paid for hush money  for private, none political reasons, then there is no election law violation even if he got an additional political benefit for the election. 


The fact is nearly every decision a politician makes has political consequences that affects his re-election.  However, if the basis for the decision is legally his to make, then we don;t second guess.  Otherwise,no decision could ever be legally made.  The Muslim ban presidential order comes to mind.  The SCOTUS allowed the law to stand in all areas the president had authority to decide even though he may have mainly done it for political reasons.  Scotus didn't get into his mind to figure out what his real intent was.  They looked at the law and the constitution.  As long as it's legal, the rest is beside the point. 


These things should be left for the election for the people to decide when they vote.  Using impeachment to prosecute political acts is dangerous for the country.  It opens us up to government breakdown every time the executive and House are from opposite parties.  We're going down a bad path.  We've already spent the first three years of a president's term fighting about impeachment instead of getting on with the country's business.We should be fighting over policy and government action regarding running the country.  All we're doing now is shooting ourselves in the foot. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 07, 2020, 05:46:38 am
As long as the Bidens appear to have violated US law, [...]

What on earth are you talking about?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 07, 2020, 07:34:07 am
Alleged businessman, President Trump proves he cannot read a balance sheet (I guess he didn't take the right course at Wharton).  Yesterday he tweeted about the US military might saying they have spent over $2 trillion on equipment.  This was way off of the real figure of $420 billion with the remainder being spent on personnel, maintenance, and R&D.  Time for the President to go back and retake Finance 101.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 07, 2020, 07:54:01 am
Alleged businessman, President Trump proves he cannot read a balance sheet (I guess he didn't take the right course at Wharton).  Yesterday he tweeted about the US military might saying they have spent over $2 trillion on equipment.  This was way off of the real figure of $420 billion with the remainder being spent on personnel, maintenance, and R&D.  Time for the President to go back and retake Finance 101.

Twitter is nothing but hyperbole from nearly everyone that posts on it.  That is how you make it effective. 

It's like everyone on the left suddenly forgot how humor or satire or sarcasm works.  My God. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 07, 2020, 08:09:37 am
... the US military might saying they have spent over $2 trillion on equipment.  This was way off of the real figure of $420 billion with the remainder being spent on personnel, maintenance, and R&D...

And what exactly is the practical value of that equipment without said “personnel, maintenance, and R&D”?

What is the cost of your car? Just the price you paid? Many websites these days will add a “true cost of ownership” that includes, gas, maintenance, repairs, etc. Don't forget the cost of driving school, taxes, parking, tolls, etc. This all adds up to the true cost of owning a car. So, the $2 trillion spent on military equipment is the true cost of ownership of the $420 hardware alone.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 07, 2020, 08:11:13 am
Twitter is nothing but hyperbole from nearly everyone that posts on it.  That is how you make it effective. 

It's like everyone on the left suddenly forgot how humor or satire or sarcasm works.  My God. 
My wife tells me she's the happiest woman in the world. :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 07, 2020, 08:50:19 am
Is this an example of situational ethics? The President says total bs on Twitter, so now we redefine Twitter to be all about bs and exaggeration, so what he does is normal. It's convenient, I'll give you that.


This Iranian general thing is dominating the news cycle all of a sudden. I'm wondering, what is the strategic objective of killing one general? It can't just be to prove it can be done, I kind of assume that the US forces can do things like that at will. What was the policy objective?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 07, 2020, 09:12:10 am
Is this an example of situational ethics? The President says total bs on Twitter, so now we redefine Twitter to be all about bs and exaggeration, so what he does is normal. It's convenient, I'll give you that.


This Iranian general thing is dominating the news cycle all of a sudden. I'm wondering, what is the strategic objective of killing one general? It can't just be to prove it can be done, I kind of assume that the US forces can do things like that at will. What was the policy objective?

First off, Twitter has always been a swamp fest.  It is how it works.  Being outrageous on the platform was a thing long before Trump. 

Second, to take out the head of a major state funded terrorist organization (whom can not be easily replaced) and to reestablish deterrents lost under the feckless Obama administration. 

Iran is has grown bold in it actions because they got the impression that no one would really do anything.  This was mainly Obama's fault with his appeasement strategy, but partly Trumps fault by continuing it (partially) in the beginning of his term.  However, just like Chamberlain's appeasement of the Nazis, it does not work.  Sometimes action is needed to prevent worse situations from arising.  Plus, Trump drew a line in the sand, and, unlike Obama, he kept to it. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 07, 2020, 09:15:57 am
And what exactly is the practical value of that equipment without said “personnel, maintenance, and R&D”?

What is the cost of your car? Just the price you paid? Many websites these days will add a “true cost of ownership” that includes, gas, maintenance, repairs, etc. Don't forget the cost of driving school, taxes, parking, tolls, etc. This all adds up to the true cost of owning a car. So, the $2 trillion spent on military equipment is the true cost of ownership of the $420 hardware alone.

Very good point. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 07, 2020, 09:20:36 am
Is this an example of situational ethics? The President says total bs on Twitter, so now we redefine Twitter to be all about bs and exaggeration, so what he does is normal. It's convenient, I'll give you that.


This Iranian general thing is dominating the news cycle all of a sudden. I'm wondering, what is the strategic objective of killing one general? It can't just be to prove it can be done, I kind of assume that the US forces can do things like that at will. What was the policy objective?
Politicians have used hyperbole long before twitter was invented.  If the press would report what he says more accurately, he wouldn't need it. 

Your question about Soleimani is a good one.   Everyone applauded the killing of Bin Laden and Al Baghdadi.  He's maybe worse because he has a large and strong country behind him. He's been a bad actor killing Americans in Iraq and Syria and causing upheaval in the ME.  Killing generals is a ling established practice in history to weaken armies.  Everyone's talking about how Iran is going to avenge his death.  Well, Trump avenged the death of all those Americans he killed.  Or have we forgotten?  The whole embassy thing under Carter still irks those Americans who lived through it. What goes around comes around.  Maybe we've been in the ME so long, we're acting like them.  Eye for an eye, etc.

I think now that he's dead, we really should get out of the ME.  I see no value any more in being a policeman there.  A plague on all their houses.  They'll be fighting for the next 1000 years.  Let them.  It's not our problem.  Of course, we don't want Iran to have nukes.  Well, we can keep the pressure on economically. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpn
Post by: Rob C on January 07, 2020, 09:55:47 am
Twitter is nothing but hyperbole from nearly everyone that posts on it.  That is how you make it effectivew. 

It's like everyone on the left suddenly forgot how humor or satire or sarcasm works.  My God.

But not how well lies work, the more outlandish the better because thus the more believable. Ask Mr T.

You have to stick with the narrative, however long your nose becomes, because the truth is going to be swamped and ignored.

Watching a brief tv interview from the fires in Oz today, the reporter had a chat with three people in the zone, a woman and two guys, clones of people I have seen in Scottish pubs, the lady stridently proclaiming that no, of course it has nothing to do with climate change. Go figure. There's your proof; doctrine can be stronger than the proof of one's own eyes.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 07, 2020, 10:00:49 am
Politicians have used hyperbole long before twitter was invented.  If the press would report what he says more accurately, he wouldn't need it. 

Your question about Soleimani is a good one.   Everyone applauded the killing of Bin Laden and Al Baghdadi.  He's maybe worse because he has a large and strong country behind him. He's been a bad actor killing Americans in Iraq and Syria and causing upheaval in the ME.  Killing generals is a ling established practice in history to weaken armies.  Everyone's talking about how Iran is going to avenge his death.  Well, Trump avenged the death of all those Americans he killed.  Or have we forgotten?  The whole embassy thing under Carter still irks those Americans who lived through it. What goes around comes around.  Maybe we've been in the ME so long, we're acting like them.  Eye for an eye, etc.

I think now that he's dead, we really should get out of the ME.  I see no value any more in being a policeman there.  A plague on all their houses.  They'll be fighting for the next 1000 years.  Let them.  It's not our problem.  Of course, we don't want Iran to have nukes.  Well, we can keep the pressure on economically.

Enough of this bullshit!

It’s not about “avenging” anything or anybody. It’s about strategic deterrence. The general was a significant player in the war that’s been going on between Iran and the western world ever since Pahlavi was overthrown and kicked out of the country. Taking Soleimani out was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do, just as taking out Yamamoto in WW II was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do. Being a warrior entails risk. Soleimani entailed risk in spades.

Yes. It would be wonderful to “get out” of the Middle East. It would be equally wonderful to “get out” of Japan and Germany and the other countries and places where we, the United States, have put “our boys” (and nowadays “our girls”). Then we’d be back to where we were before the beginning of WW II. We could relax and wait for the next major attack on the United States – this time probably with nuclear weapons. Do any of you have even the remotest clue about what would happen after a high-altitude nuclear burst over our continent?

The survival of the Western World depends on keeping “our boys (and girls)” where they can contribute to the stabilization of the world. Britain and Israel and Canada are working at it too. The rest of the West, including the home countries of many posters on here who have a lot of opinions on the subject aren’t doing a damned thing.

I’ve rarely seen as much ignorant horseshit as I’m seeing on this thread.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on January 07, 2020, 12:13:41 pm
Enough of this bullshit!

It’s not about “avenging” anything or anybody. It’s about strategic deterrence. The general was a significant player in the war that’s been going on between Iran and the western world ever since Pahlavi was overthrown and kicked out of the country. Taking Soleimani out was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do, just as taking out Yamamoto in WW II was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do. Being a warrior entails risk. Soleimani entailed risk in spades.

Yes. It would be wonderful to “get out” of the Middle East. It would be equally wonderful to “get out” of Japan and Germany and the other countries and places where we, the United States, have put “our boys” (and nowadays “our girls”). Then we’d be back to where we were before the beginning of WW II. We could relax and wait for the next major attack on the United States – this time probably with nuclear weapons. Do any of you have even the remotest clue about what would happen after a high-altitude nuclear burst over our continent?

The survival of the Western World depends on keeping “our boys (and girls)” where they can contribute to the stabilization of the world. Britain and Israel and Canada are working at it too. The rest of the West, including the home countries of many posters on here who have a lot of opinions on the subject aren’t doing a damned thing.

I’ve rarely seen as much ignorant horseshit as I’m seeing on this thread.
+1000!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 07, 2020, 01:02:55 pm
Enough of this bullshit!
Than don't produce it.

It’s not about “avenging” anything or anybody. It’s about strategic deterrence. The general was a significant player in the war that’s been going on between Iran and the western world ever since Pahlavi was overthrown and kicked out of the country.

And the strategy is?...

That now every western person in the ME has a problem of a possible assassination.
The same thing goes for nations like Israel and Saoudi Arabia, etc
That now everything has to be protected at huge costs. And it won't help preventing an assault.
That there will be a threat for a long time in the air... even in the US.
That Iran now upstarts their nuclear program at full speed and diplomatic solutions are blocked.
The world has become a saver place? NO

Taking Soleimani out was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do, just as taking out Yamamoto in WW II was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do. Being a warrior entails risk. Soleimani entailed risk in spades.

Perfectly legitimate ? necessary?   To shoot the major general of another nation and the US thinks it is perfectly legitimate?
And you are referring to WWII right? -Do so you say we are now at war in WWIII ? maybe, after the counter attack of Iran... in that case Trump shoots back at 52 targets in Iran - cultural sites or not who cares... the US has 200 years of history while Iran has 4000 years of history...  we have seen that attitude before in the second Iraq war...
Update : the pentagon says it will not strike cultural sites...  so maybe they don't follow orders from the president anymore...


Yes. It would be wonderful to “get out” of the Middle East. It would be equally wonderful to “get out” of Japan and Germany and the other countries and places where we, the United States, have put “our boys” (and nowadays “our girls”). Then we’d be back to where we were before the beginning of WW II. We could relax and wait for the next major attack on the United States – this time probably with nuclear weapons. Do any of you have even the remotest clue about what would happen after a high-altitude nuclear burst over our continent?
The survival of the Western World depends on keeping “our boys (and girls)” where they can contribute to the stabilization of the world. Britain and Israel and Canada are working at it too. The rest of the West, including the home countries of many posters on here who have a lot of opinions on the subject aren’t doing a damned thing.


Stabilization does not happen with actions like these- it is called destabilization- the opposite.
The friendly nations, and NATO countries were not consulted before the attack. That used to be different.
The US was a moral guide for a large part of the world, under Trump not anymore.
Amerika gets smaller and fenced.

I’ve rarely seen as much ignorant horseshit as I’m seeing on this thread.
I thought it was bullshit ?... oh never mind the details
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 07, 2020, 01:31:22 pm
Thanks Neville. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: rabanito on January 07, 2020, 01:41:36 pm
Thanks Neville.

I've read that Mr. Trump threatens to destroy Iran's cultural sites.
Is that true?
Sounds crazy...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 07, 2020, 01:44:59 pm
I've read that Mr. Trump threatens to destroy Iran's cultural sites.
Is that true?
Sounds crazy...

Sounds very Trumpian.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 07, 2020, 01:46:41 pm
I've read that Mr. Trump threatens to destroy Iran's cultural sites.
Is that true?
Sounds crazy...
Yes. It is just more of Trump shooting off his mouth.  The Pentagon has walked it back.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 07, 2020, 01:50:10 pm
I've read that Mr. Trump threatens to destroy Iran's cultural sites.
Is that true?
Sounds crazy...

Many military bases become cultural sites.  Does that mean we should not attack them because of it? 

Many in the Middle East raise flags of war above religious temples (cultural sites) and use them for headquarters or storage sites for war.  Does that mean we should not attack them? 

Of course there are many cultural sites in Iran that will remain completely innocent, but Trump gave no indication of which cultural sites he will be attacking.  I doubt it would be innocent sites. 

For instance, Norfolk and West Point are quite the cultural sites in the USA, but in a war where the enemy attacked the mainland, I would fully expect those sites to be bombed.  Additionally, we in the West do not use our religious institutions as headquarters nor preoccupations for war, but this is not the case in the Middle East.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 07, 2020, 02:15:55 pm
Enough of this bullshit!

It’s not about “avenging” anything or anybody. It’s about strategic deterrence. The general was a significant player in the war that’s been going on between Iran and the western world ever since Pahlavi was overthrown and kicked out of the country. Taking Soleimani out was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do, just as taking out Yamamoto in WW II was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do. Being a warrior entails risk. Soleimani entailed risk in spades.

Yes. It would be wonderful to “get out” of the Middle East. It would be equally wonderful to “get out” of Japan and Germany and the other countries and places where we, the United States, have put “our boys” (and nowadays “our girls”). Then we’d be back to where we were before the beginning of WW II. We could relax and wait for the next major attack on the United States – this time probably with nuclear weapons. Do any of you have even the remotest clue about what would happen after a high-altitude nuclear burst over our continent?

The survival of the Western World depends on keeping “our boys (and girls)” where they can contribute to the stabilization of the world. Britain and Israel and Canada are working at it too. The rest of the West, including the home countries of many posters on here who have a lot of opinions on the subject aren’t doing a damned thing.

I’ve rarely seen as much ignorant horseshit as I’m seeing on this thread.

Absolutely. The world is a tiny place today, and what our neighbour cooks two gardens down can ruin our own lunch as our cooking smells spoil his.

Russ is right. It takes a very few nuclear devices to make life for many of us impossible. That has always been the point of nukes: to be a weapon so powerful and terrible that it precludes others from attacking us. That other lands have it, not always friendly lands, is bad enough, but the thought that such devices fall into the hands of religious zealots with 50 virgins in mind should they be lucky enough to die fighting somebody they consider evil - evil has many independent definitions not universally shared - is a thought too far for comfort, one that demands physical intervention for our own survival, international niceties be damned.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 07, 2020, 02:21:31 pm
Enough of this bullshit!

It’s not about “avenging” anything or anybody. It’s about strategic deterrence. The general was a significant player in the war that’s been going on between Iran and the western world ever since Pahlavi was overthrown and kicked out of the country. Taking Soleimani out was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do, just as taking out Yamamoto in WW II was a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing to do. Being a warrior entails risk. Soleimani entailed risk in spades.

Yes. It would be wonderful to “get out” of the Middle East. It would be equally wonderful to “get out” of Japan and Germany and the other countries and places where we, the United States, have put “our boys” (and nowadays “our girls”). Then we’d be back to where we were before the beginning of WW II. We could relax and wait for the next major attack on the United States – this time probably with nuclear weapons. Do any of you have even the remotest clue about what would happen after a high-altitude nuclear burst over our continent?

The survival of the Western World depends on keeping “our boys (and girls)” where they can contribute to the stabilization of the world. Britain and Israel and Canada are working at it too. The rest of the West, including the home countries of many posters on here who have a lot of opinions on the subject aren’t doing a damned thing.

I’ve rarely seen as much ignorant horseshit as I’m seeing on this thread.

Russ, I'm not sure what our strategy is in the ME.  Additionally,  we're broke.   What's the end game? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 07, 2020, 02:23:32 pm
Than don't produce it.

And the strategy is?...

That now every western person in the ME has a problem of a possible assassination.
The same thing goes for nations like Israel and Saoudi Arabia, etc
That now everything has to be protected at huge costs. And it won't help preventing an assault.
That there will be a threat for a long time in the air... even in the US.
That Iran now upstarts their nuclear program at full speed and diplomatic solutions are blocked.
The world has become a saver place? NO

Perfectly legitimate ? necessary?   To shoot the major general of another nation and the US thinks it is perfectly legitimate?
And you are referring to WWII right? -Do so you say we are now at war in WWIII ? maybe, after the counter attack of Iran... in that case Trump shoots back at 52 targets in Iran - cultural sites or not who cares... the US has 200 years of history while Iran has 4000 years of history...  we have seen that attitude before in the second Iraq war...
Update : the pentagon says it will not strike cultural sites...  so maybe they don't follow orders from the president anymore...



Stabilization does not happen with actions like these- it is called destabilization- the opposite.
The friendly nations, and NATO countries were not consulted before the attack. That used to be different.
The US was a moral guide for a large part of the world, under Trump not anymore.
Amerika gets smaller and fenced.
I thought it was bullshit ?... oh never mind the details


I wouldn't consult "friendly" nations either prior to any serious action. Since the days of instant communication, politicians in it for the money, crackpot nouveaux communists in drag, the fewer possible leakage points the better! As a former ambassador said today, many of us allies are happier not knowing what's about to happen in such cases if only because it saves us from putting on a public face to denounce an act with which we covertly agree completely.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 07, 2020, 02:41:20 pm
I thought it was bullshit ?... oh never mind the details

It all smells the same, Pieter. Netherlands spends 1.2% of GDP on defense, .8% less than they agreed to spend. Probably on a marching band. But don't worry; thanks to Trump we, and others, like Britain, will be there to bail you guys out again.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 07, 2020, 02:41:27 pm

I wouldn't consult "friendly" nations either prior to any serious action. Since the days of instant communication, politicians in it for the money, crackpot nouveaux communists in drag, the fewer possible leakage points the better! As a former ambassador said today, many of us allies are happier not knowing what's about to happen in such cases if only because it saves us from putting on a public face to denounce an act with which we covertly agree completely.

I like the way you think, Rob  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 07, 2020, 02:44:11 pm
... Probably on a marching band...

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 07, 2020, 02:47:35 pm
I like the way you think, Rob  :)


The tragedy of being a mongrel, Slobodan; you can't really believe in any nation's greatness or sanctity. You end up realising that flags just don't cut it.

:-(
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: rabanito on January 07, 2020, 02:50:18 pm
Many military bases become cultural sites.  Does that mean we should not attack them because of it? 

Many in the Middle East raise flags of war above religious temples (cultural sites) and use them for headquarters or storage sites for war.  Does that mean we should not attack them? 

Of course there are many cultural sites in Iran that will remain completely innocent, but Trump gave no indication of which cultural sites he will be attacking.  I doubt it would be innocent sites. 



I understand that. But as far as I understood it  Mr. Trump's threat was specifically against cultural sites, not as collaterals.

Probably my poor English. Cannot believe that can be true...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 07, 2020, 02:52:27 pm
I understand that. But as far as I understood it  Mr. Trump's threat was specifically against cultural sites, not as collaterals.

Probably my poor English. Cannot believe that can be true...


Everyone's poor English: it means whatever he wants it to mean, just as in the world of Alice.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 07, 2020, 03:07:53 pm
I understand that. But as far as I understood it  Mr. Trump's threat was specifically against cultural sites, not as collaterals.

Probably my poor English. Cannot believe that can be true...
Apologies.  I forgot mind reading was a newly aquired gift for many on the left after 2016.   ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 07, 2020, 03:08:15 pm
I understand that. But as far as I understood it  Mr. Trump's threat was specifically against cultural sites, not as collaterals.

Probably my poor English. Cannot believe that can be true...

Which part of Joe’s explanation made you think he talked about collaterals?

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: rabanito on January 07, 2020, 03:15:19 pm
Which part of Joe’s explanation made you think he talked about collaterals?

Again my apologies for my poor English

I thought I've written "not as colaterals", meaning he meant that he would attack ath cultural sites on purpose

Or is it one of those cases of "answering before reading carefully"?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: rabanito on January 07, 2020, 03:22:00 pm
Apologies.  I forgot mind reading was a newly aquired gift for many on the left after 2016.   ;)

I don't understand what does "left" to do with reading the newspapers.

I found, and that's why I asked:

"WASHINGTON — President Trump on Sunday evening doubled down on his claim that he would target Iranian cultural sites if Iran retaliated for the targeted killing of one of its top generals..."

Doesn't look like "mind reading" from my part. Or "left", whatever that may mean to you.
Hope this helps
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: rabanito on January 07, 2020, 03:26:03 pm

Everyone's poor English: it means whatever he wants it to mean, just as in the world of Alice.

You mean "erethism mercurialis"?
The tea party...
I like your humour
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 07, 2020, 03:53:11 pm
I don't understand what does "left" to do with reading the newspapers.

I found, and that's why I asked:

"WASHINGTON — President Trump on Sunday evening doubled down on his claim that he would target Iranian cultural sites if Iran retaliated for the targeted killing of one of its top generals..."

Doesn't look like "mind reading" from my part. Or "left", whatever that may mean to you.
Hope this helps

Maybe 'Left' means  'reading newspapers'   and   'newspapers'  mean  'fake news'  or better    'Deep Fake'
In that case you are 'Left'   means    you are  'Deep fake' aka  'Bullshit'

Leaves us Trump and some gentlemen here to tell  'Bullshit'  the   'Truth'.

The  'Truth'  is different from  'Bullshit'  in the sense that it does not smell. ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 07, 2020, 03:58:27 pm
Again my apologies for my poor English

I thought I've written "not as colaterals", meaning he meant that he would attack ath cultural sites on purpose

Or is it one of those cases of "answering before reading carefully"?

Oh, I understood what you meant and I read it carefully. But neither our Joe nor Trump mentioned collaterals, so not sure why would you bring that word into the discussion?

What Joe said is that many cultural, religious, medical, etc. sites are often used as a shield for military activity. In which case they become legitimate military targets, not collaterals.

When a military object happens to be in the vicinity of a church, hospital, etc. and the bomb that was targeting the military object happens to damage the church etc., that's a collateral damage.

When they use a church or hospital roof to place, say, rocket launchers, and get destroyed in the process, that’s not a collateral damage.

Having said that, I have no idea what Trump or his military commanders meant by “cultural sites.”

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 07, 2020, 04:52:41 pm
And now something completely different:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/476894-chelsea-clinton-reaps-9-million-from-corporate-board-position?amp

Quote
Clinton, the only child of former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has served on IAC's board since 2011 and receives an annual $50,000 retainer and $250,000 worth of restricted IAC stock units, Barron's reports.

She reported owning $8.95 million worth of IAC stock to the Securities and Exchange Commission at the end of December.

Quote
Clinton was named to the board of Expedia Group in March of 2017, a position that typically earned $250,000 in 2015, according to a report at the time by The Guardian.

Both IAC and Expedia are controlled by Barry Diller, the business and television mogul, who is a friend of Hillary Clinton.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 07, 2020, 04:54:22 pm
Maybe 'Left' means  'reading newspapers'   and   'newspapers'  mean  'fake news'  or better    'Deep Fake'
In that case you are 'Left'   means    you are  'Deep fake' aka  'Bullshit'

Leaves us Trump and some gentlemen here to tell  'Bullshit'  the   'Truth'.

The  'Truth'  is different from  'Bullshit'  in the sense that is does not smell. ;)

Have you tried standup comedy?

If you did, I hope your didn’t leave your day job.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: rabanito on January 07, 2020, 05:02:08 pm
Having said that, I have no idea what Trump or his military commanders meant by “cultural sites.”

Yes, looks like it. Here we seem to agree.
Thanks for writing about it anyway...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 07, 2020, 05:13:21 pm
Having said that, I have no idea what Trump or his military commanders meant by “cultural sites.”
He has backed away from his comments today. After being briefed by his generals on the provisions of the Hague Convention relating to cultural sites, he now says he will follow the law.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 07, 2020, 06:10:10 pm
He has backed away from his comments today. After being briefed by his generals on the provisions of the Hague Convention relating to cultural sites, he now says he will follow the law.

Must have been the usual shoot from the hip Trump bs. I don't believe that he was thinking of the idea that "cultural sites" may serve as shelter for military activities when he made the statement. I sort of disregarded it when he said it, just the usual bombast.

As to whether it is a good thing or not to consult with allies before making a move, that's always a judgement call. There's a price to pay either way.

I still haven't heard a good strategic reason for making the move. (I don't mean just from this conversation.) Is it part of longer term strategy? Are people making up the strategic value after the fact? There may be a group of foreign policy advisors who thought and planned over these things but that's not the impression I get from media, which may not mean much. OTOH, Trump has never given the impression of being a long-term strategic thinker, or at least he's hidden it well up to now. Unless you know what the long-term plan is, it's difficult to judge if this killing furthers that plan.

I recommend again that NPR Fresh Air podcast a few pages back about an analysis of the long-term strategy in Afghanistan (various failures in the Bush and Obama administrations), which suggests that there may not be good long-term planning at work in USA foreign policy circles. That is, recent history does not fill you with confidence. Some high-ranking officials involved in that arena came right out and said so. (For Russ's benefit, it was the officials who said so, including military ones, not the leftie NPR journalists.)

Might be useful to look at things from the other people's point of view. Eighteen not very effective years in Afghanistan in the sense of accomplishment with many people on the ground preferring the Taliban chieftains over the corrupt Afghan "government". Iraq's mess not exactly fixed or even on the way. So in the midst of that, the US kills some Iranian general. As retaliation of what happened at the embassy, it's maybe not a bad idea, but will the aftermath be good. I really like the Zen master story scene from near the end of the movie Charlie Wilson's War, (language caution) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2cjVhUrmII (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2cjVhUrmII).

Btw, I thought that reference to Neville Chamberlain earlier was a cheap shot, although it was funny. It's not we're dealing with Hitler and no one was handing over the Sudetenland. Things are murkier than that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 07, 2020, 06:43:48 pm
Robert, what if there has never been a long term strategy in anything? American business is often accused of short-termism, thinking only about quarterly results. Why would politics be any different? Two-year election cycle probably being the longest.

Come to think of it, the only force with a long-term game are Muslims. They know the future belongs to them and are in no hurry. In 50 years, Europe will be theirs. Iran doesn’t have to retaliate today.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 07, 2020, 07:05:59 pm
Robert, what if there has never been a long term strategy in anything? American business is often accused of short-termism, thinking only about quarterly results. Why would politics be any different? Two-year election cycle probably being the longest.

Come to think of it, the only force with a long-term game are Muslims. They know the future belongs to them and are in no hurry. In 50 years, Europe will be theirs. Iran doesn’t have to retaliate today.

Well, then it is good thing you left Europe as now you can hide behind the new build US-fence.
Talking about long term planning...The Chinese are thinking 40-50 years ahead... and eventually they will have the edge.
At the moment in the US every 4-8 years the national and international policy changes 180 degrees so nothing goes forward, and other countries start loosing their trust in the agreements they think to have made.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 07, 2020, 07:09:31 pm
Must have been the usual shoot from the hip Trump bs. I don't believe that he was thinking of the idea that "cultural sites" may serve as shelter for military activities when he made the statement. I sort of disregarded it when he said it, just the usual bombast.

As to whether it is a good thing or not to consult with allies before making a move, that's always a judgement call. There's a price to pay either way.

I still haven't heard a good strategic reason for making the move. (I don't mean just from this conversation.) Is it part of longer term strategy? Are people making up the strategic value after the fact? There may be a group of foreign policy advisors who thought and planned over these things but that's not the impression I get from media, which may not mean much. OTOH, Trump has never given the impression of being a long-term strategic thinker, or at least he's hidden it well up to now. Unless you know what the long-term plan is, it's difficult to judge if this killing furthers that plan.

I recommend again that NPR Fresh Air podcast a few pages back about an analysis of the long-term strategy in Afghanistan (various failures in the Bush and Obama administrations), which suggests that there may not be good long-term planning at work in USA foreign policy circles. That is, recent history does not fill you with confidence. Some high-ranking officials involved in that arena came right out and said so. (For Russ's benefit, it was the officials who said so, including military ones, not the leftie NPR journalists.)

Might be useful to look at things from the other people's point of view. Eighteen not very effective years in Afghanistan in the sense of accomplishment with many people on the ground preferring the Taliban chieftains over the corrupt Afghan "government". Iraq's mess not exactly fixed or even on the way. So in the midst of that, the US kills some Iranian general. As retaliation of what happened at the embassy, it's maybe not a bad idea, but will the aftermath be good. I really like the Zen master story scene from near the end of the movie Charlie Wilson's War, (language caution) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2cjVhUrmII (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2cjVhUrmII).

Btw, I thought that reference to Neville Chamberlain earlier was a cheap shot, although it was funny. It's not we're dealing with Hitler and no one was handing over the Sudetenland. Things are murkier than that.

This is why we should get out of the ME.  WE have no long term strategy other than killing terrorists.  But who careas about so-called terrorists who won;t attack us and are just otherwise combatants looking for power for themselves and tribes?  They're all a**holes and hate America.  So there's no point picking one over the other.  They;ll all stab us in the back when we're not looking.   Let them kill each other and we stay out of it.  It's not in our interest.  Actually, the Europeans should care more because of the oil.  We don;t need it. So let the Germans, Brits, French etc send their troops and money and figure things out.  Anyway, they're the ones who started this mess 100 years ago with their colonialism and"nation" forming that looks like Swiss cheese when they left the mess after WWI.  WHy should America get between the SUnnis and Shias?  Why should America get between Turkey and the Kurds?  Why should America gert between the SAudis and Iranians?  etc vs etc?     
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 07, 2020, 07:14:16 pm

Come to think of it, the only force with a long-term game are Muslims.

And Mother Nature.

Oops!  Wrong thread. :) (not)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 07, 2020, 07:14:58 pm
Well, then it is good thing you left Europe as now you can hide behind the new build US-fence.
Talking about long term planning...The Chinese are thinking 40-50 years ahead... and eventually they will have the edge.
At the moment in the US every 4-8 years the national and international policy changes 180 degrees so nothing goes forward, and other countries start loosing their trust in the agreements they think to have made.
How do you think Americans feel when you and other Europeans don;t keep their commitments to spend 2% of your budgets for your military?  You're BSing us.  Then you tell us we should be spending our money on national health care.  How can we when we have to make up your lack of spending on your military by us having to spend more on ours?  Don;t be cheapskates, otherwise we'll pull completely out of NATO and leave you to deal with Russians on your own.  Then you'll have to send ship to the Gulf of Hormuz to defend the Saudi king murderer so you can get your oil to heat your house.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 07, 2020, 07:18:31 pm
How do you think Americans feel when you and other Europeans don;t keep their commitments to spend 2% of your budgets for your military?  You're BSing us.  Then you tell us we should be spending our money on national health care.  How can we when we have to make up your lack of spending on your military by us having to spend more on ours?  Don;t be cheapskates, otherwise we'll pull completely out of NATO and leave you to deal with Russians on your own.  Then you'll have to send ship to the Gulf of Hormuz to defend the Saudi king murderer so you can get your oil to heat your house.   

Alan, it is Biden or the 2% we should spend on our military...
maybe... it is Bidens fault we spend so little on our Defense?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 07, 2020, 10:48:18 pm
Alan, it is Biden or the 2% we should spend on our military...
maybe... it is Bidens fault we spend so little on our Defense?
Don;t understand.  Please clarify.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 07, 2020, 10:50:52 pm


Btw, I thought that reference to Neville Chamberlain earlier was a cheap shot, although it was funny. It's not we're dealing with Hitler and no one was handing over the Sudetenland. Things are murkier than that.

I am pretty certain that if Churchill was in power at the Munich accords and came down hard on Hitler, the world would have been hearing that same thing that we are reading on this forum
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 07, 2020, 10:54:09 pm

Talking about long term planning...The Chinese are thinking 40-50 years ahead... and eventually they will have the edge.


Not really.  The Chinese may take over for a decade, but their amazing screw up with the one child policy has created a country with 60 million more men at prima age then women.  Meaning there will be a significant drop in population middle of the century. even more then what happens with developed countries.  This will create a economy much like Japan's, but only worse since the Chinese are very anti-immigration. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 07, 2020, 11:18:52 pm
Not really.  The Chinese may take over for a decade, but their amazing screw up with the one child policy has created a country with 60 million more men at prima age then women.  Meaning there will be a significant drop in population middle of the century. even more then what happens with developed countries.  This will create a economy much like Japan's, but only worse since the Chinese are very anti-immigration.

60 million single men can come handy in lending a helping hand to Africa or even in a war.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 07, 2020, 11:23:45 pm
60 million single men can come handy in lending a helping hand to Africa or even in a war.

Yes, but not when trying to build a future economy with children. 

All projections of a decreasing population are pretty bad for any country. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 08, 2020, 05:36:34 am
 ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 08, 2020, 07:36:16 am
A couple of the articles I've read point to the US pullout from the Iran nuclear deal as the starting point of the current escalations. I can't remember, what was Trump's stated reason for pulling out of the deal? What was the upside, why do it. Could he have left well enough alone? By pulling out of the deal and re-instating sanctions (I believe they were re-instated, but please tell me if that's not the case), it was certain to provoke an Iranian reaction. I don't understand how any of it benefits the USA.

I understand that Iran plays a large role in funding/encouraging terrorist activities but they used to do that even when they were previously under sanctions. Was there evidence or a suggestion that they were increasing that kind of activity and needed to be stopped, because I don't recall hearing anything like that. I would have thought that people would be screaming it from the hilltops if that were the case, no reason to keep quiet about it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 08, 2020, 10:02:40 am
You don’t remember why we “pulled out” of the “deal”? Here are two of the reasons: (1) They were cheating like hell. (2) There were no provisions for inspection that could verify they weren’t cheating. I’m sure Obama thought he was buying “peace for our time” when he handed Iran $1.7 billion in U.S. taxpayers money, and like Chamberlain with Sudetenland, was willing to buy peace for our time by withdrawing our people and giving up Iraq.

You think taking out Soleimani may cause a war? Let’s think about what actually might cause a war. Iran is going to go on trying to build a nuclear weapon. If there’s ever a nuke in the hands of a fanatic like Ali Khamenei, or for that matter, Soleimani, the world’s going to be a hard place in which to live. I have no doubt that if Iran gets close to a nuke, Israel will take it out. They have no choice. They’re a small country, and even a weapon in the kiloton range can kill their country. The biggest problem is that if confirmation that Iran is on the verge of a nuke comes too late Israel may have no choice but to use one of their own nukes to terminate the problem. At that point the fat really will be in the fire. Everybody: Europe, the U.S., China, Russia, etc., etc., suddenly is going to have to decide where they stand and whether or not to take defensive action. Again: You think taking out Soleimani may cause a war? By reducing Iran’s ability to make trouble it may prevent a war – or at least delay a war.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 08, 2020, 10:24:33 am
You don’t remember why we “pulled out” of the “deal”? Here are two of the reasons: (1) They were cheating like hell. (2) There were no provisions for inspection that could verify they weren’t cheating. I’m sure Obama thought he was buying “peace for our time” when he handed Iran $1.7 billion in U.S. taxpayers money, and like Chamberlain with Sudetenland, was willing to buy peace for our time by withdrawing our people and giving up Iraq.

You think taking out Soleimani may cause a war? Let’s think about what actually might cause a war. Iran is going to go on trying to build a nuclear weapon. If there’s ever a nuke in the hands of a fanatic like Ali Khamenei, or for that matter, Soleimani, the world’s going to be a hard place in which to live. I have no doubt that if Iran gets close to a nuke, Israel will take it out. They have no choice. They’re a small country, and even a weapon in the kiloton range can kill their country. The biggest problem is that if confirmation that Iran is on the verge of a nuke comes too late Israel may have no choice but to use one of their own nukes to terminate the problem. At that point the fat really will be in the fire. Everybody: Europe, the U.S., China, Russia, etc., etc., suddenly is going to have to decide where they stand and whether or not to take defensive action. Again: You think taking out Soleimani may cause a war? By reducing Iran’s ability to make trouble it may prevent a war – or at least delay a war.

Except that it's the exact opposite that is going to happen.

The deal with Iran was effective at preventing nuclear proliferation, stepping our of the deal is going to cause proliferation.

Killing Soleimani is an act of war that had the great effect of uniting the Iranis around their government although the significant opposition was in the process of having democracy progress. Now they are all against the US... impressive result!

Trump has been totally inconsistent on Iran, going exactly against his own past disdain for what he used to describe as Obama's penchant towards a war against Iran.

It is all too obvious that this is just a political move targeted at his own voter's base made of man with big balls who prefer to wage wars rather than trying to understand the complexities of diplomacy... all this being a pathetic attempt to distract the US voters from the on-going impeachment process. Killing a man out of cold blood for his own political interest. That should be added to the scope of impeachment.

Unsuprisingly, the first real foreign policy decision of Trump is a disaster in the making.

Have you read the last edition of Fortune by the way... "Why Trump is bad for business". Another commies magazine I guess.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 08, 2020, 10:33:29 am
. . .rather than trying to understand the complexities of diplomacy...

The same way Neville Chamberlain understood them?

You might have to look him up, Bernard. He was a guy who really understood "the complexities of diplomacy." The result of his diplomatic comprehension was WW II. You've probably heard about that. Maybe you saw something about it on TV.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 08, 2020, 11:51:02 am
So the president's speech this morning quiets the situation.  He's going to add some more economic penalties on them but nothing militarily.  He did the right thing getting rid of Soleimani.  He knows how to use American power, something others in the past don't understand how to use, always afraid.  Like when he moved the embassy to Jerusalem.  Everyone made a big deal of these things for about 1 1/2 days.  Then nothing happened.  Same with Soleimani. 

I think it;'s interesting that Trump repeated my suggestion to let European NATO countries  go there to defend their oil as we're independent of ME oil.  The formula has changed for America.  We don;t need to protect the ME since we don;t need their oil.  Europe does.  We'll see how Germany, France, Britain and others respond to his request to get more involved directly over there defending the Strait of Hormuz and free passage of their oil. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 08, 2020, 11:58:03 am
A couple of the articles I've read point to the US pullout from the Iran nuclear deal as the starting point of the current escalations. I can't remember, what was Trump's stated reason for pulling out of the deal? What was the upside, why do it. Could he have left well enough alone? By pulling out of the deal and re-instating sanctions (I believe they were re-instated, but please tell me if that's not the case), it was certain to provoke an Iranian reaction. I don't understand how any of it benefits the USA.

I understand that Iran plays a large role in funding/encouraging terrorist activities but they used to do that even when they were previously under sanctions. Was there evidence or a suggestion that they were increasing that kind of activity and needed to be stopped, because I don't recall hearing anything like that. I would have thought that people would be screaming it from the hilltops if that were the case, no reason to keep quiet about it.

Our game plan is to permanently prevent Iran from getting the bomb and creating conflict throughout the Middle East.  The JCPOA did not do that.  Iran upped their interference in the ME especially after the sanctions came off and we turned over 150 billion to them including 1 1/2 billion in cash.  Obama tried the soft approach.  It didn't work. Iran went on their way causing more problems in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere.  We don't need a reborn Persia.  They had their chance for 400 years. It's over.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 08, 2020, 12:04:30 pm
Except that it's the exact opposite that is going to happen.

The deal with Iran was effective at preventing nuclear proliferation, stepping our of the deal is going to cause proliferation.

Killing Soleimani is an act of war that had the great effect of uniting the Iranis around their government although the significant opposition was in the process of having democracy progress. Now they are all against the US... impressive result!

Trump has been totally inconsistent on Iran, going exactly against his own past disdain for what he used to describe as Obama's penchant towards a war against Iran.

It is all too obvious that this is just a political move targeted at his own voter's base made of man with big balls who prefer to wage wars rather than trying to understand the complexities of diplomacy... all this being a pathetic attempt to distract the US voters from the on-going impeachment process. Killing a man out of cold blood for his own political interest. That should be added to the scope of impeachment.

Unsuprisingly, the first real foreign policy decision of Trump is a disaster in the making.

Have you read the last edition of Fortune by the way... "Why Trump is bad for business". Another commies magazine I guess.

Cheers,
Bernard

You're totally wrong on all points influenced by your hatred of Trump.  Just like the liberal press and the Democrats.  There's no war with Iran and they will have more sanctions imposed limiting their influence in the ME.  This also will drive more Iranians to hate their government.  Meanwhile the terrorist Soleimani is dead. His great ability as a military leader is gone limiting Iran's plans to hurt America and dominate the Middle East.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 08, 2020, 12:05:33 pm
Just who knows how to play chess?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 08, 2020, 12:26:04 pm
Our game plan is to permanently prevent Iran from getting the bomb and creating conflict throughout the Middle East. 

Oh, the irony.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 08, 2020, 12:37:29 pm
Thanks to the Iranians things are not leading to war; There response was very mild, knowing a uncontrolled and devastation war was looming if they were going to far. Still i am sure they gave a message showing what they are capable of.
I think Trump was also relieved that he was not put in position to counter attack.
So in this case again it is the Iranians that used common sense to de-escalate.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 08, 2020, 12:41:38 pm
Thanks to the Iranians things are not leading to war; There response was very mild, knowing a uncontrolled and devastation war was looming if they were going to far. Still i am sure they gave a message showing what they are capable of.
I think Trump was also relieved that he was not put in position to counter attack.
So in this case again it is the Iranians that used common sense to de-escalate.
Yes.  The ayatollahs are wonderful people.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 08, 2020, 01:00:24 pm
Yes.  The ayatollahs are wonderful people.
Indeed.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Dale Villeponteaux on January 08, 2020, 02:06:33 pm
As I remember, the original Obama deal with Iran didn't solve the Iranian nuclear problem;
it just kicked the can down the road and gave Iran some breathing space.

Regards,
Dale

p.s. It's hard to type with keys that either stick or don't print
p.p.s. Note to self: Don't spill sugared coffee on the keyboard.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: EricV on January 08, 2020, 02:55:27 pm
... I’m sure Obama thought he was buying “peace for our time” when he handed Iran $1.7 billion in U.S. taxpayers money ...
Fact check -- that $1.7 billion was paid to settle an armament purchase contract which predated the Iranian revolution.  Iran paid for the arms, but they were never delivered.  The 1.7 billion was the amount of the payment, plus 25 years interest.  It is disingenuous to characterize that as a handover of U.S. taxpayers money, since it settled a legal debt.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 08, 2020, 03:01:53 pm
Every report/analysis I've ever heard or read about the Iranian nuclear deal stated that they were complying, complete with frequent on-site inspections (every 6 months rings a bell, but don't trust my memory on that).

But at least two respondents on this thread said that they weren't complying, i.e., cheating.

Both these versions cannot be true.

Anyway, we'll see.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 08, 2020, 03:05:10 pm
Fact check -- that $1.7 billion was paid to settle an armament purchase contract which predated the Iranian revolution.  Iran paid for the arms, but they were never delivered.  The 1.7 billion was the amount of the payment, plus 25 years interest.  It is disingenuous to characterize that as a handover of U.S. taxpayers money, since it settled a legal debt.

So you’re convinced that the revolution didn’t change anything as far as accounting was concerned? Instead of cash (it was real cash in bills) maybe Obama should have delivered the arms to the revolutionaries. Maybe that would have worked out better.

Good grief! I see that your age is N/A and that you don’t live anywhere, but Good Grief man!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 08, 2020, 03:09:22 pm
Every report/analysis I've ever heard or read about the Iranian nuclear deal stated that they were complying, complete with frequent on-site inspections (every 6 months rings a bell, but don't trust my memory on that).

But at least two respondents on this thread said that they weren't complying, i.e., cheating.

Both these versions cannot be true.

Anyway, we'll see.

Robert, the "on-site inspections" had to be requested in advance and then approved by the Iranians, making sure the "inspectors" never would find anything suspicious. There also was a limited list of places that could be inspected. Lets face it, no-notice inspections are the only kind that are likely to find anything. Ain't gonna happen.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 08, 2020, 03:57:11 pm
Fact check -- that $1.7 billion was paid to settle an armament purchase contract which predated the Iranian revolution.  Iran paid for the arms, but they were never delivered.  The 1.7 billion was the amount of the payment, plus 25 years interest.  It is disingenuous to characterize that as a handover of U.S. taxpayers money, since it settled a legal debt.
The point is they used the JCPOA settlement and cash to stir up trouble in the Middle East.  The cash probably went to fund terrorist in other countries and line the pockets of corrupt Iranian politicians.  That's why the Iranians are protesting and being killed by their government. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 08, 2020, 03:59:32 pm
Robert, the "on-site inspections" had to be requested in advance and then approved by the Iranians, making sure the "inspectors" never would find anything suspicious. There also was a limited list of places that could be inspected. Lets face it, no-notice inspections are the only kind that are likely to find anything. Ain't gonna happen.
Military bases were off limits to inspectors.  Guess where the nuclear research is going on?  In any case, imn a few years when the JCPOA ends, the Iranians can do whatever they want.  The JCPOA only kicked the can down the road for a few years while they consolidate their overreaching power in the Middle East.  We really don;t need a nuclear armed Persian empire. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 08, 2020, 04:11:34 pm
Every report/analysis I've ever heard or read about the Iranian nuclear deal stated that they were complying, complete with frequent on-site inspections (every 6 months rings a bell, but don't trust my memory on that).

Correct.

And the deal was up for renewal/modification in 2031.

Iran nuclear deal: Key details:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655
Part of the deal were continuous inspections, and Iran would have 24 days to comply with any IAEA access request.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 08, 2020, 04:50:24 pm
Correct.

And the deal was up for renewal/modification in 2031.

Iran nuclear deal: Key details:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655
Part of the deal were continuous inspections, and Iran would have 24 days to comply with any IAEA access request.

You're beating a dead horse.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 08, 2020, 05:00:36 pm
President Trump again shows his insecurity in attacking President Obama for "funding" the Iran military.  this is a favorite canard of the right wing cabal who can't live with the truth and only find refuge in lies and innuendos.  I guess the US is just not ready to face up to history.  To quote our current President, "...so sad..."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 08, 2020, 05:07:51 pm
President Trump again shows his insecurity in attacking President Obama for "funding" the Iran military.  this is a favorite canard of the right wing cabal who can't live with the truth and only find refuge in lies and innuendos.  I guess the US is just not ready to face up to history.  To quote our current President, "...so sad..."

John Kerry admitted in 2016 to CNBC that some money given to Iran will probably go forwards terrorism and weapon development. 

Was it petty for Trump to mention this in his speech?  Yes.  Was it true?  Yes
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 08, 2020, 05:45:18 pm
Here's a great one for all you Trumpophiles!  Treasury Secretary Mnuchin said that he does not want to disclose Secret Service expenditures on President Trump and his family's travel until after the 2020 election.  What is there to hide?  Don't the taxpayers have a right to know how our hard earned $$$s are being spent?  President Trump excoriated President Obama for all his trips to Hawaii and vowed to stay in Washington and do the people's work.  Eric and Donald Jr. have made business trips to overseas locales including Ireland, Scotland, Dubai, Uruguay and India.  Why shouldn't the business reimburse the US government for security?  It's a cost of doing business. 

A 1976 law allows the president to designate one primary residence outside the White House for the Secret Service to protect full-time. It also requires the agency to report to Congress semiannually the costs of securing that property. The Secret Service has failed or been late in recent years to provide even those limited costs reports. The agency did not file such reports in 2016 or 2017, according to the GAO. They have been delayed in submitting subsequent reports, filing a recent report in November that was due in March.  So much for transparency!!!!

Just for fun, here's a story on Senator Mike Lee's response to today's briefing on the Iran strike (surprise, he was not a fan and Fox News quickly cut away when they saw things going south; so much for "fair and balanced")  https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/1/8/21057471/utah-mike-lee-fox-news-video-briefing-iran-white-house-donald-trump   

This is getting to be really funny.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 08, 2020, 06:36:09 pm
Here's a great one for all you Trumpophiles!  Treasury Secretary Mnuchin said that he does not want to disclose Secret Service expenditures on President Trump and his family's travel until after the 2020 election.  What is there to hide?  Don't the taxpayers have a right to know how our hard earned $$$s are being spent?  President Trump excoriated President Obama for all his trips to Hawaii and vowed to stay in Washington and do the people's work.  Eric and Donald Jr. have made business trips to overseas locales including Ireland, Scotland, Dubai, Uruguay and India.  Why shouldn't the business reimburse the US government for security?  It's a cost of doing business. 

A 1976 law allows the president to designate one primary residence outside the White House for the Secret Service to protect full-time. It also requires the agency to report to Congress semiannually the costs of securing that property. The Secret Service has failed or been late in recent years to provide even those limited costs reports. The agency did not file such reports in 2016 or 2017, according to the GAO. They have been delayed in submitting subsequent reports, filing a recent report in November that was due in March.  So much for transparency!!!!

Just for fun, here's a story on Senator Mike Lee's response to today's briefing on the Iran strike (surprise, he was not a fan and Fox News quickly cut away when they saw things going south; so much for "fair and balanced")  https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/1/8/21057471/utah-mike-lee-fox-news-video-briefing-iran-white-house-donald-trump   

This is getting to be really funny.

Only Democrats complain what the government spent for Trump trips to warm FLorida to play golf just like only Republicans complained what was spent on Obama trips to warm Hawaii so he could play golf.  Mar-a-lago Florida is a lot closer to Washington DC than Hawaii, by about 5000 miles each way. I'm just ticked off that neither invited me to tag along on Air Force 1.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 08, 2020, 07:26:18 pm
 ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 08, 2020, 07:33:39 pm
If Hillary was president,  a lot of people would have commited suicide.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 08, 2020, 10:25:55 pm
John Kerry admitted in 2016 to CNBC that some money given to Iran will probably go forwards terrorism and weapon development. 

Was it petty for Trump to mention this in his speech?  Yes.  Was it true?  Yes

How come Saudi Arabia seems to mostly get a free pass on where they spend their money? I realize that sounds like the usual "what aboutism" but I think it's still a good question. I saw some stats once on how many lobbiests are on the Saudi payroll, so I assume they are able to exert control on many media outlets too. Am I not right to be suspicious?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 08, 2020, 10:34:14 pm
A new Iranian nuclear deal may be in the offing, at least according to this piece from politico.com, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/trump-obama-iran-war-096359 (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/trump-obama-iran-war-096359). It's head spinning trying to keep track of Trump policy plans. He wants NATO involved too. I wonder what he will say next week.

How do you guys keep track?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 08, 2020, 10:40:09 pm
How come Saudi Arabia seems to mostly get a free pass on where they spend their money? I realize that sounds like the usual "what aboutism" but I think it's still a good question. I saw some stats once on how many lobbiests are on the Saudi payroll, so I assume they are able to exert control on many media outlets too. Am I not right to be suspicious?

Good question.  Saudi Arabia have been allies of America and our suppliers of oil for decades.  Iran was a friend under the Shah.  But after the ayatollahs took over, seized our embassy, and took hostages, we've become adversaries.  Trump states that we're ready to let bygones be bygones if they forget nukes and stop their interference in ME politics.  He's told the North Koreans the same thing.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 08, 2020, 11:01:02 pm
A new Iranian nuclear deal may be in the offing, at least according to this piece from politico.com, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/trump-obama-iran-war-096359 (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/trump-obama-iran-war-096359). It's head spinning trying to keep track of Trump policy plans. He wants NATO involved too. I wonder what he will say next week.

How do you guys keep track?
There's nothing hard to understand.  Trump has no ill will toward Iran, Russia, China, Palestine,  or North Korea or anyone else.  As long as they're no threat to the US, he will get along and work with anyone.  If not, he'll use American economic and military power to subdue or suppress possible and real enemies of America. He has no interest in war and wants out keep America out of them.   He plays good cop bad cop with everyone.  All carrot and stick. He believes the JCPOA as a bad deal of the west.  And he's stated very early that if he could make a better deal with Iran, he would.  So he pulled out the carrot and stick again in his speech today to let the Iranian know he's willing to work with them. Meanwhile he's going to squeeze them some more with additional sanctions.   The ball's in their court.

The thing that;s happening is that the world isn't use to a president like Trump. Even Republicans aren't use to it. Most presidents roll over and appease friends and enemies, often putting America second.  He's like he is as a big real estate developer.  He's use to using his power to get his way and leverages that power to his advantage.  That's what he's doing with American power now that's he's president.  If you're loyal to him, you got a friend in America.  If you're not, then watch out.  He and America comes first.  That's Trump.  Everyone has to pick a side they want to be on.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 08, 2020, 11:08:32 pm
Pelosi loses Senate Democrats on Trump impeachment delay
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51042196 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51042196)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 09, 2020, 08:37:53 am
. . .rather than trying to understand the complexities of diplomacy...

One thing I forgot to mention, Bernard: diplomacy, complex or not, only works if there's the possibility of force behind it. The possibility can be specific or implied, but it's got to be there somewhere.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 09, 2020, 09:03:15 am
One thing I forgot to mention, Bernard: diplomacy, complex or not, only works if there's the possibility of force behind it. The possibility can be specific or implied, but it's got to be there somewhere.

So true! Anything less is just empty posturing for domestic consumption.

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 09, 2020, 09:35:33 am
The latest polls:
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 09, 2020, 09:59:34 am
The latest polls:

Reminds me of the current UK Labour Party struggle to find a more charismatic leader than Corbyn... thing is, to achieve such, one has to start from the position where one of them has charisma. I heard that, once, they'd thought of electing a chair. Lost opportunity, I guess.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 09, 2020, 10:09:41 am
From the UK Independent. I'd give you the link but if you don't subscribe you have to click thru a lot of crap.

"Mr Trump, they [a group of psychiatrists]said, is "psychologically and mentally both dangerous and incapacitated" and has a presentation that is "consistent with a person who, when his falsely inflated self-image is questioned, or when his emotional need for adulation is thwarted, lashes out in an attempt to restore his sense of potency and command over others".

The group noted that while senior military leaders must pass yearly psychological evaluations, their commander-in-chief is exempt from such a requirement despite being "the person in most need and who is a maximum danger", and added that current tensions in the Middle East make this a "critical time", at which Americans "cannot wait any longer to deal with the dangerous situation caused by a mentally compromised person acting in erratic, reckless, impulsive, and destructive ways"."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 09, 2020, 10:13:36 am
From the UK Independent. I'd give you the link but if you don't subscribe you have to click thru a lot of crap.

"Mr Trump, they [a group of psychiatrists]said, is "psychologically and mentally both dangerous and incapacitated" and has a presentation that is "consistent with a person who, when his falsely inflated self-image is questioned, or when his emotional need for adulation is thwarted, lashes out in an attempt to restore his sense of potency and command over others".

The group noted that while senior military leaders must pass yearly psychological evaluations, their commander-in-chief is exempt from such a requirement despite being "the person in most need and who is a maximum danger", and added that current tensions in the Middle East make this a "critical time", at which Americans "cannot wait any longer to deal with the dangerous situation caused by a mentally compromised person acting in erratic, reckless, impulsive, and destructive ways"."

Accurate description, and very alarming.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 09, 2020, 10:40:09 am
From the UK Independent. I'd give you the link but if you don't subscribe you have to click thru a lot of crap.

"Mr Trump, they [a group of psychiatrists]said, is "psychologically and mentally both dangerous and incapacitated" and has a presentation that is "consistent with a person who, when his falsely inflated self-image is questioned, or when his emotional need for adulation is thwarted, lashes out in an attempt to restore his sense of potency and command over others".

The group noted that while senior military leaders must pass yearly psychological evaluations, their commander-in-chief is exempt from such a requirement despite being "the person in most need and who is a maximum danger", and added that current tensions in the Middle East make this a "critical time", at which Americans "cannot wait any longer to deal with the dangerous situation caused by a mentally compromised person acting in erratic, reckless, impulsive, and destructive ways"."

Yes, alarming indeed. 

Alarming that psychiatrists who should know better are giving a diagnosis without an examination.  Quite alarming for the competence of psychological professionals, especially considering the AMA actually advertises against giving a diagnosis without an examination. 

Insofar as Trump's so called "erratic" behavior, at least he has not gotten us into a war yet, unlike Obama.  Not to mention, I do believe that Obama's morning routine was to wake up, get a cup of coffee and drone an innocent civilian. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 09, 2020, 10:56:39 am
Yes, alarming indeed. 

Alarming that psychiatrists who should know better are giving a diagnosis without an examination.  Quite alarming for the competence of psychological professionals, especially considering the AMA actually advertises against giving a diagnosis without an examination. 


These psychiatrists are ASKING for an examination. Good luck with that!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 09, 2020, 11:02:04 am
No, Peter. All they're doing is further discrediting a profession that used to make some kind of sense. These aren't psychiatrists. They're politicians pushing a cause.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 09, 2020, 11:19:05 am
No, Peter. All they're doing is further discrediting a profession that used to make some kind of sense. These aren't psychiatrists. They're politicians pushing a cause.

You don't need psychiatrists to see that Trump's behaviour and statements are erratic. On any one day.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 09, 2020, 11:28:44 am
You don't need psychiatrists to see that Trump's behaviour and statements are erratic. On any one day.

Come on now Les, Trump has been incredibly restraint in his actions with Iran.  Iran took 6 oil tankers, has been spreading terrorism in the ME that has taken American casualties, shot down one of our drones, etc, and Trump did nothing.  It was not until Iran killed an American and attacked our embassy (within two days of each other) that Trump took action. 

For you to all ignore this and act as if the world started turning only after Trump issued the drone attack is disingenuous and ideologic. 

And now, things appear to be going well.  Iran retaliation was largely a nothing burger; Iran even warned us of the attack.  Our deterrents have been re-established in the ME, and, unlike with Obama, we still are not in a troops on the ground new war. 

On an additional note, it really amazes that, as Ben Haddad (who is not a Trump fan put it) put it, "I’m always surprised the same analysts describe Trump as a calculating selfish cynic and as an irrational crazed madman. You have to choose." 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 09, 2020, 11:36:08 am
Well, listening to Trump from outside is confusing. Maybe his goal is to be perceived to be unpredictable, but in long-term that doesn't help.

And now even Pence is emulating Trumps methods.
Yesterday, he announced that Iran wasn't really trying to inflict a serious damage to American bases in Irak, and today he states the Iran was aiming to kill Americans.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 09, 2020, 11:36:10 am
No, Peter. All they're doing is further discrediting a profession that used to make some kind of sense. These aren't psychiatrists. They're politicians pushing a cause.

Don't be ridiculous. These are highly educated people with an MD degree, board certification, and HOW can you call them politicians? Asinine. I bet if this same group of psychiatrists had pronounced Trump stable and fit for his job you would have nothing but praise for them.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 09, 2020, 11:38:06 am
Don't be ridiculous. These are highly educated people with an MD degree, board certification, and HOW can you call them politicians? Asinine. I bet if this same group of psychiatrists had pronounced Trump stable and fit for his job you would have nothing but praise for them.

No Peter, you are being ridiculous.  As board certified doctors, then they should all know not to make a diagnosis without an examination, which every credible medical association insists on.  This is nothing but politics. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 09, 2020, 11:43:58 am
Well, listening to Trump from outside is confusing. Maybe his goal is to be perceived to be unpredictable, but in long-term that doesn't help.

And now even Pence is emulating Trumps methods.
Yesterday, he announced that Iran wasn't really trying to inflict a serious damage to American bases in Irak, and today he states the Iran was aiming to kill Americans.

It is to give Iran a way out.  If we started, on an official level, to publicize that Iran warned us (as was reported on in the British press) that would make Iran look bad to the Iranians.  The Iranians would need to continue to attack us to further save face. 

But by insisting that it was our warning systems that saved us (not the Iranians warning us) and that Iran really was trying to kill Americans, it allows Iran to use this attack to show their people they attempted to avenged the death of Soleimani. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 09, 2020, 11:47:29 am
It is to give Iran a way out.  If we started, on an official level, to publicize that Iran warned us (as was reported on in the British press) that would make Iran look bad to the Iranians.  The Iranians would need to continue to attack us to further save face. 

But by insisting that it was our warning systems that saved us (not the Iranians warning us) and that Iran really was trying to kill Americans, it allows Iran to use this attack to show their people they attempted to avenged the death of Soleimani.

in other words, a double-speak?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 09, 2020, 11:47:39 am
These are highly educated people with an MD degree. . .

No, Peter, they're not highly educated. They may be highly trained (like a dog is trained) but education is something quite different. I've found that MDs generally are some of the least educated people around. Their training took so much of their time that they never had the opportunity to become educated. Some of them educate themselves after they're out of "training," but many do not.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 09, 2020, 11:53:13 am
in other words, a double-speak?

Not any worse than "if you like your plan, you can keep it." 

But seriously Les, would you rather us go around talking about how Iran really was not trying to kill any Americans and that they warned us beforehand, forcing the Iranians to do more strikes?  I guess maybe if they did and that got us into WWIII, you could go around saying "I told you so." 

It is a small price to pay. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 09, 2020, 12:21:12 pm
No, Peter, they're not highly educated. They may be highly trained (like a dog is trained) but education is something quite different. I've found that MDs generally are some of the least educated people around. Their training took so much of their time that they never had the opportunity to become educated. Some of them educate themselves after they're out of "training," but many do not.

Reminds me of Neil DeGrasse Tyson talking about how he teaches a lot of pre-med courses, and that he can confirm there are a lot of stupid doctors walking around out there. 

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Doctors (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5X64QCDVnI)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 09, 2020, 12:33:20 pm
No Peter, you are being ridiculous.  As board certified doctors, then they should all know not to make a diagnosis without an examination, which every credible medical association insists on.  This is nothing but politics.

To diagnose you or me without an examination, that would be wrong. But Trump exposes his self every day with his tweets and public pronouncements. These shrinks know what he is responding to and know his responses. That's pretty much an examination. And, do you REALLY think Trump is stable? I certainly hope not.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 09, 2020, 12:44:14 pm
To diagnose you or me without an examination, that would be wrong. But Trump exposes his self every day with his tweets and public pronouncements. These shrinks know what he is responding to and know his responses. That's pretty much an examination. And, do you REALLY think Trump is stable? I certainly hope not.

Here is what the American Psychiatric Association, in January of 2018, said about your insistence that it is okay to diagnose Trump without an examination. 

"Today, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) reiterates its continued and unwavering commitment to the ethical principle known as "The Goldwater Rule." We at the APA call for an end to psychiatrists providing professional opinions in the media about public figures whom they have not examined, whether it be on cable news appearances, books, or in social media. Armchair psychiatry or the use of psychiatry as a political tool is the misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical."

To read the full statement, APA Calls for End to 'Armchair' Psychiatry (https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/apa-calls-for-end-to-armchair-psychiatry)

If you know better and think that we should trust your oppinion over the APA, I think it is only reasonable to ask that you please state your credentials for the record.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 09, 2020, 12:45:07 pm
And, do you REALLY think Trump is stable?

Compared to whom, Peter? You?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 09, 2020, 01:39:13 pm
Getting back to Iran, things just got a whole lot more serious, with Europe that is. 

IRANIAN MISSILE SYSTEM SHOT DOWN UKRAINE FLIGHT, PROBABLY BY MISTAKE, SOURCES SAY (https://www.newsweek.com/iranians-shot-down-ukraine-flight-mistake-sources-1481313)

Suddenly makes sense why Iran refused to turn over the black box. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 09, 2020, 01:50:19 pm
Come on now Les, Trump has been incredibly restraint in his actions with Iran.  Iran took 6 oil tankers, has been spreading terrorism in the ME that has taken American casualties, shot down one of our drones, etc, and Trump did nothing.  It was not until Iran killed an American and attacked our embassy (within two days of each other) that Trump took action. 

For you to all ignore this and act as if the world started turning only after Trump issued the drone attack is disingenuous and ideologic. 

And now, things appear to be going well.  Iran retaliation was largely a nothing burger; Iran even warned us of the attack.  Our deterrents have been re-established in the ME, and, unlike with Obama, we still are not in a troops on the ground new war. 

On an additional note, it really amazes that, as Ben Haddad (who is not a Trump fan put it) put it, "I’m always surprised the same analysts describe Trump as a calculating selfish cynic and as an irrational crazed madman. You have to choose."

In the cases you mention it is not proven that Iran was the actor.
What you call terrorism is the same as the US presence there- influence. In fact Soleimani forces were important for halting IS in Iraq.
The drone was downed because it was in Iran's territory, so they had a right to do that.
Iran was so wise not to kill Americans in the revenge attack after Soleimani's killing, to avoid a war. Unlike Trumps behaviour that almost started one.
The US is the aggressor - That started with blowing up the Iran-deal and the imposing of very strict  economic sanctions.
Since then US provocative military action have tried to trigger a reaction from Iran to find an excuse for further military interventions...
Before all that Iran was going the right way, its nuclear program was controlled and there was room for the moderate political forces in the country. Those voices have now been silenced.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 09, 2020, 01:53:56 pm
Getting back to Iran, things just got a whole lot more serious, with Europe that is. 

IRANIAN MISSILE SYSTEM SHOT DOWN UKRAINE FLIGHT, PROBABLY BY MISTAKE, SOURCES SAY (https://www.newsweek.com/iranians-shot-down-ukraine-flight-mistake-sources-1481313)

Suddenly makes sense why Iran refused to turn over the black box.

If this is true it is a very unfortunate accident in which case the US has some responsibility as well.
But i would like to hear independent researchers before jumping to conclusions.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 09, 2020, 01:56:36 pm
In the cases you mention it is not proven that Iran was the actor.
What you call terrorism is the same as the US presence there- influence. In fact Soleimani forces were important for halting IS in Iraq.
The drone was downed because it was in Iran's territory, so they had a right to do that.
Iran was so wise not to kill Americans in the revenge attack after Soleimani's killing, to avoid a war. Unlike Trumps behaviour that almost started one.
The US is the aggressor - That started with blowing up the Iran-deal and the imposing of very strict  economic sanctions.
Since then US provocative military action have tried to trigger a reaction from Iran to find an excuse for further military interventions...
Before all that Iran was going the right way, its nuclear program was controlled and there was room for the moderate political forces in the country. Those voices have now been silenced.

Your first line pretty much tells me everything about what you think. 

Fact is Iran for months now has been provoking the west, not just the USA, including the attack on the embassy.  Trump, and the rest of the west, did nothing until Iran killed an American.  Iran is the agressor; we were just re-establishing deterrents. 

Answer me this, if, as you put it, "The US is the aggressor," with much of Europe supporting the Iran deal, then why did Iran attack Europe bound oil tankers?  You would think that if Europe was on Iran's side, Iran would want to appease the Europeans as much as possible and not attack oil shipments bound for Europe.  But this is not what happened, exactly why?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 09, 2020, 01:57:41 pm
If this is true it is a very unfortunate accident in which case the US has some responsibility as well.

Only took 14 minutes for someone to take the bait. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 09, 2020, 02:00:30 pm
Before all that Iran was going the right way, its nuclear program was controlled and there was room for the moderate political forces in the country.

And we were going to have "peace in our time," same way the world had peace in our time after Chamberlain unleashed his "moderate political force" and Germany was "going the right way."

Which is why the Western World still salutes Winston Churchill. His time came later than it should have, but it finally came. The delay cost millions of lives.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 09, 2020, 02:13:56 pm
Your first line pretty much tells me everything about what you think. 

Fact is Iran for months now has been provoking the west, not just the USA, including the attack on the embassy.  Trump, and the rest of the west, did nothing until Iran killed an American.  Iran is the agressor; we were just re-establishing deterrents. 

Answer me this, if, as you put it, "The US is the aggressor," with much of Europe supporting the Iran deal, then why did Iran attack Europe bound oil tankers?  You would think that if Europe was on Iran's side, Iran would want to appease the Europeans as much as possible and not attack oil shipments bound for Europe.  But this is not what happened, exactly why?


Simple reply to your question about ships: because Europe, unlike American claims to fuel independence, depends heavily on imported oil. If Europe becomes uncomfortable, the chances are that it will try to use its position to slow down US sanctions etc. In other words, it could be a ploy to make Europe try to do something to lessen the economic pain in Iran.

Regarding the atomic question and the US exit from the agreement, the "deal": I don't think it has anything to do with "sides" but everything to do with trying to prevent more and more countries get the bomb. It may well be thought of in terms of sides from the US perspective, but that means that one forgets that there are many different perspectives involved here, as in all international situations. It's too simplistic thinking in terms as narrow as them and us.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 09, 2020, 02:36:24 pm
Getting back to Iran, things just got a whole lot more serious, with Europe that is. 

IRANIAN MISSILE SYSTEM SHOT DOWN UKRAINE FLIGHT, PROBABLY BY MISTAKE, SOURCES SAY (https://www.newsweek.com/iranians-shot-down-ukraine-flight-mistake-sources-1481313)

Suddenly makes sense why Iran refused to turn over the black box. 
I remember when a US Navy ship shot down an Iranian commercial jet by mistake.  They thought they were under attack.  SOunds like Iran just made the same mistake.  This is really bad.  There were a lot of Canadians on the Ukrainian jet. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 09, 2020, 02:39:35 pm
Your first line pretty much tells me everything about what you think. 

Fact is Iran for months now has been provoking the west, not just the USA, including the attack on the embassy.  Trump, and the rest of the west, did nothing until Iran killed an American.  Iran is the agressor; we were just re-establishing deterrents. 

Answer me this, if, as you put it, "The US is the aggressor," with much of Europe supporting the Iran deal, then why did Iran attack Europe bound oil tankers?  You would think that if Europe was on Iran's side, Iran would want to appease the Europeans as much as possible and not attack oil shipments bound for Europe.  But this is not what happened, exactly why?
Because Iran is afraid of Trump.  They're not afraid of Europe. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 09, 2020, 03:44:05 pm
No, Peter, they're not highly educated. They may be highly trained (like a dog is trained) but education is something quite different. I've found that MDs generally are some of the least educated people around. Their training took so much of their time that they never had the opportunity to become educated. Some of them educate themselves after they're out of "training," but many do not.

False, and I should know as I spent some 15 years "training" med students. What you say is true of some, but not all. And, main point here, it's that TRAINING that teaches them how to recognize mental disorders.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 09, 2020, 03:46:46 pm
Compared to whom, Peter? You?

Precisely. And compared to you too. And Joe. And Alan.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 09, 2020, 03:56:57 pm
False, and I should know as I spent some 15 years "training" med students. What you say is true of some, but not all. And, main point here, it's that TRAINING that teaches them how to recognize mental disorders.

Medical training in outdated ways is one culprit, but it's more the attitude of the practicing MDs. The working doctors don't have time nor inclination to read about new developments and research studies their field.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 09, 2020, 04:01:53 pm
Come on now Les, Trump has been incredibly restraint in his actions with Iran.  Iran took 6 oil tankers, has been spreading terrorism in the ME that has taken American casualties, shot down one of our drones, etc, and Trump did nothing.  It was not until Iran killed an American and attacked our embassy (within two days of each other) that Trump took action. 

For you to all ignore this and act as if the world started turning only after Trump issued the drone attack is disingenuous and ideologic. 

And now, things appear to be going well.  Iran retaliation was largely a nothing burger; Iran even warned us of the attack.  Our deterrents have been re-established in the ME, and, unlike with Obama, we still are not in a troops on the ground new war. 

On an additional note, it really amazes that, as Ben Haddad (who is not a Trump fan put it) put it, "I’m always surprised the same analysts describe Trump as a calculating selfish cynic and as an irrational crazed madman. You have to choose." 
Crazy like a fox.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 09, 2020, 04:03:13 pm
False, and I should know as I spent some 15 years "training" med students. What you say is true of some, but not all. And, main point here, it's that TRAINING that teaches them how to recognize mental disorders.
My wife sometimes calls me nuts.  How can I argue.  She's got two Masters. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 09, 2020, 04:12:16 pm
Only took 14 minutes for someone to take the bait.
 

Do you think this response is clever?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 09, 2020, 04:26:51 pm
 

Do you think this response is clever?

I was not trying to be clever, just stating the obvious. 

Surely a tragic event, but in no way does the USA nor Trump bare any responsibility for it.  It is solely the fault of the Iranians, if it indeed turns out to be an accident related to the missle launch.  But I was certain someone would try and pass the blame from the Iranians to us. 

I fully expect the mainstream media will also blame Trump for this by tomorrow, at the latest. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 09, 2020, 04:46:27 pm
It's beyond comprehension why would some official governments deny their obvious mistakes or malicious acts.
Cases in point:
- Russians shooting the MH17 Malaysian plane over Ukraine
- Saudis brutally killing Kashoggi
- Iranians downing the Ukrainian plane



 
 
 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 09, 2020, 05:47:53 pm
It's beyond comprehension why would some official governments deny their obvious mistakes or malicious acts.
Cases in point:
- Russians shooting the MH17 Malaysian plane over Ukraine...

Far from certain. Much more likely ethnic Russian rebels from Ukraine.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 09, 2020, 06:48:02 pm
... working doctors don't have time nor inclination to read about new developments and research studies their field.

A preposterous and ill-informed statement.  Doctors continuously study to improve their skills.  They have to.  Medical science is changing relentlessly and quickly.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 09, 2020, 06:53:26 pm
Far from certain. Much more likely ethnic Russian rebels from Ukraine.

In your opinion, possibly.

However:

The responsibility for investigation was delegated to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) and the Dutch-led joint investigation team (JIT), who concluded that the airliner was downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile launched from pro-Russian separatist-controlled territory in Ukraine.[7][8] According to the JIT, the Buk that was used originated from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade of the Russian Federation,[9][10] and had been transported from Russia on the day of the crash, fired from a field in a rebel-controlled area, and the launcher returned to Russia after it was used to shoot down MH17.[1][2][9] On the basis of the JIT's conclusions, the governments of the Netherlands and Australia hold Russia responsible for the deployment of the Buk installation and are taking steps to hold Russia formally accountable

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 09, 2020, 07:41:31 pm
False, and I should know as I spent some 15 years "training" med students. What you say is true of some, but not all. And, main point here, it's that TRAINING that teaches them how to recognize mental disorders.

So you're a psychiatrist, or at least an MD with psychiatric training? Right? And your diagnosis of Trump is. . ?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 09, 2020, 08:06:54 pm
Ya, I too also vant to hear das analysis of Herr Trumpf. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 09, 2020, 08:16:08 pm
Far from certain. Much more likely ethnic Russian rebels from Ukraine.
Thanks for the correction, Slobodan. The shooting was done by a team of three Russians and one Ukrainian. They used a Russian Buk rocket.

Quote
Five countries – the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine – form the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) into the tragedy. On 24 May 2018 the JIT announced that the Buk missile installation that brought down the flight belonged to the Russian army.

On 19 June 2019 the Dutch prosecutor’s office announced that criminal charges will be brought in the Netherlands against four individuals. Three are Russians: Igor Girkin, a former colonel in the Russian intelligence service, FSB; Sergei Dubinsky, a former member of GRU, the Russian military intelligence service which has been accused of carrying out the Novichok attack in Salisbury; and Oleg Pulatov, a former soldier in the Spetsnaz GRU, the service’s special forces. One is Ukrainian: Leonid Kharchenko, a member of the Donetsk People’s Republic’s “military intelligence” unit.

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/mh17-crash-malaysia-airlines-anniversary-ukraine-russia-what-happened-a9007826.html

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 09, 2020, 08:21:26 pm
But the Iranian missile was controlled by the Iranian military.  They've been using that Russian missile system for decades and have practiced for years. The irony is they couldn't kill American soldiers with 20 missiles but their aim was perfect killing civilians with one. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 09, 2020, 08:30:44 pm
Ya, I too also vant to hear das analysis of Herr Trumpf.

I can't tell if this is Russian or German  :'(
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 09, 2020, 08:40:17 pm
I can't tell if this is Russian or German  :'(
Forgetaboutit.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 09, 2020, 08:49:43 pm
A preposterous and ill-informed statement.  Doctors continuously study to improve their skills.  They have to.  Medical science is changing relentlessly and quickly.

That's what one would expect, Peter.  And there indeed are some doctors in that category.
Unfortunately, in my limited experience, most doctors are not keeping up with rapidly changing medical science. Even worse, they continue to spread out some of the old myths that can harm their patients.

Here are two examples of such practices:
1. Most doctors and even some nutritionists are still advocating consumption of milk and other dairy products which has been proven as harmful for bones, heart and weight gain, including increase of cholesterol, and for prostate and ovarian cancers.

Quote
Besides humans (and companion animals who are fed by humans), no species drinks milk beyond their natural age of weaning or drinks the milk of another species. Cow’s milk is suited to the nutritional needs of calves, who have four stomachs and gain hundreds of pounds in a matter of months—sometimes weighing more than 1,000 pounds before they’re 2 years old. Cow’s milk does not suit the nutritional needs of humans, so it’s no wonder that consuming it and its derivatives causes us so many problems.

https://www.peta.org/living/food/reasons-stop-drinking-milk/   

2. Most orthopedic surgeons and dentists still recommend that any person who underwent a heart or prosthetic joint implants should take antibiotic prophylaxis prior to any dental procedures (for 2 years after such surgery or even for life), incl. routine procedures, such as teeth cleaning, despite the latest findings that shows that the risk of adverse reactions to antibiotics generally outweigh the benefits of prophylaxis for many patients. Even the Canadian Dental Association stopped recommending taking antibiotics prophylaxis before the dental procedures, except in some special situations.

Quote
This is based on a review of scientific evidence, which showed that the risk of adverse reactions to antibiotics generally outweigh the benefits of prophylaxis for many patients who would have been considered eligible for prophylaxis in previous versions of the guidelines. Concern about the development of drug-resistant bacteria also was a factor.

https://www.ada.org/en/member-center/oral-health-topics/antibiotic-prophylaxis
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 09, 2020, 08:56:14 pm
Not only are doctors not keeping up to date.  Those that do are often misinformed by just plain wrong or conflicting studies.  Consider the poor patient who goes to different doctors who recommend different procedures.  It makes one want to be skeptical of Climate change science.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 09, 2020, 09:07:10 pm
Not only are doctors not keeping up to date.  Those that do are often misinformed by just plain wrong or conflicting studies.  Consider the poor patient who goes to different doctors who recommend different procedures.  It makes one want to be skeptical of Climate change science.  :)

Very true. Nowadays, in many cases, you need not only second, but also a third opinion. As born by examples from my own life and family.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 09, 2020, 10:06:57 pm
Forgetaboutit.

 ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 09, 2020, 10:15:40 pm
Very true. Nowadays, in many cases, you need not only second, but also a third opinion. As born by examples from my own life and family.

My wife just took herself off a prescription because she feels that she's getting reactions.  This problem is really being swept under the rug. The medical industry doesn;t really talk about it.   I was reading a few years ago that a huge percentage of elderly people just stop taking their pills so frustrating this whole situation is.  Doctors prescribe medicine palliatively forever.  Once they start, they never tell you to stop.  I don't care what they say.  Medicine has lots of side effects especially if taken for a long time.  The studies don;t show these reactions for the most part.  They affect other parts of the body but no one really wants to know. Including the patients.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 09, 2020, 10:21:29 pm
No one's talking about impeachment.

"Killing of Iranian terrorist leader touted by Donald Trump in Ohio rally, first of 2020"
https://www.cantonrep.com/news/20200109/killing-of-iranian-terrorist-leader-touted-by-donald-trump-in-ohio-rally-first-of-2020/1 (https://www.cantonrep.com/news/20200109/killing-of-iranian-terrorist-leader-touted-by-donald-trump-in-ohio-rally-first-of-2020/1)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 09, 2020, 10:34:33 pm
No one's talking about impeachment.

"Killing of Iranian terrorist leader touted by Donald Trump in Ohio rally, first of 2020"
https://www.cantonrep.com/news/20200109/killing-of-iranian-terrorist-leader-touted-by-donald-trump-in-ohio-rally-first-of-2020/1 (https://www.cantonrep.com/news/20200109/killing-of-iranian-terrorist-leader-touted-by-donald-trump-in-ohio-rally-first-of-2020/1)

Trump rallies are where humility and humanity go to die.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 09, 2020, 10:48:48 pm
Trump rallies are where humility and humanity go to die.   
Maybe.  But no one is talking about impeachment.  He sucks the O2 out of the room. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 10, 2020, 04:33:19 am
...  Doctors continuously study to improve their skills...

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 10, 2020, 04:42:27 am
...However:

The responsibility for investigation was delegated to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) and the Dutch-led joint investigation team (JIT)...

 ;D ;D ;D

OMG! With such an omnipotent insight into the unknown, I can’t wait to hear from them who really shot Kennedy.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 10, 2020, 04:46:08 am
Quote
...  Doctors continuously study to improve their skills...

in cramming more and more patients visits into their billable working day
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 10, 2020, 05:07:59 am
Iran’s sleeping cells in action:

US House votes to limit Trump war powers on Iran https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51053200
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 10, 2020, 06:12:00 am
Because Iran is afraid of Trump.  They're not afraid of Europe.
Ever heard of Symbiosis?  Works better than FEAR... to accomplish welfare.
China understands that, most countries do; the US did under Obama.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 10, 2020, 08:19:54 am
Ever heard of Symbiosis?  Works better than FEAR... to accomplish welfare.
China understands that, most countries do; the US did under Obama.

 ;D ;D ;D 8)  Just like the symbiosis between Germany and France in 1941?

I guess you think giving billions to the Iranians was symbiosis.

Pieter, do you know anything at all about the actions (or lack of actions) by the Western World that led up to WW II? Considering that you're in a country that was quick to go down once the war really got going, I'd think you'd have some comprehension of the problems with what's happening now.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 10, 2020, 08:40:13 am
Ever heard of Symbiosis?  Works better than FEAR... to accomplish welfare.
China understands that, most countries do; the US did under Obama.
Nature abhors a vacuum. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 10, 2020, 09:11:10 am
"It is an eternal truth that acquiescence under insult is not the way to escape war." Thomas Jefferson

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 10, 2020, 09:22:01 am

Here are two examples of such practices:
1. Most doctors and even some nutritionists are still advocating consumption of milk and other dairy products which has been proven as harmful for bones, heart and weight gain, including increase of cholesterol, and for prostate and ovarian cancers.

https://www.peta.org/living/food/reasons-stop-drinking-milk/   


I am intrigued by this. 

I do realize that outside of people of Northern European descent 90% of the world is lactose intolerant, but the vast majority of people of Northern European descent are lactose persistent. 

Do the studies take this into account?  I mean, yes, I would surely agree that non-Europeans should not drink milk due to this.  However, do these studies differentiate out those of Northern European descent?

I drink milk like it is no ones business and have never had any issues with it, but I am a mutt of Northern European ethnicities. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 10, 2020, 09:24:58 am
"It is an eternal truth that acquiescence under insult is not the way to escape war." Thomas Jefferson

Fair enough, but Iran isn't exactly the Third Reich, is it.

Both Iran and Iraq were fairly modern progressive states at one point, relative to feudal states like Saudi Arabia and others, but I don't think you can argue that interference helped them much or made us any safer.

What is the long-term objective, what is the exit strategy? Flying in and shooting a general now and then doesn't sound like a plan to me.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: scooby70 on January 10, 2020, 09:51:32 am
Unfortunately these once modern states are embroiled in difficulties going back to 632 (or there abouts) and would very likely be killing each other in an effort to spread their own version of faith had the outside western world never got involved.

As far as comparing Iran to the 3rd Reich, when a country shoots dissenters on the street (and who knows exactly how many have been killed in the recent anti regime protests?) carries out mass arrests and uses torture and rape as weapons with which to oppress control and terrorise its own population no comparisons are off the table.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 10, 2020, 10:06:01 am
But for oil, I'm sure the rest of the world would have looked the other way until they had settled their internal ideological differences and a clear, winning survivor had stepped forward to be recognized by the rest of the world order.

Looking away is what we were mostly doing on the African continent, post-empires, and would still be doing, but for those inflatable boats.

The world's a village now, and the keepers of brothers starting to have a tough time...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 10, 2020, 10:23:22 am
If Iran was merely a isolated rogue nation seeking to get the bomb solely for ensuring it's survival, like North Korea, things would be different.  But Iran wants to both have total regional dominance and to destroy Israel.  On top of that, they are religious fanaticals, meaning I would not put anything past them. 

Considering Iran can so easily "shoot dissenters on the street ... carries out mass arrests and uses torture and rape as weapons with which to oppress" to their own people, can you imagine what they would do to others, like Sunnis and Kurds? 

Lets look at it another way.  Lets say the Nazi's never invaded France or attempted to invade England, remaining largely territorial, but still implemented the Holocaust.  In that situation, should we have sat back and done nothing?  If Iran only invades Iraq, but then engages in genocide of Sunni's and Kurds, should we just ignore it because they stopped at Iraq's border? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 10, 2020, 10:26:28 am
I am intrigued by this. 

I do realize that outside of people of Northern European descent 90% of the world is lactose intolerant, but the vast majority of people of Northern European descent are lactose persistent. 

Do the studies take this into account?  I mean, yes, I would surely agree that non-Europeans should not drink milk due to this.  However, do these studies differentiate out those of Northern European descent?

I drink milk like it is no ones business and have never had any issues with it, but I am a mutt of Northern European ethnicities.

Joe, I used to drink also a lot of milk and ate yoghurt and cheese. In my early twenties, I spent some time in Finland, and there I drank at least one liter of milk everyday, as do many Finns. About 10 years ago, I became aware of the health problems associated with dairy and got off it. For my breakfast serials and occasional glass of milk, I replaced cow milk with almond milk which I find now tastier than the former. By eliminating dairy, I lost some weight and lowered my cholesterol level.

Being lactose intolerant and experiencing occasional bowel syndromes is just one minor problem. Bigger problems are increased chances of cancer and heart disease, weakened bones, increased allergies, and other ailments. The antibiotics and growth hormones are present in most dairy products unless you have your own cow or goat grazing on grass.

Quote
A large observational cohort study in Sweden found that women consuming more than 3 glasses of milk a day had almost twice the mortality over 20 years compared to those women consuming less than one glass a day. In addition, the high milk-drinkers did not have improved bone health. In fact, they had more fractures, particularly hip fractures.

There are as many articles and studies showing benefits of milk (older articles and studies paid for by dairy industry) as they are warnings (including more recent observational studies). One of the main fallacies for drinking milk is improved bone health. In reality the calcium in cow milk hurts your bones. Occasional glass of milk or an ice cream cone won't kill you, but regular dairy consumption will speed up the process.

You can search online for benefits and dangers of milk consumption and decide for yourself. Here is the link to the above quote, and other similar articles:
 
https://nutritionstudies.org/12-frightening-facts-milk/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dairy-free-dairy-6-reason_b_558876

https://www.healthline.com/health/is-milk-bad-for-you
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 10, 2020, 10:29:41 am
My wife sometimes calls me nuts.  How can I argue.  She's got two Masters.

But wives are always right <g>!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 10, 2020, 10:39:26 am
So you're a psychiatrist, or at least an MD with psychiatric training? Right? And your diagnosis of Trump is. . ?

This is a very typical right-wing "argument." If a group of experts says something that does not jibe with your pre-conceived notions, first try to discredit the group (the psychiatric association) and then try to discredit the messenger (me). Of course changing what you think is out of the question.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 10, 2020, 10:43:13 am
If Iran was merely a isolated rogue nation seeking to get the bomb solely for ensuring it survival, like North Korea, things would be different.  But Iran wants to both have total regional dominance and to destroy Israel.  On top of that, they are religious fanaticals, meaning I would not put anything past them. 

Considering Iran can so easily "shoot dissenters on the street ... carries out mass arrests and uses torture and rape as weapons with which to oppress" to their own people, can you imagine what they would do to others, like Sunnis and Kurds? 

Lets look at it another way.  Lets say the Nazi's never invaded France or attempted to invade England, remaining largely territorial, but still implemented the Holocaust.  In that situation, should we have sat back and done nothing?  If Iran only invades Iraq, but then engages in genocide of Sunni's and Kurds, she we just ignore it?
Nkorea is only isolated from your point of view- China and Japan think otherwise... NKorea has camps with thousands of prisoners... treats its population like shit, has not even enough food for them and has never intended to give up their nuclear rocket program, because it is the only reason the regime can stay in charge.
Even Trump (hopefully) understands that now. Kim used Trump to emphasis its importance in the world and tried to get the sanctions lifted without compromizing its nuclear program.
Iran was willing to stop their program and did, before Trump stept out of the agreement that was supported by many nations worldwide. On top of that Trump came with sanctions not only for trading between the US and Iran, but forbid trade between Iran and any country or else...
I am not saying i agree with the Iranian government; they have a very bad record on human rights, of whom the women carry most of the burden. But the Iranian government has shown it can act logical and has not violated the deal they made. The inspections showed they kept their promises. Kim can never be trusted as records has shown.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 10, 2020, 10:43:59 am
This is a very typical right-wing "argument." If a group of experts says something that does not jibe with your pre-conceived notions, first try to discredit the group (the psychiatric association) and then try to discredit the messenger (me). Of course changing what you think is out of the question.

What?  Russ tried to discredit the Psychiatric Association?  ???

I believe that Russ was agreeing with the APA (the experts) when it came to the Goldwater Rule.  It is you who insists that the experts (the APA) are wrong and that we can give public assessments of Trump's mental health without an examination. 

Shall I again post what the experts, the APA, say on this? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 10, 2020, 10:51:32 am
Nkorea is only isolated from your point of view- China and Japan think otherwise... NKorea has camps with thousands of prisoners... treats its population like shit, has not even enough food for them and has never intended to give up their nuclear rocket program, because it is the only reason the regime can stay in charge.
Even Trump (hopefully) understands that now. Kim used Trump to emphasis its importance in the world.
Iran was willing to stop their program and did, before Trump stept out of the agreement that was supported by many nations worldwide. On top of that Trump came with sanctions not only for trading between the US and Iran, but forbid trade with iran with any country or else...
I am not saying i agree with the Iranian government; they have a very bad record on human rights, of whom the women carry most of the burden. But the Iranian government has shown it can act logical and has not violated the deal they made. The inspections showed they kept their promises. Kim can never be trusted as records has shown.

The idea that Iran was docile while the Iran Nuclear deal was in place is absurd.  The day the deal went into effect, they took 5 American hostage and demended a $400M ransom to get them back.  (Of course Obama insists this was not a ransom, but his secretary of state confirmed their release was prerequisite on the delivery of the money, which is one way to define ransom.) 

The fact is Iran merely changed tactics.  They wanted to get a nuclear weapon so they could then use that as a way to dominate the region.  Then, Obama promised to lift sanctions and give them a boat load of money.  Additionally Obama showed them how weak he was with using deterrents.  Both of these allowed them to change tactics to supporting militias (with moneys gained from the Obama cash and increased economic activity of decreased sanctions) and friendly regimes to gain dominance.  They even got so brazen that they started to directly involve themselves with attacks on shipping. 

On top of that, there is no way that we can definitely say Iran was following the deal.  They only allowed inspectors to come after they were invited or gave warning, and military bases were off limits.  Not to mention the deal really did not solve anything, just kicked it down the road a bit. 

PS, you still did not answer my question.  It is obvious that if Iran gains influence, or takes over Iraq, the Sunnis and Kurds are destine for intense oppression and/or genocide.  Does this concern you, or would you be okay with leaving Iran alone if they promised to not to go any further then Iraq?  If they promised, would you believe them?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 10, 2020, 10:52:04 am
This is a very typical right-wing "argument." If a group of experts says something that does not jibe with your pre-conceived notions, first try to discredit the group (the psychiatric association) and then try to discredit the messenger (me). Of course changing what you think is out of the question.

Peter, you said this:

False, and I should know as I spent some 15 years "training" med students. What you say is true of some, but not all. And, main point here, it's that TRAINING that teaches them how to recognize mental disorders.

And I said this:

So you're a psychiatrist, or at least an MD with psychiatric training? Right? And your diagnosis of Trump is. . ?

All I can say to your response, above, to my question is what my Canadian friends always say: "Eh?"
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 10, 2020, 10:57:05 am
Nkorea is only isolated from your point of view- China and Japan think otherwise... NKorea has camps with thousands of prisoners... treats its population like shit, has not even enough food for them and has never intended to give up their nuclear rocket program, because it is the only reason the regime can stay in charge.
Even Trump (hopefully) understands that now. Kim used Trump to emphasis its importance in the world and tried to get the sanctions lifted without compromizing its nuclear program.
Iran was willing to stop their program and did, before Trump stept out of the agreement that was supported by many nations worldwide. On top of that Trump came with sanctions not only for trading between the US and Iran, but forbid trade with iran with any country or else...
I am not saying i agree with the Iranian government; they have a very bad record on human rights, of whom the women carry most of the burden. But the Iranian government has shown it can act logical and has not violated the deal they made. The inspections showed they kept their promises. Kim can never be trusted as records has shown.

The official "inspections" were a farce, and obviously they fooled not only the inspectors, but also some of the western media.

Quote
In spite of the probable futility of the inspections, they were carried out in September 2015, and were described thus by the director general: “The Iranian side played a part in the sample-taking process by swiping samples.

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/The-IAEA-inspection-at-Parchin-a-farce-in-three-acts-419424

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/iran/iran-iaea-agreement-text/

A more comprehensive article on the flawed Iran deal was published by Atlantic last year:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/iran-nuclear-deal-flawed/559595/

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 10, 2020, 11:12:56 am
The official "inspections" were a farce, and obviously they fooled not only the inspectors, but also some of the western media.

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/The-IAEA-inspection-at-Parchin-a-farce-in-three-acts-419424

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/iran/iran-iaea-agreement-text/

A more comprehensive article on the flawed Iran deal was published by Atlantic last year:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/iran-nuclear-deal-flawed/559595/

I don't read hard evidence; A lot of opinion; the Jerusalem Post is completely biased.
What you say is: the IAEA-inspectors are dombos, including all countries involved in the deal.
( I hear RSL shooting in the background:  Chamberlain, Chamberlain...Chamberlain!)

Talking about more smoke:
Quote
Pompeo: US didn't know when, where Soleimani attacks would happen
Pompeo says there is 'no doubt' Soleimani was planning imminent attacks, but US did not know 'precisely' when or where.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/pompeo-didn-soleimani-attacks-happen-200110134829572.html

and then Trump again:
Quote
Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize not Abiy Ahmed
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-51063149
He almost brought war to the ME a few days ago, and now wants the Nobel Peace Price...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 10, 2020, 11:23:13 am

The basic thing here is that so many just want to desperately believe that Obama was right.  And even after years of proof he was wrong, people are still clinging on.  No wonder he got a Netflix deal. 

Insofar as Soleimani, he was a terrorist.  As a terrorist, he plans and performs terrorist attacks, like the attack on our embassy.  He was in Iraq meeting with the leader of a terrorist organization that was the group whom the Iranians got to attack our embassy.  Although we may not know exactly what he was planning to do next, it is certain he was going to do something. 

By the way, if you need to know about a specific imminent threat that a terrorist is about to do in order to justify taking that terrorist out, please tell me what specific event Bin Laden was planning when he was killed.  Seems to me that he was no longer a serious threat when Obama did him in, but no one really seemed to care. 

Well Joe Biden did, because, you know, if Obama screwed it up he would not be re-elected. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 10, 2020, 11:26:17 am

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/The-IAEA-inspection-at-Parchin-a-farce-in-three-acts-419424

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/iran/iran-iaea-agreement-text/

A more comprehensive article on the flawed Iran deal was published by Atlantic last year:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/iran-nuclear-deal-flawed/559595/

Finally, some dissenting opinions from sources that are worth reading. That's all I was asking for. Thank you.

What I was getting at in my earlier post was that at one point in time, the "west" had a lot more in common with Persia/Iran than it ever did (or has) with Saudi Arabia. It is very difficult not to be suspicious of this kind of outcome because the US has an unfortunate history of supporting various scumbags around the world. I understand the concept of marriage of convenience, but no one should be surprised when people in those places dislike the US. ("Why do they hate us so much?") It's a bit insufferable to listen to the self-righteous tell us that they're doing this to spread democracy, although I understand that's largely for the domestic TV market. It's something people want to hear I guess.

And yes I know that those foreign places have hated each other for a while now. Is that a reason to make it worse? Is it even a reason to get involved, especially if there is no long-term strategy.

But who knows, maybe it's working. Aside from immediate doom and gloom, the long-term trajectory is that things are improving. We no longer have multi-nation wars where millions of people die for nebulous reasons, with the exception of the fight against Hitler.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 10, 2020, 11:33:43 am
Well in other news, AOC is using her war chest to finance the primaries of radical progressives like her and then stiffing the DNC.  Mainstream Dems are not pleased.  My favorite quote is, “Sometimes the question comes: 'Do you want to be in a majority or do you want to be in the minority?'” Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y. 

There are even rumors the NY state Dems are going to draw her out of her district in 2021. 

I honestly think she does not realize that outside of a few districts, a candidate like her would have no chance in the general.  I hope the primaries she is supporting go well. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 10, 2020, 11:35:08 am
Ummm, So you don't look at hard evidence? 

The basic thing here is that so many just want to desperately believe that Obama was right.  And even after years of proof he was wrong, people are still clinging on.  No wonder he got a Netflix deal. 

Insofar as Soleimani, he was a terrorist.  As a terrorist, he plans and performs terrorist attacks, like the attack on our embassy.  He was in Iraq meeting with the leader of a terrorist organization that was the group whom the Iranians got to attack our embassy.  Although we may not know exactly what he was planning to do next, it is certain he was going to do something. 

By the way, if you need to know about a specific imminent threat that a terrorist if about to do in order to justify taking that terrorist out, please tell me what specific event Bin Laden was planning when he was killed.  Seems to me that he was no longer a serious threat when Obama did him in.

There is no hard evidence! It has nothing to do with Obama... You make this up. Years of proof????? Show me - not in years, but in evidence.
There is only hard evidence that Iran kept its commitments.
Killing Soleimani did not make things saver for American citizen/ military... on the contrary. ( 1+ 1 =2)
I am sure he would have done.... something... ??? Who doesn't?
Bin Laden? He was direct responsible for the killing 3000 US citizen and the destruction of the twin towers...
The idea was to capture him, but he was killed... as i believe. Drones already existed and killing him would have made it less dangerous for the military involved.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 10, 2020, 11:37:52 am
Well in other news, AOC is using her war chest to finance the primaries of radical progressives like her and then stiffing the DNC.  Mainstream Dems are not pleased.  My favorite quote is, “Sometimes the question comes: 'Do you want to be in a majority or do you want to be in the minority?'” Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y. 

There are even rumors the NY state Dems are going to draw her out of her district in 2021. 

I honestly think she does not realize that outside of a few districts, a candidate like her would have no chance in the general.  I hope the primaries she is supporting go well.

Of occurs she doesn't realize that - there is undeniably a faction of far-left ideologues in the Dem party that doesn't see this.  BUT...now we can dispense with the silly idea that AOC is some sort of spokesperson for everyone to the left of Trump, yes?

And in ACTUAL other news of the "witch hunt" variety (and you'll find zero mention of this on Fox (I looked), which is weird because it's taken as a truism in state media circles that HRC is a crook, but I guess nothing can be allowed to contradict the narrative),  Hillary and the Clinton Foundation have found to be clean.  Again. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/09/politics/clinton-justice-department-investigation/index.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 10, 2020, 11:39:09 am
I don't read hard evidence; A lot of opinion; the Jerusalem Post is completely biased.
What you say is: the IAEA-inspectors are dombos, including all countries involved in the deal.
( I hear RSL in the background shooting:  Chamberlain, Chamberlain...Chamberlain!)

Talking about more smoke:https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/pompeo-didn-soleimani-attacks-happen-200110134829572.html

and then Trump again:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-51063149
Almost brought war the ME a few days ago, and now wants the Nobel Peace Price...

1. Maybe you should read more hard evidence.
2. If anything, aljazeera is more biased than jpost.
3. References to Chamberlain and his declaration of "Peace for our time" are very valid at this time. Same naivety then with ceasing Czechoslovakia to Germany as the well intended, but flawed Iran deal under Obama.

Here is some background information about the Munich Betrayal and Chamberlain:
In May 1938 Hitler and his generals were drawing up a plan for the occupation of Czechoslovakia. The Czechoslovakia was relying on military assistance from France, with which they had an alliance. The Soviet Union also had a treaty with Czechoslovakia, and it indicated willingness to cooperate with France and Great Britain if they decided to come to Czechoslovakia’s defense.
However, both the French and British leadership naively believed that peace could be saved only by the transfer of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia to Germany, so Czechoslovakia was informed by Britain and France that it could either resist Germany alone or submit to the prescribed annexations.

Quote
In mid-September Chamberlain offered to go to Hitler’s retreat at Berchtesgaden to discuss the situation personally with the Führer. Hitler agreed to take no military action without further discussion, and Chamberlain agreed to try to persuade his cabinet and the French to accept the results of a plebiscite in the Sudetenland. Daladier and his foreign minister, Georges-Étienne Bonnet, then went to London, where a joint proposal was prepared stipulating that all areas with a population that was more than 50 percent Sudeten German be turned over to Germany. The Czechoslovaks were not consulted. The Czechoslovak government initially rejected the proposal but was forced to accept it on September 21.

On September 22 Chamberlain again flew to Germany and met Hitler at Bad Godesberg, where he was dismayed to learn that Hitler had stiffened his demands: he now wanted the Sudetenland occupied by the German army and the Czechoslovaks evacuated from the area by September 28. Chamberlain agreed to submit the new proposal to the Czechoslovaks, who rejected it, as did the British cabinet and the French. On the 24th the French ordered a partial mobilization; the Czechoslovaks had ordered a general mobilization one day earlier. Having at that time one of the world’s best-equipped armies, Czechoslovakia could mobilize 47 divisions, of which 37 were for the German frontier, and the mostly mountainous line of that frontier was strongly fortified. On the German side the final version of “Case Green,” as approved by Hitler on May 30, showed 39 divisions for operations against Czechoslovakia. The Czechoslovaks were ready to fight but could not win alone.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Munich-Agreement 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 10, 2020, 11:45:16 am

3. References to Chamberlain and his declaration of "Peace for our time" are very valid at this time. Same naivety then with ceasing Czechoslovakia to Germany as the well intended, but flawed Iran deal under Obama.

Here is some background information about the Munich Betrayal and Chamberlain:
In May 1938 Hitler and his generals were drawing up a plan for the occupation of Czechoslovakia. The Czechoslovakia was relying on military assistance from France, with which they had an alliance. The Soviet Union also had a treaty with Czechoslovakia, and it indicated willingness to cooperate with France and Great Britain if they decided to come to Czechoslovakia’s defense.
However, both the French and British leadership naively believed that peace could be saved only by the transfer of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia to Germany, so Czechoslovakia was informed by Britain and France that it could either resist Germany alone or submit to the prescribed annexations.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Munich-Agreement

I mean, if you want to stretch the Chamberlain analogy to any agreement that refocuses a bad actor onto something else, I guess.   Seems awfully strained to me, and more akin to the flip side of the Hitler=Trump stuff.  And hey, at least I can make a pretty solid technical comparison of media techniques the two use (Adolf and Donald, I mean).   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 10, 2020, 11:48:18 am
;D ;D ;D

OMG! With such an omnipotent insight into the unknown, I can’t wait to hear from them who really shot Kennedy.

More distractionist absurdity.  WTF does Kennedy have to do with MH 17?

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 10, 2020, 11:50:47 am
Of occurs she doesn't realize that - there is undeniably a faction of far-left ideologues in the Dem party that doesn't see this.  BUT...now we can dispense with the silly idea that AOC is some sort of spokesperson for everyone to the left of Trump, yes?

And in ACTUAL other news of the "witch hunt" variety (and you'll find zero mention of this on Fox (I looked), which is weird because it's taken as a truism in state media circles that HRC is a crook, but I guess nothing can be allowed to contradict the narrative),  Hillary and the Clinton Foundation have found to be clean.  Again. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/09/politics/clinton-justice-department-investigation/index.html)

Perception is reality, and so long as she is out there spewing her nonsense while getting no intense slap backs from other Dems, the Republicans will be able to use her against the Dems.  This will be especially the case if some of the progressive she is supporting win the primary. 

In years to come, I think the defining moment of this current congress will be when Pelosi failed to move her caucus to condemn Omar for her anti-semitic statements.  This completely changed the power dynamic in the House, ceding it to the progressives.  Pelosi became a Manchurian Candidate at this time. 

Insofar the Clinton Foundation, I still think it was a legitimate conflict of interested for HRC to be secretary of state while the foundation was taking large donations from foreign countries.  Just because it appears no favors were called in does not mean they would not have been. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 10, 2020, 11:54:45 am
I mean, if you want to stretch the Chamberlain analogy to any agreement that refocuses a bad actor onto something else, I guess.   Seems awfully strained to me, and more akin to the flip side of the Hitler=Trump stuff.  And hey, at least I can make a pretty solid technical comparison of media techniques the two use (Adolf and Donald, I mean).

I didn't say that Chamberlain was a bad actor. He was naive and incompetent. Same as the bleeding hearts who believe that Khomeini is a good partner and actor.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 10, 2020, 11:55:55 am


Insofar the Clinton Foundation, I still think it was a legitimate conflict of interested for HRC to be secretary of state while the foundation was taking large donations from foreign countries.  Just because it appears no favors were called in does not mean they would not have been.

You understand that HRC doesn't actually get any of the funds that go into the Foundation, right?  Contrast that with, for example, Trump's business ventures in Turkey and Russia, and explain why people would find the former so problematic and such a scary conflict of interest, but not the latter?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 10, 2020, 11:57:53 am
More distractionist absurdity.  WTF does Kennedy have to do with MH 17?

Never mind the obvious diversion attempt. It is (only slightly) surprising that some people are so eager to show their ignorance about things they react to.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 10, 2020, 11:58:23 am
I didn't say that Chamberlain was a bad actor. He was naive and incompetent. Same as the bleeding hearts who believe that Khomeini is a good partner and actor.

No, Iran/Gernamy are the bad actors in the analogy, not Chamberlain.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.  And I'm not sure who thinks Khomeini is a good or reliable partner - literally everyone admits the deal is flawed and Iran is an untrustworthy partner.   The debate is over how to get a better deal in the long term, and if the current state of affairs is better.  (Pro tip - it's not)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 10, 2020, 12:06:03 pm
Nkorea is only isolated from your point of view- China and Japan think otherwise... NKorea has camps with thousands of prisoners... treats its population like shit, has not even enough food for them and has never intended to give up their nuclear rocket program, because it is the only reason the regime can stay in charge.
Even Trump (hopefully) understands that now. Kim used Trump to emphasis its importance in the world and tried to get the sanctions lifted without compromizing its nuclear program.
Iran was willing to stop their program and did, before Trump stept out of the agreement that was supported by many nations worldwide. On top of that Trump came with sanctions not only for trading between the US and Iran, but forbid trade between Iran and any country or else...
I am not saying i agree with the Iranian government; they have a very bad record on human rights, of whom the women carry most of the burden. But the Iranian government has shown it can act logical and has not violated the deal they made. The inspections showed they kept their promises. Kim can never be trusted as records has shown.


The problem with our relation with Iran is first we did have a good one under the Shah.  Then the ayatollahs took over, he grabbed our embassy which is a violation of international law and held Americans hostages for 444 days.  We lost brave soldiers trying to get them out unsuccessfully.  Since then Iran has called us the Great Satan and acted like that.  They have been trying to be a hegemon over the entire Middle East, threaten Israel with extinction, and have been a threat to ours and your oil suppliers the Arabs.  They have supplied their allies with weapons that have killed America soldiers and have coordinated military activities with dangerous terrorist groups.  Soleimani was meeting with one of them when he was killed along with the leader of the terrorist group.  To argue that Iran just an unimportant minor nation of no consequence that just wants to get along is not consistent with history or the current situation. 

Like I said before, they're a bigger problem for Europe now since we're oil independent.  The question is what is Europe  going to do about them if they start to squeeze you
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 10, 2020, 12:42:51 pm
The problem with our relation with Iran is first we did have a good one under the Shah.

I suggest reading up on the 1953 coup d'état and the oppressive regime of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Iranians were not happy with the foreign (Anglo American) attempts to control their oil reserves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

A good relation with a dictator is not the same as a good relation with the people of a sovereign nation.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 10, 2020, 12:50:42 pm
Speaking about Iran, Germany and bad actors:

Last Sunday, the Imam Ali Mosque in Hamburg, Germany one of the largest mosques in Europe had held "a memorial event in honor of Soleimani and the nine other victims".

Quote
No further funeral service is planned for Thursday; there is only a sermon "to the martyrdom of Fatima Zarah", the daughter of the Prophet Mohammed, according to the IZH. It was "but of course many community members are still in mourning" and wanted to commemorate their hero. One pays homage to a martyr "who risked his life to fight extremism and thereby make the world, including Germany, a safer place," said a representative of the mosque.

https://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/qasem-soleimani-regimetreue-iraner-trauern-in-hamburg-um-terrorgeneral-a-c44ed568-5159-435d-b604-016219cb6836&prev=search
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 10, 2020, 01:36:55 pm
The problem with our relation with Iran is first we did have a good one under the Shah.  Then the ayatollahs took over, he grabbed our embassy which is a violation of international law ...

Oh, the irony.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 10, 2020, 01:41:07 pm
... to condemn Omar for her anti-semitic statements...

I am more concerned with her anti-American statements.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 10, 2020, 02:23:34 pm
False, and I should know as I spent some 15 years "training" med students. What you say is true of some, but not all. And, main point here, it's that TRAINING that teaches them how to recognize mental disorders.

Let's try this again Peter. Maybe you'll answer the question this time.

So you're a psychiatrist, or at least an MD with psychiatric training? Right? And your diagnosis of Trump is. . ?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 10, 2020, 02:50:16 pm
More distractionist absurdity.  WTF does Kennedy have to do with MH 17?

I thought that with your psychiatric training you are able to see the connection? I mean, supernatural skills of the Dutch investigators are your domain, no? Only with such supernatural skills of knowing the unknown they would be able to come up with exact names and ranks of people that supposedly fired the missile? Or maybe all four of them dropped their IDs on the site? The investigators were, of course, granted full access to the very site on the rebels territory? And access to every rebel fighter they wanted to interview, right? And full cooperation with the Russian government, who provided all the necessary info?

Oh, you say there were Ukrainians on the investigative team too? They surely would be biased and blame the Russians, right? Just like they immediately floated a theory that the Ukrainian plane that was just shot down was shot down by Russians? Surprise, surprise.

So, if those Dutch investigators have such supernatural powers to see the invisible and know the unknown, I was hoping they could help us resolve the other mysteries of the mankind, like who really killed Kennedy. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 10, 2020, 04:17:27 pm
So, if those Dutch investigators have such supernatural powers to see the invisible and know the unknown, ...

Much more plausible explanation is that some of the involved individuals got drunk and talked.
Apparently, Girkin one of the accused, who initially ruled the rebel stronghold of Slavyansk, was squeezed out of the separatist leadership in late 2014 and returned to Russia, where he lost all influence and run into financial difficulties.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/global-manhunt-for-four-key-suspects-in-downing-of-flight-mh17/news-story/d4d7d8f7e9071ab646ab1fae139a13c0

Quote
The Russian former commander of militants in eastern Ukraine is out of cash and out of favor with the Kremlin, leading him to sell a gold medal he was awarded in 2014 for his role in the occupation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula.

Igor Girkin, a 48-year-old self-described Russian nationalist who goes by the name of Strelkov, says he is selling the medal because he needs the money and has no respect for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is depicted on the medal triumphantly wearing a laurel wreath. Girkin is under U.S. and European Union sanctions both for his role in the seizure of Crimea and as the onetime military leader of pro-Russian separatists fighting against Kiev's forces in eastern Ukraine's Donetsk region. Since 2014, Girkin has been a critic of the Kremlin and has largely fallen off the media radar, though he was spotted in February riding alone on the Moscow subway and has held single-person protests.

https://www.rferl.org/a/onetime-russian-hero-selling-gold-crimea-medal-bearing-despised-putin/29815575.html


As to them knowing anything about J.F. Kennedy, I'm not sure if any of the four even knew who he was. Lee Harvey Oswald was in Moscow in 1960. At that time they were not even born yet.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 10, 2020, 04:37:06 pm
I suggest reading up on the 1953 coup d'état and the oppressive regime of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Iranians were not happy with the foreign (Anglo American) attempts to control their oil reserves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution)

A good relation with a dictator is not the same as a good relation with the people of a sovereign nation.

I never said the relation with the Shah or the IRanians were good or bad.  I was just showing that we had a good relation with Iran that went south when Khomeini took over and has be downward ever since.  Putting America aside, the Iranian government after the Shah has tried to change the Middle East against all western interests including yours.  So while we were in bed with the Shah and put him into power, Europe and the west had advantages they lost as well as America after the Iranian revolution.  WHile you might not helped the Shah directly, you were applauding what we did from the sidelines. 

In any case, they have been a danger and thorn in the side and we can't have them running the ME.  What are you going to do if they block the Strait of Hormuz?  Are you going to ask Trump to help free it up?  What if he tells you that Europe has to provide the ships to do it.  We'll just provide satellite intelligence while you do the bloody work. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 10, 2020, 04:43:50 pm
Oh, the irony.

Here's irony.  So an American Navy ship accidentally shoots down Iranian commercial jet years ago during tensions between the two countries thinking it was an Iranian fighter that was going to attack.  So now Iran shoots down a Ukrainian jet, everyone says by mistake.  But what if the truth is that they thought it was an American bomber, that it just wasn't a misfiring or whatever? WHy else would they fire?  Why isn't anyone talking about this?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 10, 2020, 04:49:00 pm
It was an accident. It was dark and hard to tell what kind of plane it was. They shoot first and talk later.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 10, 2020, 04:49:22 pm
Pelosi blinks. Must be the botox.

Pelosi caves on articles of impeachment because she has no leverage
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/pelosi-caves-on-articles-of-impeachment-because-she-had-no-leverage (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/pelosi-caves-on-articles-of-impeachment-because-she-had-no-leverage)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 10, 2020, 04:56:16 pm
It was an accident. It was dark and hard to tell what kind of plane it was. They shoot first and talk later.
60+ of your countrymen, plus ten Swedes and others.  The crash video looked horrendous.  I can't imagine what thoughts the passengers must of had.  My niece Lisa was on Flt 77 on 9-11 that the terrorists crashed into the Pentagon.  I can't get that thought out of my head what terror she went through. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 10, 2020, 04:57:46 pm
Pelosi blinks. Must be the botox.

Pelosi caves on articles of impeachment because she has no leverage
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/pelosi-caves-on-articles-of-impeachment-because-she-had-no-leverage (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/pelosi-caves-on-articles-of-impeachment-because-she-had-no-leverage)
Typical right wing spin from the Washington Examiner.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 10, 2020, 05:22:35 pm
60+ of your countrymen, plus ten Swedes and others.  The crash video looked horrendous.  I can't imagine what thoughts the passengers must of had.  My niece Lisa was on Flt 77 on 9-11 that the terrorists crashed into the Pentagon.  I can't get that thought out of my head what terror she went through.

Alan, you should know me better by now. At one time you commented that my posts were sarcastic. Although the ME situation has changed, I did not, and I did not justify that "accident" in any way. It wasn't meant in that way, more like an anticipation how the Iranian government would describe it. Nothing would justify such a stupid and irresponsible action. None of the available yellow emoticons appended to my post would have been appropriate. I am very sorry about your niece and all people on board of that plane.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 10, 2020, 05:48:47 pm
Typical right wing spin from the Washington Examiner.

I see nothing in the article that is inaccurate.  She really did not have any leverage and the longer she holds out, the worse it looks for the Dems.  End of story. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 10, 2020, 05:51:55 pm
I see nothing in the article that is inaccurate.
That's no surprise.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 10, 2020, 07:03:16 pm
That's no surprise.

And yet you cant point out anything that is inaccurate.  Thanks. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 10, 2020, 07:12:45 pm
And yet you cant point out anything that is inaccurate.  Thanks.

It's not that it's inaccurate, it's that it's full of cherry-picked stats and loud conclusions.  It's the kind of thing that's headlined, "Expert Author DECIMATES Nancy Pelosi" on social media, and then turns out to be an opinion piece with "evidence" picked to support a preconceived conclusion.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 10, 2020, 07:25:59 pm
Here's irony.  So an American Navy ship accidentally shoots down Iranian commercial jet years ago during tensions between the two countries thinking it was an Iranian fighter that was going to attack.  So now Iran shoots down a Ukrainian jet, everyone says by mistake.  But what if the truth is that they thought it was an American bomber, that it just wasn't a misfiring or whatever? WHy else would they fire?  Why isn't anyone talking about this?

Utterly incomprehensible, sorry.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 10, 2020, 08:02:14 pm
It's not that it's inaccurate, it's that it's full of cherry-picked stats and loud conclusions.  It's the kind of thing that's headlined, "Expert Author DECIMATES Nancy Pelosi" on social media, and then turns out to be an opinion piece with "evidence" picked to support a preconceived conclusion.


Well duh...it IS an opinion piece.  They call that out right at the top of the page.  It's how opinion gets written these days on both sides. Welcome the the world.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 10, 2020, 09:07:30 pm
Alan, you should know me better by now. At one time you commented that my posts were sarcastic. Although the ME situation has changed, I did not, and I did not justify that "accident" in any way. It wasn't meant in that way, more like an anticipation how the Iranian government would describe it. Nothing would justify such a stupid and irresponsible action. None of the available yellow emoticons appended to my post would have been appropriate. I am very sorry about your niece and all people on board of that plane.
Sorry Les.  I didn't mean it like you read it.  So that;'s my fault and on me.  I should have been clearer.  I did not read your post as being in any way dismissive or sarcastic.  My post was just commenting how no one that I read even mentioned that Iran shooters probably fired thinking it was an American jet just like the American Navy fired thinking the iranian commercial plane was an Iranian fighter attacking the ship.  It wasn't like the Iranian tripped and fell on the launch button.  Darkness of night; fog of war. 

Thanks for your comment on my niece and the other 9-11 victims.  Again sorry about your compatriots.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 10, 2020, 09:24:28 pm


Well duh...it IS an opinion piece.  They call that out right at the top of the page.  It's how opinion gets written these days on both sides. Welcome the the world.

Right.  So don’t promote it as meaningful.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 10, 2020, 09:30:05 pm
I don't usually pick opinion pieces.  But this one certainly created a lot of discussion.  :)  On the other hand, every article everyone links in their posts have been selected for their point of view and for maximum impact to support the poster's argument.  The holier than thou argument is kinda silly.  We all do it.  It's like picking witnesses at an impeachment trial.  I'll give you Bolton and Mulvaney if you give me the Bidens.  ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 11, 2020, 12:21:33 pm
This is a very typical right-wing "argument." If a group of experts says something that does not jibe with your pre-conceived notions, first try to discredit the group (the psychiatric association) and then try to discredit the messenger (me). Of course changing what you think is out of the question.

So, since you won't answer the question, Peter, we'll have to conclude that you're neither a psychiatrist nor an MD with psychiatric training, and that your "diagnosis" of Mr. Trump is pure bullshit based on Trump derangement syndrome.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 11, 2020, 12:30:39 pm
Right.  So don’t promote it as meaningful.

Did I?   In any case whats wrong with opinion?  Other than when Hard New is infused with it...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 11, 2020, 12:40:38 pm
So, since you won't answer the question, Peter, we'll have to conclude that you're neither a psychiatrist nor an MD with psychiatric training, and that your "diagnosis" of Mr. Trump is pure bullshit based on Trump derangement syndrome.
Is "Trump derangement syndrome" your medical diagnosis?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 11, 2020, 12:43:02 pm
No, Fab, my diagnosis is "pure bullshit." I'm no psychiatrist, but I'm an expert bullshit detector.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 11, 2020, 12:47:36 pm
No, Fab, my diagnosis is "pure bullshit." I'm no psychiatrist, but I'm an expert bullshit detector.
So then why do you say your diagnosis is "based on Trump derangement syndrome"?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 11, 2020, 02:51:16 pm
So then why do you say your diagnosis is "based on Trump derangement syndrome"?

Since Peter evidently isn't a psychiatrist, yet has made a Trump diagnosis, his finding has to be based on Trump derangement syndrome. What he's doing is the very definition of the syndrome.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: DP on January 11, 2020, 03:04:09 pm
I was just showing that we had a good relation with Iran

here you go again - not with Iran (country) but with a puppet regime (Shah) installed in coup organized by US & UK
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 11, 2020, 03:53:33 pm
here you go again - not with Iran (country) but with a puppet regime (Shah) installed in coup organized by US & UK
You don;t tell us what country you;re from.  So we don't know what relation your country has with the tyrannical mullahs there today who kill their own people.  It seems that all of Europe doesn;t seem to care about that as they are doing business as usual with the tyrannical mullah regime there.  I'll assume your country does the same.  How do you justify your country's relationship with these killers?   Also, you should post where you're from before continuing with posts useless you;re from Iran and want to hide your identity.  Don;t be a "holier than thou" bigshot.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 11, 2020, 03:54:58 pm
Forget what happened 40 years ago.  Today, we at least have broken off regular relations with these killers.  What has your country done to protest their dictatorial  policies?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 11, 2020, 04:15:53 pm
For your consideration.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 11, 2020, 05:14:46 pm
Yes, very appropriate after we killed a couple of terrorists and re-established deterrents, not to mention showing other countries we are no longer a paper tiger. 

I mean, yes, Trump did show how wrong the Obama policy of either we have an all out war with or we pay off Iran, so I do understand how the left is acting right now.  I mean, if I was lead to believe something for 10 years and in an instance it came to light it was all wrong, I would have a hard time as well. 

By the way, you still have not told us what you think about the APA and whether or not you disagree with their Goldwater Rule. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 11, 2020, 05:49:40 pm
Yes, very appropriate after we killed a couple of terrorists and re-established deterrents, not to mention showing other countries we are no longer a paper tiger. 

I mean, yes, Trump did show how wrong the Obama policy of either we have an all out war with or we pay off Iran, so I do understand how the left is acting right now.  I mean, if I was lead to believe something for 10 years and in an instance it came to light it was all wrong, I would have a hard time as well. 

By the way, you still have not told us what you think about the APA and whether or not you disagree with their Goldwater Rule.

I was trying to compose a response, but it soon became clear that your post was 90% nonsensical and I could in no way compose anything in response. And if I managed to, you would either not understand it or ignore it. So, adios.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: rabanito on January 11, 2020, 05:51:54 pm
For your consideration.


Good one.
Should we laugh or cry?

 :-\
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 12, 2020, 09:44:52 am
I was trying to compose a response, but it soon became clear that your post was 90% nonsensical and I could in no way compose anything in response. And if I managed to, you would either not understand it or ignore it. So, adios.

So you do not believe in the Goldwater Rule and therefore disagree with the experts?  Contrary to what those experts at the APA say, we should be giving conclusions on mental status without examination? 

It always amazes me when people whom constantly tell us Republicans that we should listen to the experts choose to ignore experts when it suits them.  I mean both sides do it, or at least both sides have loud mouths that insist on doing. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 12, 2020, 09:50:46 am
If Iran turns out coming back to the table to renegociate the nuclear deal with better terms for the West, it will be interesting to see what the experts have to say. 

More then likely they will just ignore it though and move onto the next issue, just like with anti-climatic result of moving our embassy to Jerusalem or the fact that the economy did not crash when Trump went after China or the fact that average people did in fact benefit from the tax cuts or when the stock market did not disintegrate after the election, etc. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 12, 2020, 10:36:43 am
If Iran turns out coming back to the table to renegociate the nuclear deal with better terms for the West, it will be interesting to see what the experts have to say. 

More then likely they will just ignore it though and move onto the next issue, just like with anti-climatic result of moving our embassy to Jerusalem or the fact that the economy did not crash when Trump went after China or the fact that average people did in fact benefit from the tax cuts or when the stock market did not disintegrate after the election, etc. 
Well, of course.  It's fake news, politically biased, phony, spin, etc. 

I think Trump has proved something even I was fooled on for a long time.  Many of the ingrained beliefs of the world are wrong.  We carry around these prejudices about what will happen, like the disaster to happen when the embassy was moved, so we freeze up  and do nothing and allow things to get worse.  Sort of like when Obama drew the red line and then didn't act.  I'm not saying we should go off half cocked.  But Trump has proved, so far, that stirring things up in different ways, even breaking them,  gets all sorts of good things to happen for America.  We're talking to Kim, China agreed to sign the first part of a new trade agreement due to tariffs as has Canada and Mexico, NATO countries are paying more, Iran is being marginalized, etc. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 12, 2020, 10:54:49 am
This morning a provincial alert was sent out about a problem at the Pickering Nuclear Power station in Ontario.
Fortunately, it was fake news, and an hour later, there was another announcement about an error in sending out the alert and that everything is OK. Is it? 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pickering-nuclear-generating-station-1.5424115
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 12, 2020, 11:01:16 am
This morning a provincial alert was sent out about a problem at the Pickering Nuclear Power station in Ontario.
Fortunately, it was fake news, and an hour later, there was another announcement about an error in sending out the alert and that everything is OK. Is it? 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pickering-nuclear-generating-station-1.5424115
Which way is the wind blowing.  I'm southeast of there.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on January 12, 2020, 12:55:13 pm
This morning a provincial alert was sent out about a problem at the Pickering Nuclear Power station in Ontario.
Fortunately, it was fake news, and an hour later, there was another announcement about an error in sending out the alert and that everything is OK. Is it? 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pickering-nuclear-generating-station-1.5424115
Judging by this thread's title, Trump must be at fault. Oh, wait, maybe fake news? Now I'm really confused.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 12, 2020, 01:59:49 pm
"Trump tweet in Farsi 'the most liked Persian tweet' in history of Twitter"

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-tweet-in-farsi-the-most-liked-persian-tweet-in-history-of-twitter

Quote
To the brave and suffering Iranian people: I have stood with you since the beginning of my presidency and my government will continue to stand with you. We are following your protests closely. Your courage is inspiring,” Trump wrote.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: rabanito on January 12, 2020, 04:30:57 pm
"Trump tweet in Farsi 'the most liked Persian tweet' in history of Twitter"

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-tweet-in-farsi-the-most-liked-persian-tweet-in-history-of-twitter

Just "yesterday" Mr. Trump was abandoning his former Kurdish allies in Syria, I am told.
I believe that muslims will think it twice before taking Mr.Trump at his word...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 12, 2020, 04:58:52 pm
I believe that muslims will think it twice before taking Mr.Trump at his word...

Substitute "anyone" for "muslims" and you'll be closer to the mark.

Oh, wait.  He has "all the best words", remember?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 12, 2020, 05:04:30 pm
Just "yesterday" Mr. Trump was abandoning his former Kurdish allies in Syria, I am told.
I believe that muslims will think it twice before taking Mr.Trump at his word...
America never promised the Kurds we would fight Turkey to help get them their own homeland.  We joined forces to defeat ISIS who was a threat to both America and the Kurds.  That's it.  Stop making things up.

Regarding  the Iranian people, where does it say Trump is supporting them against the Iranian government beyond moral support?  Stop making things up.  Our problem with Iran is nukes. The people there will have to overthrow the government if they want change just like the Kurds will have to make their own way regarding their homeland. 

Trump isn;t in the business of making the world safe for Democracy.   That's been one of non-American's legitimate complaints about America.  That we get involved in other people's businesses when we shouldn't.  Yet those very complainers who are now the ones clamoring for regime change and for Trump being "mean". It's all politics. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: rabanito on January 12, 2020, 05:42:30 pm
America never promised the Kurds we would fight Turkey to help get them their own homeland.  We joined forces to defeat ISIS who was a threat to both America and the Kurds.  That's it.  Stop making things up.

Alan. I just wrote something in this senseless argument on Mr. Trump because IMO it went too far.
Usually I don't intervene.
There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Trump is not trustworthy and I doubt that very many people disagree on that.
Again just my humble opinion.

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Abraham Lincoln


As simple as that
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 12, 2020, 06:35:05 pm
Alan. I just wrote something in this senseless argument on Mr. Trump because IMO it went too far.
Usually I don't intervene.
There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Trump is not trustworthy and I doubt that very many people disagree on that.
Again just my humble opinion.

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Abraham Lincoln


As simple as that
Whoever told you Trump promised the Kurds a homeland lied to you or deceived you.  It has nothing to do with trust.  If Europe wants to give the Kurds a homeland, ask them to fight the Turks, who is also a NATO ally.  After all, it were the Europeans who screwed the Kurds in WWI and they have been trying to get a real homeland since then.  It's not suddenly America's responsibility to nation build.  We're out of that business.  Haven't you heard?  After all, you guys who are bravely willing to sacrifice America boys and girls and not your own to fight for your schemes were the ones complaining all the time that America should stop nation building and getting involved in the business of other people.  So now you're transferring your hatred of Trump into making America responsibility for shedding more blood of others and ourselves.  That's very noble of you. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 12, 2020, 07:13:10 pm
As far as Kurds are concerned, it's pretty clear what they want. However, when it comes to Trump, his actions and statements can be sometimes baffling and erratic.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 12, 2020, 08:04:50 pm
As far as Kurds are concerned, it's pretty clear what they want. However, when it comes to Trump, his actions and statements can be sometimes baffling and erratic.
He does shoot from the hip.  I'm more contemplative, often too much.  He acts, very decisive, and figures he'll clear up any issues afterwards.  Might seem dangerous being a president.  But it keeps adversaries questioning what he'll do. Makes them nervous.  He plays good cop, bad cop.  He'll impose sanctions and then tell the leader what a great person he is and how he wants to help him and his country. Nothing seems personal despite his demands for loyalty from his own people.  Everything seems transactional.   It seems to work for him.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: rabanito on January 13, 2020, 04:20:22 am
After all, you guys who are bravely willing to sacrifice America boys and girls and not your own to fight for your schemes were the ones complaining all the time that America should stop nation building and getting involved in the business of other people.  So now you're transferring your hatred of Trump into making America responsibility for shedding more blood of others and ourselves.  That's very noble of you.

Alan, Alan...
This is falling to a level at which no debate is possible. At least with me.
You don't know me at all.
Why are you talking of "you", "Hatred of Trump" etc?
"Willing to sacrifice America Boys and Girls?..." Pathetic, isn't it?

I'm stating that Mr. Trump is not trustworthy. An opinion shared by many, whether you like it or not.
Just "yesterday" Mr. Trump was abandoning his former Kurdish allies in Syria, I am told.
I believe that muslims will think it twice before taking Mr.Trump at his word...


Just that. It's very clear. I don't understand then your tirade.
No anti-Trump conspiracy here. Just my opinion that Trump's support of anything might be only blahblah.

But I'm not sending you my coordinates, just in case...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 13, 2020, 04:54:55 am
So far, Trump is doing what he said he will be doing during the campaign. That’s trustworthy.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 13, 2020, 06:55:23 am
So far, Trump is doing what he said he will be doing during the campaign. That’s trustworthy.
+1
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 13, 2020, 07:03:20 am
Alan, Alan...
This is falling to a level at which no debate is possible. At least with me.
You don't know me at all.
Why are you talking of "you", "Hatred of Trump" etc?
"Willing to sacrifice America Boys and Girls?..." Pathetic, isn't it?

I'm stating that Mr. Trump is not trustworthy. An opinion shared by many, whether you like it or not.
Just "yesterday" Mr. Trump was abandoning his former Kurdish allies in Syria, I am told.
I believe that muslims will think it twice before taking Mr.Trump at his word...


Just that. It's very clear. I don't understand then your tirade.
No anti-Trump conspiracy here. Just my opinion that Trump's support of anything might be only blahblah.

But I'm not sending you my coordinates, just in case...


The only people who say he's untrustworthy are those who don't like his policies.  Arguing that "I was told" that he abandoned his Kurdish allies is not a very strong argument.  It sounds like a cop-out.  The fact is America never promised the Kurds anything, just that we together would work together to destroy ISIS which is what we've done.  No promises beyond that were made.

Meanwhile, speaking of broken promises, where is the 2% all the European NATO countries promised but failed to deliver on? You know, relationships are a two-way street. Where are all the promises European countries made in the PAris Accord but failed to follow through and meet their CO2 reductions?  America and Trump understood the BS coming from over there and China as well.  That's why he pulled out because Europe is phony. Only a few nations there keep their word.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: rabanito on January 13, 2020, 07:46:44 am
The only people who say he's untrustworthy are those who don't like his policies.  Arguing that "I was told" that he abandoned his Kurdish allies is not a very strong argument.  It sounds like a cop-out.

Alan, Alan...
It just means "I got it from the media". Like almost everybody else. Occam's razor...
Again that simple.


Meanwhile, speaking of broken promises, where is the 2% all the European NATO countries promised but failed to deliver on?

I don't have the faintest idea maybe we could open another sub-topic on this subject if there's any interest.

But this doesn't change anything in my statements.
That Hitler wasn't trustworthy didn't make Stalin better...
The fact that the ayatollahs aren't trustworthy doesn't make Trump trustworthier.
Independent entities
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 13, 2020, 07:55:08 am
Alan, Alan...
It just means "I got it from the media". Like almost everybody else. Occam's razor...
Again that simple.


I don't have the faintest idea maybe we could open another sub-topic on this subject if there's any interest.

But this doesn't change anything in my statements.
That Hitler wasn't trustworthy didn't make Stalin better...
The fact that the ayatollahs aren't trustworthy doesn't make Trump trustworthier.
Independent entities

Maybe you should expand the media you read.   Looking at news that only shows Trump in bad light, will blind you to truth. 


I never said Trump was untrustworthy because others are untrustworthy.  What I said is that he is trustworthy while others are untrustworthy.  What has he done that untrustworthy?

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 13, 2020, 08:02:52 am
...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 13, 2020, 08:26:17 am
Maybe you should expand the media you read.   Looking at news that only shows Trump in bad light, will blind you to truth. 
I never said Trump was untrustworthy because others are untrustworthy.  What I said is that he is trustworthy while others are untrustworthy.  What has he done that untrustworthy?

Alan, sometimes, when i read posts like these i think    you are Trump    ;)

maybe because you sound so trustworthy ?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 13, 2020, 08:29:38 am
Wow, there is a big disconnect between what President Trump said the other day regarding the Soleimani killing and his national security team.  The President said that four US Embassies had been targeted by Iran.  None of the security officials who appeared on Sunday morning news shows could or would substantiate this claim.  Truth is something precious and this President doesn't seem to care.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 13, 2020, 08:45:51 am
Alan, sometimes, when i read posts like these i think    you are Trump    ;)

maybe because you sound so trustworthy ?
That's because I give my first and last name, tell people where I live and even show a picture of myself.  That adds trust.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 13, 2020, 08:46:12 am
Like we care if there were four, one, or zero embassy threatened. There was an opportunity to nuke the mofo and they took it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 13, 2020, 08:58:12 am
Wow, there is a big disconnect between what President Trump said the other day regarding the Soleimani killing and his national security team.  The President said that four US Embassies had been targeted by Iran.  None of the security officials who appeared on Sunday morning news shows could or would substantiate this claim.  Truth is something precious and this President doesn't seem to care.
General Soleimani killed up to 800 American soldiers.  He was Iran's chief architect and military commander supporting terrorist and other rebel organizations and groups in the middle East sowing pain, death and destruction.  His aim and life's work was to put Iran in charge of the ME.  So now he's dead.  Whether he planned to attack 4 embassies or do something else that's bad or worse, does it really matter? You seem to be more interested in criticizing Trump rather than looking how this act weakens Iran and makes America stronger.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 13, 2020, 09:19:06 am
General Soleimani killed up to 800 American soldiers.  He was Iran's chief architect and military commander supporting terrorist and other rebel organizations and groups in the middle East sowing pain, death and destruction.  His aim and life's work was to put Iran in charge of the ME.  So now he's dead.  Whether he planned to attack 4 embassies or do something else that's bad or worse, does it really matter? You seem to be more interested in criticizing Trump rather than looking how this act weakens Iran and makes America stronger.
The axis of evil... you are with us or against us....
Maybe it is more efficient to nuke Iran completely to get rid of all the bad guys in one blow; Nethanyahu will agree...
So many unused nuclear weapons desperately waiting to fly and to produce freedom...


and to make myself trustworthy to you and RSL i add a comforting portrait, my gender; hometown;  even my age.

Pieter Kers
Amsterdam
Male 58 years
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 13, 2020, 09:48:46 am
...i add a comforting portrait...

I see you are appropriately dressed for the impending nuclear catastrophe  ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 13, 2020, 11:35:49 am
The axis of evil... you are with us or against us....
Maybe it is more efficient to nuke Iran completely to get rid of all the bad guys in one blow; Nethanyahu will agree...
So many unused nuclear weapons desperately waiting to fly and to produce freedom...


and to make myself trustworthy to you and RSL i add a comforting portrait, my gender; hometown;  even my age.

Pieter Kers
Amsterdam
Male 58 years
See it works.   I already trust you more. ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 13, 2020, 12:09:25 pm
"They are lying that our enemy is America. Our enemy is right here!"
https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWozMjRQdGpvQU1FWjJvM0NZd0N6bXdLQUFQAQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 13, 2020, 12:42:42 pm
"They are lying that our enemy is America. Our enemy is right here!"
https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWozMjRQdGpvQU1FWjJvM0NZd0N6bXdLQUFQAQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

This is certainly not going to go over well with the media.  It will be interesting to see the far fetched contorted argument to make this a negative on Trump. 

In other news though, Booker is out.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on January 13, 2020, 01:29:06 pm
"They are lying that our enemy is America. Our enemy is right here!"
https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWozMjRQdGpvQU1FWjJvM0NZd0N6bXdLQUFQAQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

Alan, give a description of the link and an idea of why it's relevant.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 13, 2020, 03:13:54 pm
"They are lying that our enemy is America. Our enemy is right here!"
https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWozMjRQdGpvQU1FWjJvM0NZd0N6bXdLQUFQAQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen (https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWozMjRQdGpvQU1FWjJvM0NZd0N6bXdLQUFQAQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen)

This article reports about Iranians demonstrating against their leaders calling them the dictators and that America is not the enemy.  They blame their leaders for lying to them that the plane's downing was due to mechanical problems before finally owning up to the fact that it was shot down by the Iranian military.  Trump has taken advantage of this tweeting in Farsi that he supports the demonstrators.  He warns the Iranian government not to kill any of the demostrativos meanwhile putting more sanctions on Iran to pressure the leaders.

I was thinking about this that regular Iranians themselves have been hurt by the JCPOA nuclear agreement.  Because President Obama made the deal, he couldn't very well argue against the Iranian leadership. Thus he de-facto supported them.  In fact he did nothing a few years ago when demonstrators were being killed by their government in the hundreds.  But Trump ended the JCPOA putting the mullahs on notice he;s not their friend.  That's given regular Iranians hope that maybe they can change their government.  By Trump coming out and telling their leaders not to hurt them, they appreciate what Trump is doing despite the fact sanctions hurts the country.  Out of all this they hope to do away with their dictators and get to real democracy.   If the JCPOA was still in force, and or Obama president, the demonstrators would have no hope for the future.  Now they feel Trump is on their side.

This is great for Iranian people, good for Trump's re-election possibility and bad to Iranian leaders and American Democrats. 

Of course the media will try to spin this another way somehow.  But the people here on this forum are smart and will see through the bias, I'm sure.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 13, 2020, 08:51:11 pm
The wriggling and twisting is something to behold.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 14, 2020, 05:56:35 am
 ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 14, 2020, 10:25:13 am
;D

Yeah, the US constitution is a joke. And who needs oaths of office anyway.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 14, 2020, 01:56:19 pm
So Trump as president is doing what he promised as a candidate? Gee, who woulda guessed.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 14, 2020, 02:05:04 pm
Yeah, the US constitution is a joke. And who needs oaths of office anyway.

As good as our unwritten Brit one, and also as good as the guys and gals in power in any given term. They, constitutions, written or by precedent, simply mean what the powers that be want them to mean.

I bet you the "office" has heard many an oath on just about every topic before it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 14, 2020, 02:34:30 pm
So Trump as president is doing what he promised as a candidate? Gee, who woulda guessed.

Funny, but incomplete.  You forgot:

Promise:  Lock her up!
Action: Hillary cleared by Trump DoJ.  Again. (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01/hillary-clinton-justice-department-investigation-results)

And I know we can come up with more :)

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 14, 2020, 02:40:02 pm
As good as our unwritten Brit one, and also as good as the guys and gals in power in any given term. They, constitutions, written or by precedent, simply mean what the powers that be want them to mean.

I bet you the "office" has heard many an oath on just about every topic before it.
While many Americans feel that the Supreme Court should not read in their own understanding, and often they do, the fact that it is written still makes it more powerful than if unwritten.  Also, you're conflating elected officials with the supreme court justices that latter who hold the position for life.  If an elected official violates the Constitution, he is kept in check by the Supreme Court and its justices as we saw with the Muslim travel ban and as well as the Congress as we see now with the impeachment.  They can't do whatever they want. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 14, 2020, 03:13:22 pm
... They, constitutions, written or by precedent, simply mean what the powers that be want them to mean...

Oh, please, Rob! What the US Constitution means is determined by the SCOTUS, not "the powers that be."

What it doesn't mean is what you, or I, or Bart think it means.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 14, 2020, 05:42:06 pm
Oh, please, Rob! What the US Constitution means is determined by the SCOTUS, not "the powers that be."

What it doesn't mean is what you, or I, or Bart think it means.

Well, they have one fine old lady therein!

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 14, 2020, 06:06:50 pm
Well, they have one fine old lady therein!

:-)

May her life be long and healthy.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 15, 2020, 05:58:41 am
Federal judge rules in favor of Trump administration in family separation case

https://www.foxnews.com/us/judge-rules-trump-administration-within-rights-in-separating-children-at-border-from-parents-deemed-unfit
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 15, 2020, 10:24:07 am
President Trump again displayed ignorance about what Impeachment is all about.  In a Tweet this morning he complains, "...why didn’t Nervous Nancy and Corrupt politician Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff give us a fair trial in the House..."  The simple answer is that there was no trial!!!  It was similar to a Grand Jury hearing where prosecutors set the agenda.  The President will have his day in court shortly as Senators will weigh the evidence and make the decision on the articles of Impeachment.  I wonder if Rudy Giuliani will be one of the lawyers defending the President.  That would add high humor to this whole thing.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 15, 2020, 10:40:57 am
Stop playing word games.  Sure it's not a trial as usually done in US courts.    But it was a political trial, which is wrose.  Like a Star Chamber one they use to have in the Soviet Union where the judge was prosecutor and jury as well.  Trump's tweet  meant that he wasn't given little chance to defend himself against charges.  The Democrats who control the House wouldn't let Republicans call their own witnesses or to cross examine in a fair way. 

And no it's not the same as a grand jury.  That's a terrible analogy.  A grand jury is secret.  Nothing that goes on there may be released to the public under criminal penalty.  That way people don;t get smeared as Trump was smeared.  Of course, that's not what happened in the House.  The whole thing was to smear Trump and not give him a chance to defend himself.  That';s the point he was making.  Any reasonable person sees the bias in the whole Democrat impeachment process up to including Pelosi's attempt to hold the articles from being sent to the Senate and demanding the Senate comply with her demands which is a violation of the Constitution.  MAybe we should impeach her.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 15, 2020, 11:00:44 am
Oh, they play word games ? 

That is why the president of the US can call everybody corrupt...  it is a word game...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 15, 2020, 11:15:25 am
Sure he plays word games too.  It's politics.  But impeachment is a very serious game to play.  W don;t go there as a usual procedure.  To do impeachment casually for political reasons is going to create a situation where it will happen often now.  Here's an issue with Apple and cell phone secrecy laws regarding law enforcement that's in the news now.  A very serious issue, things that should be discussed in Congress.  So what are they doing?  Playing political games for three years wasting everyone's time to try to gain power rather than doping the people's business.  We should wait for elections to determine if we want a president to be re-elected. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 15, 2020, 11:38:27 am
Yes. He plays word games. Really pisses off the Democrats. Makes them make gross mistake after gross mistake. It'll cost the Democrats the Presidency, the House, and the Senate.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 15, 2020, 12:15:00 pm
Yes. He plays word games. Really pisses off the Democrats. Makes them make gross mistake after gross mistake. It'll cost the Democrats the Presidency, the House, and the Senate.
So how do you know when Trump actually says something he really means?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 15, 2020, 01:40:38 pm
So how do you know when Trump actually says something he really means?

That's an impossibility.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 15, 2020, 02:32:08 pm
So how do you know when Trump actually says something he really means?
Compare the things he's done with what he promised during the campaign.  The rest is just conversation.
-Defeated ISIS, Killed Al Baghdadi
-Passed a new tax and business legislation
-Opened the pipeline
-reduced regulation
-pulled out of the Paris Accord
-Pulled out of the Iran agreement, has Iran on the ropes, things looking up for the people there
-Increased business activity, markets at record highs
-Open offshore up for more oil exploration
-Phase 1 of new trade with China signed today.  The rest is a work in progress
-Ditto with NAFTA and trade with other countries
-NATO 2% increase from Europe countries
-Got more conservative judges on the Supreme and Federal courts
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 15, 2020, 04:03:33 pm
Last but not least, Alan:

Made liberals cry every step of the way!

That alone is worth four more years.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 15, 2020, 06:17:54 pm
Last but not least, Alan:

Made liberals cry every step of the way!

That alone is worth four more years.

If he loses, what will we do?  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 15, 2020, 07:51:07 pm
If he loses, what will we do?  :)
write more about photography.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 16, 2020, 11:14:45 am
IS ANYONE SURPRISED?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/ukraine-aid-hold-violated-law-government-accountability-office-n1117031
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 16, 2020, 11:21:17 am
If he loses, what will we do?  :)

I don't know about you, but for us:

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 16, 2020, 11:43:06 am
And if he wins?

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 16, 2020, 11:48:52 am
Ah yes. Good ol' NBCFake news. That'll keep us up to date.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 16, 2020, 11:58:41 am
Ah yes. Good ol' NBCFake news. That'll keep us up to date.

 ::)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gao-says-trump-admin-broke-law-ukraine (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gao-says-trump-admin-broke-law-ukraine)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: texshooter on January 16, 2020, 11:59:47 am
Will Republicans admit that Trump did what he did purely for selfish  reasons?   Never.

Will Democrats admit that what Biden did  justified what Trump did?  Not in your lifetime.

The hypocrisy is vomit inducing. 

[(https://www.thenationalherald.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/David_-_The_Death_of_Socrates-760x499.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 16, 2020, 12:03:25 pm
Will Republicans admit that Trump did what he did purely for selfish  reasons?   Never.

Will Democrats admit that what Biden did  justified what Trump did?  Not in your lifetime.

The hypocrisy is vomit inducing. 


er...both of these can't be true.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: texshooter on January 16, 2020, 12:12:39 pm
er...both of these can't be true.

Can one do the right thing for the wrong reason?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 16, 2020, 12:21:25 pm
And if he wins?

How snobbish of you... moving to Canada. Why don't you move to Nigeria, like the real celebrity?

https://www.nydailynews.com/snyde/ny-cardi-b-nigeria-citizenship-memes-are-fire-20200109-nyw4khu3zvf6xgrrgl3zoys6da-story.html

"Cardi B announced in a profane tweet last Friday that she wanted Nigerian citizenship... Cardi’s tweet criticized President Trump after the U.S. killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike. Fed up with Trump’s leadership, she expressed a desire for dual-citizenship..."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on January 16, 2020, 12:30:14 pm
IS ANYONE SURPRISED?

...

Peter, when you post a link, say why you're posting it and give a summary of the information at the end of the link. I have made this abundantly clear (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=125586.0) on several occasions.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 16, 2020, 12:45:38 pm
Can one do the right thing for the wrong reason?

"One" can.  Apparently Republicans cannot.  They get tripped up on that whole "do the right thing" part, you see.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 16, 2020, 01:38:41 pm
Ah yes. Good ol' NBCFake news. That'll keep us up to date.

Is the same story on Fox fake news? On Politico? Etc etc. Anyway it is an official report issued by the GAO whose head is a presidential appointee. Go give it up.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on January 16, 2020, 01:39:48 pm
IS ANYONE SURPRISED?

The Government Accountability Office, the U.S. government's internal auditing agency, published a decision today (https://www.gao.gov/products/B-331564#mt=e-report) which concludes that the Office of Management and Budget in the Trump White House violated the law when it withheld financial aid appropriated by Congress for security assistance to Ukraine.

Quote
The Constitution specifically vests Congress with the power of the purse, providing that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”  U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7.  The Constitution also vests all legislative powers in Congress and sets forth the procedures of bicameralism and presentment, through which the President may accept or veto a bill passed by both Houses of Congress, and Congress may subsequently override a presidential veto.  Id., art. I, § 7, cl. 2, 3.  The President is not vested with the power to ignore or amend any such duly enacted law.  See Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 438 (1998) (the Constitution does not authorize the President “to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes”).  Instead, he must “faithfully execute” the law as Congress enacts it.  U.S. Const., art. II, § 3.

The GAO report does not characterize the reason for the delay in withholding the aid―i.e., this nonpartisan agency of Congress does not take a position in its decision regarding whether President Trump was trying to extract improper political concessions from Ukraine.  The decision only states that "[f]aithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 16, 2020, 01:40:10 pm
Peter, when you post a link, say why you're posting it and give a summary of the information at the end of the link. I have made this abundantly clear (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=125586.0) on several occasions.

Jeremy

The text of the link explains it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 16, 2020, 01:56:14 pm
Ah yes. Good ol' NBCFake news. That'll keep us up to date.
Here is the same story from Fox and Breitbart. Better?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gao-says-trump-admin-broke-law-ukraine
https://www.breitbart.com/news/trump-administration-broke-law-by-withholding-ukraine-aid-gao-finds/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 16, 2020, 02:33:30 pm
::)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gao-says-trump-admin-broke-law-ukraine (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gao-says-trump-admin-broke-law-ukraine)

From the Fox article:

"GAO’s findings are a pretty clear overreach as they attempt to insert themselves into the media’s controversy of the day. Further, GAO has a history of the flip-flops, reversing 40-years of precedent this year on their pocket rescission decision, they were also forced to reverse a legally faulty opinion when they opposed the reimbursement of federal employee travel costs. In their rush to insert themselves in the impeachment narrative, maybe they’ll have to reverse their opinion again.”

I might add that the meaning of the word "opinion" makes everything clear (except to those who refuse to accept direct evidence and prefer opinion).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 16, 2020, 02:36:56 pm
The Government Accountability Office, the U.S. government's internal auditing agency, published a decision today (https://www.gao.gov/products/B-331564#mt=e-report) which concludes that the Office of Management and Budget in the Trump White House violated the law...

Further proof that the long march through institutions succeeded.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 16, 2020, 02:55:11 pm
From the Fox article:

"GAO’s findings are a pretty clear overreach as they attempt to insert themselves into the media’s controversy of the day. Further, GAO has a history of the flip-flops, reversing 40-years of precedent this year on their pocket rescission decision, they were also forced to reverse a legally faulty opinion when they opposed the reimbursement of federal employee travel costs. In their rush to insert themselves in the impeachment narrative, maybe they’ll have to reverse their opinion again.”

That quote is attributed to a "senior administration official" i.e. a Trump mouthpiece, ergo you're sorely mistaken with your "conclusion" here. Remember - everything that comes out of this administration is a lie.  This is no different.

I might add that the meaning of the word "opinion" makes everything clear (except to those who refuse to accept direct evidence and prefer opinion).

By the way, the original NBC article featured the same "response" from the Trump official as well, so your "fake news" cry is also incorrect.  So much winning...   ::)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 16, 2020, 03:07:32 pm
That quote is attributed to a "senior administration official" i.e. a Trump mouthpiece, ergo you're sorely mistaken with your "conclusion" here. Remember - everything that comes out of this administration is a lie.  This is no different.

By the way, the original NBC article featured the same "response" from the Trump official as well, so your "fake news" cry is also incorrect.  So much winning...   ::)

Ah. So much losing for the Democrats... ::)  Keep watching and keep laughing, James. Nancy has screwed up royally, though it was hard for her to outdo Schiff's and Nadler's screwups. The result is going to be a Republican House and Senate as well as four more years for Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 16, 2020, 03:13:07 pm
Giuliani associate says Trump knew exactly what was going on. No surprise, really.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/giuliani-associate-parnas-says-trump-knew-exactly-what-was-going-n1116731
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 16, 2020, 04:15:50 pm
Giuliani associate says Trump knew exactly what was going on. No surprise, really.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/giuliani-associate-parnas-says-trump-knew-exactly-what-was-going-n1116731

None at all.  Nice explanation of the link, though ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 16, 2020, 04:53:46 pm
Will Republicans admit that Trump did what he did purely for selfish  reasons?   Never.

Will Democrats admit that what Biden did  justified what Trump did?  Not in your lifetime.

The hypocrisy is vomit inducing. 


Be serious. What Trump is accused of doing, huge piles of legitimate evidence including transcripts and testimony under oath from many people who have no political axe to grind, such as carrer diplomats, and some of whom are Republicans. What Biden is accused of doing--zero legitimate evidence.







Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 16, 2020, 05:12:08 pm
Be serious. What Trump is accused of doing, huge piles of legitimate evidence including transcripts and testimony under oath from many people who have no political axe to grind, such as carrer diplomats, and some of whom are Republicans. What Biden is accused of doing--zero legitimate evidence.


None of thst will make the slightest difference.

Party or death.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 16, 2020, 05:15:06 pm
Be serious. What Trump is accused of doing, huge piles of legitimate evidence including transcripts and testimony under oath..

All hearsay. It is like me testifying under oath that I read/heard others saying Trump did something bad.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 16, 2020, 05:18:58 pm
Giuliani associate says Trump knew exactly what was going on...

Another idiotic headline. Another nobody hearing what someone else said or thought he said. And "what is going on" exactly? The Nobody did not say what was going on, but that he thinks Trump knew. Knew what? What was going on depends on who you ask. Commies would say impeachable treason, bribery, abuse of power, quid pro quo, or whatever is the flavor of the day. Reasonable people would say nothing out of ordinary was going on.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 16, 2020, 05:59:02 pm
Another idiotic headline. Another nobody hearing what someone else said or thought he said. And "what is going on" exactly? The Nobody did not say what was going on, but that he thinks Trump knew. Knew what? What was going on depends on who you ask. Commies would say impeachable treason, bribery, abuse of power, quid pro quo, or whatever is the flavor of the day. Reasonable people would say nothing out of ordinary was going on.

It's so odd that all of the people wiling to testify under oath come to the same unreasonable conclusion, and that all the people that might say otherwise won't testify to that effect.   :-X   Can't figure what to make of that.     
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 16, 2020, 06:12:49 pm
At the end of the day, all of this stuff is already baked into the cake with public opinion.  What happens here on out with Trump is not going to matter unless some crazy bombshell comes along. 

What is more important is watching the implosion of the Democratic party, at least with regards to the primary.  Man, talk about seriously weak candidates, and now Warren, along with CNN, decides to send the Dems down the path they went in 2016.  Namely pissing off the Bernie bros so much that they may just sit out the election or vote for Trump.  And if you think Biden really has the capacity to bet Trump, ask yourself this, have you ever met a Biden fan?  I've met Trump fans, Bernie fans, Warren fans, even Buttigieg fans, but I have never actually met a Biden fan.  I've met people who say we must vote for Biden since he is the only one who can, supposedly, beat Trump, but none of them rise to fan level.  Not to mention his debate performance are just horrible; can anyone really figure out what he was saying last night? 

Former Obama campaign manager and liberal political commentator Van Jones on last nights performance, "there was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out!"

If impeachments keeps your mind off of the Dem's current best and brightest, then enjoy.  I'm going sit back and watch the primaries.  Ido have to wonder though how long it will be until Warren and Bernie start publicly requesting a short trial, since it is going to keep them off of the campaign.  Perhaps Bloomberg will start making inroads with those two stuck in DC. 

Wouldn't that be great, the party of billionaire haters winds up with two viable billionaire candidates.  Oh the irony. 

Last, but not least, let's not forgot we now have a #DemsSoWhite controversy.  Those whom start radical revolutions evidentially become victims of it. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: texshooter on January 16, 2020, 06:54:26 pm
What Biden is accused of doing--zero legitimate evidence.

First comes probable cause, then comes an investigation, then comes legitimate evidence (or exoneration).  The first step is the trickiest because one man's smoking gun is another man's conspiracy theory.

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/375/cpsprodpb/922E/production/_109122473_p07q7k0g.jpg)


Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 16, 2020, 07:05:25 pm
Something that has been stuck in my mind all day about this impeachment is, how do you sign your name one letter at a time changing pens after each? 

I mean, I write in cursive; I was not given the option to print in school.  It was write or get slapped in the hand.  So I just cant imagine breaking my rhythm and writing each letter with a different pen.  Not to mention my signature would become pretty much completely foreign at this point. 

The whole thing just seems so awkward, and obviously so to anyone watching. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: texshooter on January 16, 2020, 07:25:46 pm

The whole thing just seems so awkward, and obviously so to anyone watching.

Speaking of awkward, the Taps bugler apparently slept in.

(https://wskg.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/AP_20015843604645-336x220.jpg)

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 16, 2020, 10:11:16 pm
https://babylonbee.com/news/somber-impeachment-ceremony-concludes-with-the-impeachment-dancers

“Somber Impeachment Ceremony Concludes With The Impeachment Dancers“

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: texshooter on January 17, 2020, 02:30:55 am
And you get a pen...
And you get a pen ...  And YOU get a pen ...
And you get a pen ... And you get a pen ... .And YOU get a pen.

(https://i0.wp.com/media.breitbart.com/media/2020/01/Nancy-Pelosi-pens-Associated-Press-1-1024x767.jpg?resize=640%2C479&ssl=1)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 17, 2020, 05:22:25 am
Lie first, fess up later. Iranians denying initially shooting down the plane, Americans denying initially casualties from Iranian missiles. Whom can you trust?

Jan 8 CNN report
Quote
President Donald Trump, facing the gravest test of his presidency, signaled a de-escalation of tensions with Iran Wednesday in the wake of Iran's retaliatory attacks against Iraqi bases housing US troops.
In a tweet, Donald Trump said:" All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good!

"Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world," Trump said, striking a somber tone during his White House statement. An early warning system worked well and no American or Iraqi lives were lost, Trump said.

Jan 17 CNN report
Quote
Several US service members were injured during last week's Iranian missile attack on Al-Asad airbase in Iraq despite the Pentagon initially saying that no casualties had taken place. "While no U.S. service members were killed in the Jan. 8 Iranian attack on Al Asad Air base, several were treated for concussion symptoms from the blast and are still being assessed," the US-led military coalition fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria said in a statement Thursday.

A US military official told CNN that 11 service members had been injured in the attack, which was launched in retaliation for the US airstrikes that had killed Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani the previous week. Defense One was first to report on the injured service members. Following the attack the Pentagon said that no casualties had resulted from the 16 missiles fired by Iran. The US military defines a casualty as either an injury or fatality involving personnel.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/politics/service-members-injured-iran-strike/index.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 17, 2020, 09:46:27 am
Lie first, fess up later. Iranians denying initially shooting down the plane, Americans denying initially casualties from Iranian missiles. Whom can you trust?

Jan 8 CNN report
Jan 17 CNN report
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/politics/service-members-injured-iran-strike/index.html

Uh, dude...the symptoms of the concussions showed up later.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 17, 2020, 10:08:06 am
Uh, dude...the symptoms of the concussions showed up later.
Yeah, that's what they said. What will be the next statement?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 17, 2020, 10:21:43 am
Les, that's kind of par for the course for concussions. 

Some symptoms show up immediately, some take days.  FYI, my source for info on this is the Mayo Clinic. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 17, 2020, 10:31:19 am
The injuries must be quite serious. 8 of the soldiers were flown to a military hospital in Germany.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 17, 2020, 11:16:41 am
The injuries must be quite serious. 8 of the soldiers were flown to a military hospital in Germany.

These days, unlike years past,  the Military now take TBI seriously.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 17, 2020, 11:21:21 am
Uh, dude...the symptoms of the concussions showed up later.

after the bombardment - they all did not realize directly they had a concussion...   ???
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 17, 2020, 01:31:22 pm
after the bombardment - they all did not realize directly they had a concussion...   ???

Here's are a few links on it the latent effects...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-service-members-treated-concussions-after-iranian-missile-strikes-n1117556

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2020/01/eleven-us-troops-were-injured-jan-8-iran-missile-strike/162502/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7897733/Eleven-service-members-treated-concussion-symptoms-Irans-missile-attack.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 17, 2020, 02:18:25 pm
Oh, please!!!

Concussion, schmoncussion. Nobody died, nobody is left without a limb. CNN was delighted to report that first (or at least I saw it there first). They must have been deeply disappointed, however, that the report didn't have any dead or seriously injured. They were sooo looking forward to have something negative to report about Trump. Concussion is something that happens when your drunken head hits the table. Or you play (American) football.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 17, 2020, 04:45:27 pm
...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 17, 2020, 11:22:07 pm
At the end of the day, all of this stuff is already baked into the cake with public opinion.  What happens here on out with Trump is not going to matter unless some crazy bombshell comes along. 

What is more important is watching the implosion of the Democratic party, at least with regards to the primary.  Man, talk about seriously weak candidates, and now Warren, along with CNN, decides to send the Dems down the path they went in 2016.  Namely pissing off the Bernie bros so much that they may just sit out the election or vote for Trump.  And if you think Biden really has the capacity to bet Trump, ask yourself this, have you ever met a Biden fan?  I've met Trump fans, Bernie fans, Warren fans, even Buttigieg fans, but I have never actually met a Biden fan.  I've met people who say we must vote for Biden since he is the only one who can, supposedly, beat Trump, but none of them rise to fan level.  Not to mention his debate performance are just horrible; can anyone really figure out what he was saying last night? 

Former Obama campaign manager and liberal political commentator Van Jones on last nights performance, "there was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out!"

If impeachments keeps your mind off of the Dem's current best and brightest, then enjoy.  I'm going sit back and watch the primaries.  Ido have to wonder though how long it will be until Warren and Bernie start publicly requesting a short trial, since it is going to keep them off of the campaign.  Perhaps Bloomberg will start making inroads with those two stuck in DC. 

Wouldn't that be great, the party of billionaire haters winds up with two viable billionaire candidates.  Oh the irony. 

Last, but not least, let's not forgot we now have a #DemsSoWhite controversy.  Those whom start radical revolutions evidentially become victims of it. 
My friends who don;t like TRump say they would vote for Biden as they thing Buttigieg, Warren and Sanders are too outside the mainstream. I didn't ask them how excited they were about Biden, but I will.  I think there may be a closed convention where a current runner will not get a majority winner during the primaries.  That will allow the Democrat inside power brokers to select who they want.  So someone in the background now could wind up their nominee. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 17, 2020, 11:24:24 pm
My friends who don;t like TRump say they would vote for Biden as they thing Buttigieg, Warren and Sanders are too outside the mainstream. I didn't ask them how excited they were about Biden, but I will.  I think there may be a closed convention where a current runner will not get a majority winner during the primaries.  That will allow the Democrat inside power brokers to select who they want.  So someone in the background now could wind up their nominee.

Bloomberg?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 17, 2020, 11:27:28 pm
Bloomberg?

Maybe.  He's really spreading his money around to other Democratic candidates in other races. Not that I'm saying he's buying their loyalty, of course.  That might be impeachable.  But who's watching.  Everyone is watching the Trump impeachment.  Now you see it, now you don;t.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 17, 2020, 11:32:16 pm
Oh, please!!!

Concussion, schmoncussion. Nobody died, nobody is left without a limb. CNN was delighted to report that first (or at least I saw it there first). They must have been deeply disappointed, however, that the report didn't have any dead or seriously injured. They were sooo looking forward to have something negative to report about Trump. Concussion is something that happens when your drunken head hits the table. Or you play (American) football.
So Trump acts sanely to prevent expanding an argument into a war.  So now all the crazies in the media and elsewhere are disappointed that he standed down without flying off the handle.  One wonders who the crazies really are.  Where are all those psychologists and psychiatrists when you really need them? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 18, 2020, 12:20:34 am
So now all the crazies in the media and elsewhere are disappointed that he standed down without flying off the handle. 

Show me a single example of this. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 18, 2020, 12:26:16 am
Show me a single example of this. 

Let me put it another way.  How many of the anti-Trump media have written about Trumps' cool, calm and insightful handling of this whole situation.  They all jumped on how he nearly started WWIII when he killed the terrorist.  Then they said nothing or very little how he so adroitly handed the counter attack, despite there being some injuries to American troops.  No matter what he does, he's wrong, crazy, insane, erratic, etc. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 18, 2020, 01:04:54 am
I'm not sure if he stayed cool. His employees reported repeatedly than he has exploded when confronted with less important matters.
Maybe he was just paralyzed and couldn't make a decision. Which worked out OK this time.
 
BTW, he didn't mentioned any injuries on Jan 8, just that "All Is Well".
And the official reports informed us that the Iranians purposely let the missiles fall where they wouldn't inflict any damage. Basically they were "standing down".
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 18, 2020, 08:06:43 am
I'm not sure if he stayed cool. His employees reported repeatedly than he has exploded when confronted with less important matters.
Maybe he was just paralyzed and couldn't make a decision. Which worked out OK this time.
 
BTW, he didn't mentioned any injuries on Jan 8, just that "All Is Well".
And the official reports informed us that the Iranians purposely let the missiles fall where they wouldn't inflict any damage. Basically they were "standing down".
So both sides "blinked" to avoid a war.  Isn't that rationale?  To cool it down a little.  Does America need another Iraq, only worse?  How about a little credit for acting sanely.  Maybe the psychiatrists are all wrong and it's just politics. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 18, 2020, 08:11:28 am
Amazing how upset some people are that we did not go war with Iran. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 18, 2020, 08:29:29 am
Show me a single example of this. 

The very fact that they are quiet, i.e., ignoring the issue, as opposed to WWIII hysterics.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 18, 2020, 09:41:13 am
So both sides "blinked" to avoid a war.  Isn't that rationale?  To cool it down a little.  Does America need another Iraq, only worse?  How about a little credit for acting sanely.  Maybe the psychiatrists are all wrong and it's just politics.

I didn't get the reading that both sides cooled down.
First, we heard Trump threatening Iran with military attacks on their cultural sites (if that meant anything for the religious fanatics and it was totally unnecessary, irresponsible and inflammatory statement), then Iran trying their best to inflict serious damage to US bases, which was first minimized by Trump, followed a week later by admission of material and physical injuries, subsequent praise of those missiles attacks by Khameni, promising additional retaliatory actions, and Trump's tweets in Farsi encouraging the protesters in Teheran. It may indeed take a psychiatrist to figure it all out.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 18, 2020, 11:07:25 am
How about a little credit for acting sanely.

Ladies and gentlemen, the bar that the president of the United States is expected to be lauded for clearing.  ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 18, 2020, 11:08:28 am
Amazing how upset some people are that we did not go war with Iran.

Same question to you - show me one example.  (OK two - I'll give you Bolton.)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 18, 2020, 11:32:24 am
Oh, please!!!

Concussion, schmoncussion. Nobody died, nobody is left without a limb. CNN was delighted to report that first (or at least I saw it there first). They must have been deeply disappointed, however, that the report didn't have any dead or seriously injured. They were sooo looking forward to have something negative to report about Trump. Concussion is something that happens when your drunken head hits the table. Or you play (American) football.

I don't see how these concussions reflect badly on Trump. In any case, "negative things" about Trump fall from the sky like leaves in autumn.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 18, 2020, 11:37:33 am
In any case, "negative things" about Trump fall from the sky like leaves in autumn.

Only for those who hate trump passionately, Peter. And you're going to have four more years to hate Trump with passion. You're also gonna be able to hate the fact that the entire government is Republican. The Dems just can't get off the trigger and stop shooting themselves in the foot.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 18, 2020, 11:49:21 am
Let me put it another way.  How many of the anti-Trump media have written about Trumps' cool, calm and insightful handling of this whole situation.  They all jumped on how he nearly started WWIII when he killed the terrorist.  Then they said nothing or very little how he so adroitly handed the counter attack, despite there being some injuries to American troops.  No matter what he does, he's wrong, crazy, insane, erratic, etc.


A president does not get credit for acting "cool, calm and insightful" (although that's debatable in this situation) once in a while. No more than a surgeon gets credit for having operations work out once in a while.

And let me point out that there is essentially no "anti-Trump media." There is, how ever, "anti wretched president" media. And right now, that's the bone spur boy.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 18, 2020, 12:17:32 pm
Only for those who hate trump passionately, Peter. And you're going to have four more years to hate Trump with passion. You're also gonna be able to hate the fact that the entire government is Republican. The Dems just can't get off the trigger and stop shooting themselves in the foot.

Russ : facts = oil : water
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 18, 2020, 01:13:53 pm


And let me point out that there is essentially no "anti-Trump media."

Boy you've not watched CNN (or MSMBC) lately, have you?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 18, 2020, 01:29:18 pm
Same question to you - show me one example.  (OK two - I'll give you Bolton.)

I kind of meant it in jest directed at some people here.  Dont worry, I understand that nearly everyone on the left has lost their sense of humor, so I wont hold it against you.   

But anyway, how about the entire mainstream news media just saying non-stop for the first day or say that this was the start of WWIII, and then completely dropping the subject like Slobo stated.  They did not even bother to report about how the day after the funeral young Iranians were chanting death to the Ayatollah and refused to walk over the USA and Israel flag.

The whole thing fell flat for the Dems and you can tell they know it because they moved right back to impeachment. 

But not only that, they are now calling for a witness to testify who is currently out on bail from a federal indictment for lying and falsify documents, and CNN is cheering him up as one of the most truthful people out there.  LOL, it really is becoming a comedy. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 18, 2020, 01:31:16 pm


And let me point out that there is essentially no "anti-Trump media."

OMG  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Man, talk about drinking the Cool Aid!  What are you smoking right now?   

Give you an example, I was listening to Dave Rubin (man, it must really piss off the left that the very liberal Rubin jumped ship) talk about how he was at a Trump event recently and Trump pretty much was making a joke about wind mills.  It was a long joke about how we spend so much money on wind mills and keeping them active but we get so little energy from them.  He pretty said he knows more about wind mills then anyone else because he is the only one talking about how much money they loose compared to other forms of energy. 

Essentially everyone on the left plays up the fantasy of wind mills but they never talk about the total cost compared to other forms of energy, which makes them foolish.

Then, afterwards, Rubin saw the highlights and the media purposely edited the clips to make it seem like Trump seriously thinks he knows so much more then anyone else, and that it was not in fact a joke he was making.  That is a great example of the media being purposely anti-Trump.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 18, 2020, 01:49:39 pm
I kind of meant it is jest directed at some people here. 

But anyway, how about the entire mainstream news media just saying non-stop for the first day or say that this was the start of WWIII, and then completely dropping the subject like Slobo stated.  They did not even bother to report about how the day after the funeral young Iranians were chanting death to the Ayatollah and refused to walk over the USA and Israel flag.

?

NBC (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iran-protests-crowds-tehran-refuse-walk-u-s-israeli-flags-n1114371)
Quote
A week after millions of Iranians flooded the streets following the death of one of the country's top generals, Qassem Soleimani, a contrasting symbolic image played out in Tehran on Sunday.

Crowds of people outside Beheshti University refused to trample over giant U.S. and Israeli flags that had been painted on the ground, according to video filmed at the scene that has been verified by NBC News.

CNN (https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2020/01/12/gps-0112-iranian-government-faces-uproar-over-downed-plane.cnn)
Quote
...there are different types of anger amid the demonstrators. Some are simply angry the government did this while others are calling for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic.

CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/12/middleeast/iran-protests-ukraine-plane-uk-ambassador-intl-gbr/index.html)
Quote
In Iran, demonstrators are calling for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to step down and for those responsible for downing the plane to be prosecuted.
"Khamenei have shame. Leave the country," chanted protesters in the capital, Tehran, in footage posted on social media.

CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/world/iran-protest-analysis-intl/index.html)
Quote
As crowds gathered in the capital Tehran for a candlelight vigil on Saturday to commemorate victims, protesters called for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to step down and for those responsible for downing the plane to be prosecuted. Familiar chants of "Death to America," were traded for "Death to the dictator" and "Death to the liar." In one video, demonstrators chanted, "Khamenei have shame. Leave the country."

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/weekends-with-alex-witt/watch/thousands-protest-in-iran-after-government-admits-it-shot-down-passenger-plane-76556357868)
Quote
Protestors gathered in Iran for the second straight day, chanting "down with the regime", after the government reversed course and admitting it shot down a passenger plane, killing all 176 people aboard. Cal Perry breaks down the situation, including Pres. Trump tweeting support for the protestors.

Vox (https://www.vox.com/2020/1/16/21065638/iran-protests-soleimani-trump-jcpoa)
Quote
The Iranian government had tried to conceal that its military accidentally shot down the plane, killing all on board. When it finally admitted its culpability, protesters reacted with rage and fury.

It shattered the perception of national unity that seemed to exist last week, when thousands of Iranians turned out to mourn the death of Qassem Soleimani, the powerful general killed in a US targeted strike.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 18, 2020, 01:52:41 pm
?

NBC (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iran-protests-crowds-tehran-refuse-walk-u-s-israeli-flags-n1114371)
CNN (https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2020/01/12/gps-0112-iranian-government-faces-uproar-over-downed-plane.cnn)
CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/12/middleeast/iran-protests-ukraine-plane-uk-ambassador-intl-gbr/index.html)
CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/world/iran-protest-analysis-intl/index.html)
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/weekends-with-alex-witt/watch/thousands-protest-in-iran-after-government-admits-it-shot-down-passenger-plane-76556357868)
Vox (https://www.vox.com/2020/1/16/21065638/iran-protests-soleimani-trump-jcpoa)

Any of these front page stories or top of the website stories like the original Iran stories?  Or were they buried?  If the former, please post screen shots of them being at the top of the page. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 18, 2020, 01:55:37 pm
Any of these front page stories?

I'm not a regular watcher of MSNBC or a regular reader of NBC, so no idea (the MSNBC piece was a video, so not sure how to categorize that) but CNN did cover this quite extensively (there we probably 5+ more links I could have posted from them) so likely (At least) some were, and Vox is kind of like the Atlantic - no "front page" per se.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on January 18, 2020, 01:59:24 pm
It seems to me, as an impartial but curious and far-away observer, that the outcome is pretty much inevitable. I'm interested to see that at least one highly-regarded and influential news publication shares my view (https://politics.theonion.com/republican-senators-maintain-they-ll-weigh-all-evidence-1841067235).

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 18, 2020, 02:00:00 pm
I'm not a regular watcher of MSNBC or a regular reader of NBC, so no idea (the MSNBC piece was a video, so not sure how to categorize that) but CNN did cover this quite extensively (there we probably 5+ more links I could have posted from them) so likely (At least) some were, and Vox is kind of like the Atlantic - no "front page" per se.

I cant say that I saw the same level of coverage by CNN nor MSNBC as the imminent WWIII with Iran headlines. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 18, 2020, 02:07:18 pm
I cant say that I saw the same level of coverage by CNN nor MSNBC as the imminent WWIII with Iran headlines.

But that's not what you said, you said, "They did not even bother to report about how the day after the funeral young Iranians were chanting death to the Ayatollah and refused to walk over the USA and Israel flag."  Which is demonstrably, clearly, untrue.   

Personally, *I* can't say that domestic protests in Iran over a shot-down Ukranian airliner are as significant as heating up tensions with an unfriendly regional power by assassinating a major figure in that country, so, whatever.   

Then again, at this very instant as I write this, both Fox and CNN's headline stories are that Harry and Megan got the boot from the royal family.  (But Fox's headline story take up more of the page)

 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 18, 2020, 03:00:24 pm
Quote
Dont worry, I understand that nearly everyone on the left has lost their sense of humor,...

That's because it's been beaten out of us by anti-vaxxers, brexiteers, flat-earthers, climate change deniers, and the antics of the Trump administration/GOP.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 18, 2020, 03:06:17 pm
But that's not what you said, you said, "They did not even bother to report about how the day after the funeral young Iranians were chanting death to the Ayatollah and refused to walk over the USA and Israel flag."  Which is demonstrably, clearly, untrue.   

Personally, *I* can't say that domestic protests in Iran over a shot-down Ukranian airliner are as significant as heating up tensions with an unfriendly regional power by assassinating a major figure in that country, so, whatever.   

Then again, at this very instant as I write this, both Fox and CNN's headline stories are that Harry and Megan got the boot from the royal family.  (But Fox's headline story take up more of the page)

I'm thinking about headlines, not some by-line story buried somewhere few people see without searching for it.  It's nearly the same thing. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 18, 2020, 03:11:30 pm
That's because it's been beaten out of us by anti-vaxxers, brexiteers, flat-earthers, climate change deniers, and the antics of the Trump administration/GOP.

Come on now, live a little. 

Get a MMR booster (I did last summer; FYI the MMR vaccine is now known to wear off after about 25 years) and perhaps your tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis shot, and just brush off those Anti-Vaxxers like their nobodies. 

Brexiteers? ???  Well Britain still has not sunk into the sea yet. 

And if Flat-Earthers really ruin your day, you have problems.  Like you need to see a therapist problems because apparently things bother you too damn much. 

Climate change deniers, okay I'll give you this one. 

Last, Trump antics, please.  Politics is a blood sport remember. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 18, 2020, 03:59:04 pm
It seems to me, as an impartial but curious and far-away observer, that the outcome is pretty much inevitable. I'm interested to see that at least one highly-regarded and influential news publication shares my view (https://politics.theonion.com/republican-senators-maintain-they-ll-weigh-all-evidence-1841067235).

Jeremy


Jetemy, you are obviously, ahem, being too subtle.

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 18, 2020, 04:03:11 pm
I'm thinking about headlines, not some by-line story buried somewhere few people see without searching for it.  It's nearly the same thing.
There is usually more to read than headlines... and tweets...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 18, 2020, 04:31:42 pm
I'm thinking about headlines, not some by-line story buried somewhere few people see without searching for it.  It's nearly the same thing.

Dude.. Just admit you made a wrong assumption and move on.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 19, 2020, 07:17:55 am
Sure MSNBC and CNN will mention some "good" things Trump does.  But it's 1 time to 30 times they otherwise stay on the bad news.  Well, they have to keep their anti-Trump watchers happy who make up 95% of their audience.  Ratings, of course.  Plus they cherry pick parts of his statements that make him look bad.  Same with the anti-Trump NY TImes and Washington Post that buries good stuff on pg 37 while the negative stuff is always right there on page 1 above the fold in big headlines.  Fake news,

Unfortunately, the world reads their bylines in their own newspapers.  So the constraint anti-Trump drivel is propaganda that unfortunately does affect people's opinions.  The American media has been on the left for decades.  It's only worse now than ever. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 19, 2020, 07:31:57 am


https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-trump-hatred-coverage/
I didn't get the reading that both sides cooled down.
First, we heard Trump threatening Iran with military attacks on their cultural sites (if that meant anything for the religious fanatics and it was totally unnecessary, irresponsible and inflammatory statement), then Iran trying their best to inflict serious damage to US bases, which was first minimized by Trump, followed a week later by admission of material and physical injuries, subsequent praise of those missiles attacks by Khameni, promising additional retaliatory actions, and Trump's tweets in Farsi encouraging the protesters in Teheran. It may indeed take a psychiatrist to figure it all out.
Bluster on both sides. Better than escalating into all-out war.  First Trump gets attacked for being war-like.  Then he gets attacked for avoiding war by not counter-attacking.  It's all politics.  Fake news. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 19, 2020, 07:39:01 am
Dude.. Just admit you made a wrong assumption and move on.

Okay, you got me.  I should have said did not report it as much. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 19, 2020, 07:43:41 am
... It's all politics.  Fake news.
Unfortunately - it is all real, not fake...
Trump is a reality;  He is the Blake Carrington (*power 2) of The White House.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 19, 2020, 08:04:16 am
There’s a great entry on Facebook this morning.  It’s a realtor’s ad and it says:

“On November 2020 are you leaving the country if Trump is elected President? Give me a call and let’s get your home sold!!!”

That pretty much sums up the situation. If you’re leaving the country WHEN Trump’s reelected, better get your home listed as early as possible.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 19, 2020, 09:27:10 am
It's interesting that quite a few of the former Trump associates and fans turned later against him.
For example, Anthony Scaramucci, Michael Cohen, Lev Parnas and others. These are people who knew Trump quite well, up close and personal.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 19, 2020, 10:27:50 am
It's interesting that quite a few of the former Trump associates and fans turned later against him.
For example, Anthony Scaramucci, Michael Cohen, Lev Parnas and others. These are people who knew Trump quite well, up close and personal.

What?  ???

 ;D ;D ;D

Let me get this straight, you actually take seriously a man under federal indictment, out on bail, for lying and falsifying documents, and who's ground breaking documents sent to the dems are handwritten notes on hotel stationary?  Even after everyone in Ukraine said this guy cant be trusted or taken seriously?  This is your new savior? 

And the Mooch, who only lasted two weeks, was ridiculed by the media the entire time, finally fired for being a wacko (like seriously he was one of the craziest personalities we have seen in politics ever), but now he is what you are holding onto. 

LOL, you guys really are getting desperate. 

I guess if my idols were saying that it was inevitably that we would be loosing, I would too.   :-\

“They will mark this day ... as the day Donald Trump was reelected because once again the Democrats, the liberals, the left couldn’t get it together,” Micheal Moore predicted last week.  (Just in case you forgot, Moore called the election in 2016.) 

Another, “I didn’t see anybody ... that really said ‘I’m taking charge, I can be president,’” Sharpton.

Another, “There was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out,” Van Jones.

On top of that, you have AOC and her squad supporting radical progressives in moderate districts, pretty much telling all of America that if you are not a far left wing Marxist, we don't want you in the party.  And yes, AOC is the voice of the party now whether you like it or not.  Pelosi capitulated that to her last year when she failed to get her caucus to condemn anti-semitism in the Democratic party, which has only increased since then btw. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 19, 2020, 10:35:20 am
What?  ???

 ;D ;D ;D

Let me get this straight, you actually take seriously a man under federal indictment, out on bail, for lying and falsifying documents, and who's ground breaking documents sent to the dems are handwritten notes on hotel stationary?  Even after everyone in Ukraine said this guy cant be trusted or taken seriously?  This is your new savior? 

And the Mooch, who only lasted two weeks, was ridiculed by the media the entire time, finally fired for being a wacko (like seriously he was one of the craziest personalities we have seen in politics ever), but now he is what you are holding onto. 

LOL, you guys really are getting desperate. 

I guess if my idols were saying that it was inevitably that we would be loosing, I would too.   :-\

“They will mark this day ... as the day Donald Trump was reelected because once again the Democrats, the liberals, the left couldn’t get it together,” Micheal Moore predicted last week.  (Just in case you forgot, Moore called the election in 2016.) 

Another, “I didn’t see anybody ... that really said ‘I’m taking charge, I can be president,’” Sharpton.

Another, “There was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out,” Van Jones.

On top of that, you have AOC and her squad supporting radical progressives in moderate districts, pretty much telling all of America that if you are not a far left wing Marxist, we don't want you in the party.  And yes, AOC is the voice of the party now whether you like it or not.  Pelosi capitulated that to her last year when she failed to get her caucus to condemn anti-semitism in the Democratic party, which has only increased since then btw.

I’m not sure what your problem is.  Trump assures is that he only hires “the best people.”   If we are to be mocked for their character now what does it say about the man that chose these people to work for him?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 19, 2020, 10:44:56 am
I’m not sure what your problem is.  Trump assures is that he only hires “the best people.”   If we are to be mocked for their character now what dies it say about the man that chose these people to work for him?

Sure, it is a pretty ridiculous statement to say "I only hire the best people," especially considering there are plenty of counter-examples.  But to hold onto hope with Parnes, a known corrupt individually who is being prosecuted for lying and falsifying documents. 

Yeah, good luck with that. 

Insofar as what it says about the man who hires him, well we have to look at the bigger picture. 

Your party whats to either send an unapologetic communist who has supported some of the worse regimes in history, even at the expense of his own country, and has never recanted his views or ...

A walking zombie who cant string together a coherent sentence on his own, looks like he could fall over dead at any moment (especially during those late night debates) that will more then likely be forced to pick a far left commie as a running mate that has a serious chance of becoming president. 

Yeah, it's a pretty easy decision. 

I was listening to a commentator yesterday, who is on the left, talk about how all of the independents she talks pretty much say, if a communists has the chance to become president, they are voting for Trump.  Your party is currently broken.  The liberal soft underbelly of being kind have let in the communist & totalitarian wolves, and I see no one there with the balls to stand up to them.  It is going to cause your party to implode whether you like it or not. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 19, 2020, 10:55:28 am
It's interesting that quite a few of the former Trump associates and fans turned later against him.
For example, Anthony Scaramucci, Michael Cohen, Lev Parnas and others. These are people who knew Trump quite well, up close and personal.

It's called opportunism. As long as these folks delude themselves that they can benefit from a situation, they will sell their souls to the devil. When they have outlived their use for him, he dumps them, and they try to claim to have seen the light (as if anybody's fooled).

Take Lev Parnas as a recent enlightended one, he had a shrine at home to worship Trump. Now he's coming clean by telling the/his truth of the story:
Lev Parnas describes multiple Ukraine quid pro quos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKM4T0XGtEk

Got to hand it to Nancy Pelosi, adding that written confession/testimony from Lev Parnas to the Impeachment evidence at the last moment just as Mitch McConnell changed his formal position from "I'm not an impartial juror (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/weeks-after-saying-im-not-an-impartial-juror-mcconnell-pledges-impartiality-in-oath/ar-BBZ1UKc)" to "I'm going to weigh all the evidence", looks like a shewd well timed move.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 19, 2020, 11:03:53 am
The Parnas "evidence" reminds me of the last minute Democrat smear campaign against the Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.   It didn't work then.  But that doesn;t stop them. They're known for their desperate and underhanded "October" surprises.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 19, 2020, 11:28:33 am
The Parnas "evidence" reminds me of the last minute Democrat smear campaign against the Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.   It didn't work then.  But that doesn;t stop them. They're known for their desperate and underhanded "October" surprises.

These guys knew Trump better than you and me.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 19, 2020, 11:35:19 am
I’m not sure what your problem is.  Trump assures is that he only hires “the best people.”   If we are to be mocked for their character now what does it say about the man that chose these people to work for him?

There was a tremendously ironic story just the other day about this. Trump hires a bunch of low-life, lying, sleazeballs to do his dirty work, and then when they testify against him it's "You can't believe them because they are low-life, lying, sleazeballs."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 19, 2020, 11:38:58 am
There was a tremendously ironic story just the other day about this. Trump hires a bunch of low-life, lying, sleazeballs to do his dirty work, and then when they testify against him it's "You can't believe them because they are low-life, lying, sleazeballs."

Right?   It's mind-boggling.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 19, 2020, 11:54:43 am
Hiring sleazeballs is not an impeachable offense.  In any case, Trump has hired some outstanding people as well.  Defense Chief Mattis, Secr of State Pompeo, his business and finance team, former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley.  He has no trouble firing people, friends or not.  If you hurt him or are disloyal, you're gone.  That's how he operates.  Don;t like it?  Don;'t vote for him in 2020. 

The problem is the Democrats want to get rid of him just because he won in 2016.  How dare he?  Hillary was supposed to win. Didn't he know?  So now the country has for three years and counting had to put up with impeachment charges.  First collusion, then obstruction of justice, paying off bimbos, tax issues, real estate issues, and now improper use of presidential power.  Like presidents haven't used their office for power.  Give me a break.  Don't vote for him.  You'll have that chance.  Well, some of you will anyway.  The rest can watch the returns come over the BBC. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 19, 2020, 01:04:27 pm
Below is a great quote from Supreme Court Justice Justice Robert H. Jackson, who was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, that pretty much sums up what every republican and many independents think of the current impeachment:

“With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.”
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 19, 2020, 01:35:34 pm
Below is a great quote from Supreme Court Justice Justice Robert H. Jackson, who was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, that pretty much sums up what every republican and many independents think of the current impeachment:

“With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.”
So Trump committed a crime, but should not be impeached because the opposite party has a majority in the House.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 19, 2020, 01:42:50 pm
...  Trump assures is that he only hires “the best people.”   If we are to be mocked for their character now what does it say about the man that chose these people to work for him?

That’s a fair question, James.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 19, 2020, 01:47:17 pm
So Trump committed a crime, but should not be impeached because the opposite party has a majority in the House.

I knew someone would completely misconstrue this quote and not bother to even try and understand it.  Congrats on being the one.   ;)

So should prosecutors pick a person whom they dont like and just non-stop, for more then 3 years, search the law books until they can find something to pin on that person?  Because that is exactly what has been done hear.  Literally, non-stop, for over three years, the Dems have been looking for something, anything, to pin on Trump merely because they dont like him. 

But, at the end of the day, they could not even do it.  They could not find a single crime to pin on Trump and instead are trying to convince Americans that Obstruction of Congress is a crime (it isn't). 

And don't give me the Impoundment Control Act.  Even Obama, according to the GAO, was guilty of violating it with the Bo Bergdahl deal.  Plus, the Act specifically states the exact remedy, for Congress to sue the executive branch, which they refused to do and therefore are derelict in their duty.  Plus, it is not even certain that with foreign affairs, the Act applies.  If challenged in the Courts, since foreign policy is of the purvey of the executive branch, the Supreme Court could rule in favor of the president. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 19, 2020, 01:49:47 pm
Below is a great quote from Supreme Court Justice Justice Robert H. Jackson, who was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, that pretty much sums up what every republican and many independents think of the current impeachment:

“With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.”

That’s a great quote, Joe.

Reminds me of a similar one, attributed to Cardinal Richelieu, who said (paraphrasing): “Give me two sentences a man wrote and I will find a reason to hang him.”
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 19, 2020, 02:06:15 pm
That’s a fair question, James.

Thanks - I appreciate that. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 19, 2020, 02:10:10 pm
So should prosecutors pick a person whom they dont like and just non-stop, for more then 3 years, search the law books until they can find something to pin on that person?  Because that is exactly what has been done hear.  Literally, non-stop, for over three years, the Dems have been looking for something, anything, to pin on Trump merely because they dont like him.   

Somewhere this very moment, Hillary Clinton is rolling her eyes at you so hard that her head's about to pop off. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 19, 2020, 02:42:26 pm
Somewhere this very moment, Hillary Clinton is rolling her eyes at you so hard that her head's about to pop off. 
Exactly.  It was politics then. It's politics now.  Now one gives a crap about the constitution.  It's all about power - getting it and holding it.  However, in the past, Americans mainly relied on elections.  Now we've created a situation where going forward, impeachment will become too commonplace.  Whenever the House and the presidency are from different parties, there will be pushes for impeachment.  A lousy way to run a constitutional democratic republic.  WE fight about who's in power rather than how government can do its job for the people.  Maybe it's good that nothing much get done.  Less chance for mischief by the government. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 19, 2020, 04:31:31 pm
Somewhere this very moment, Hillary Clinton is rolling her eyes at you so hard that her head's about to pop off.

Could be a better look for her.   ;)

I did not like Hillary for political reasons; not the corruption that was thrown on her. 

Her whole "basket of deplorables" comment is what did it in for me and many others.  With out a doubt, there is not a single conservative, and, now, not many independents, that have not had a difference of opinion with a liberal on some innocent political topic without eventually being called a "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic," etc., pick your poison. 

That is why it was so damaging and personal; your party grossly overplayed the race card. 

I had a conversation about school choice and charter schools once with a liberal, and when he found out I supported them he called me a racist.  For no other reason then supporting charter schools, I was called a racist.  Then, after explaining to him that the majority of minorities support them too, he doubled down on the insult. 

That is why so many were against Hillary, and it does not seem like the Dems have learned their mistake here.  This is why I want to see the Dems implode.  They wont be able to get past this and become a viable party again until after they realize the extremely loud but extremely small minority does not represent the country. 


“Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field.”  Edmund Burke

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 20, 2020, 07:16:07 am
 Biden campaign warns media over impeachment disinformation.

https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEFdkO1kKo5AZ6fJzsSXs7JYqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowvIaCCzDnxf4CMP2F8gU?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 20, 2020, 07:27:42 am
Biden campaign warns media over impeachment disinformation...

Hahaha... so much for Democrats being “defenders of the free press.” This is sooooo Soviet-like  ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 20, 2020, 07:53:44 am
Of course the press will defend him.   The question is will the trial hurt him so he loses the nomination?  That's been my theory all along and the longer it goes on,  there will be more people who are  going to ask if the Biden's were acting corrupt enough to attract government investigation and that he doesn't deserve to be president.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 20, 2020, 11:41:37 am
Biden campaign warns media over impeachment disinformation.

https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEFdkO1kKo5AZ6fJzsSXs7JYqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowvIaCCzDnxf4CMP2F8gU?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

Why does Biden bother? Any legitimate press already knows that the GOP have been spreading misinformation for a long time.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 20, 2020, 12:19:26 pm
The "free market" presidency!  Here's an interesting article discussing Trump's various conflicts of interest, all quite apart from the ones directly related to impeachment, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/20/trump-businesses-empire-tied-presidency-100496 (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/20/trump-businesses-empire-tied-presidency-100496).  I particularly like the connection between the guy at the IRS who would not authorize the release of Trump tax data who also happens to have tie-ins with Trump properties.

Talk about a swamp.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 20, 2020, 12:55:22 pm
Is a release of tax data even legal? I wouldn’t be happy if someone released mine.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on January 20, 2020, 01:48:45 pm
Is a release of tax data even legal? I wouldn’t be happy if someone released mine.

In general, no.  The federal government may never publicly release an individual's tax information.

Some congressional committees are authorized by statute to request the disclosure of tax information, as are state tax collection agencies.  And federal courts may order the release of tax information for use in criminal investigations.  There are a few other less common exceptions.  In all these special cases, the recipients must comply with restrictions on the use and any further publication of the taxpayer's information.

Of course, a taxpayer may voluntarily release his or her own tax information.  Presidential candidates selected by the major political parties have done so for many years, as have all presidents since Nixon except for President Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 20, 2020, 03:01:29 pm
His taxes are nobody's else's business.  If he released them, the Democrats would have spent three years knocking him about every miniscule detail.  He's never been charged with criminal violation of tax laws.  So everything else is his own business.  Other presidents didn;t have the complications of owning 500 businesses including overseas.  Additionally, revelation of business info could hurt him by opening up his methodology and interests to competitors.  This was all settled in the last election when he won in spite of not releasing them.  Maybe because he didn't by showing the electorate he';s different then the rest of the political class who go along to get along.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 20, 2020, 03:03:11 pm
One year from today Trump will start his second term.  ;D ;D :D :D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 20, 2020, 03:10:03 pm
Why does Biden bother? Any legitimate press already knows that the GOP have been spreading misinformation for a long time.
VP Biden was warned by other Democrats in the Obama administration to recuse himself from involvement in Ukraine.  He should not have gotten rid of the prosecutor looking into the corrupt corporation Burisma his son was getting $50K a month from.  Biden refused and continued his involvement either because he's stupid, politically inept after being a politician for 45 years, or because he deliberately did what he did to help his son.  That's not misinformation.  Biden looks corrupt except for the press trying to protect him.  The president argument will be he ask Ukraine to investigate corruption before releasing money.  Since there's an appearance of corruption on Biden;s part, that's a perfectly legal request.  Biden's democrat opponents are not saying anything but they're drooling behind the scenes. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 20, 2020, 03:42:05 pm
One year from today Trump will start his second term.  ;D ;D :D :D

second term in the old office or first term in another place

Quote
Among President Donald Trump’s most compelling reasons to work as hard as possible to remain in the White House might be to stay out of prison, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said Tuesday.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-avoiding-prison-adam-schiff_n_5c87f336e4b038892f47f47b?ri18n=true&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNhLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEclXP4Zo5lAFoF8glTjEO0IJ2Dy_DJZVxhbejTdAihEkIdR2DqEFrRi3O7eagYz7j3sYuQuqMhco_RTm0NwjerHojFQEB4DrFTtHGm3aq2kwE0ugFQNGK4zVuEqWAbgOCRvb8P7-Tn5cYsnvlmL3dMPO0t2xmxIs2smka7VTiZD
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 20, 2020, 04:01:24 pm
second term in the old office or first term in another place

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-avoiding-prison-adam-schiff_n_5c87f336e4b038892f47f47b?ri18n=true&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNhLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEclXP4Zo5lAFoF8glTjEO0IJ2Dy_DJZVxhbejTdAihEkIdR2DqEFrRi3O7eagYz7j3sYuQuqMhco_RTm0NwjerHojFQEB4DrFTtHGm3aq2kwE0ugFQNGK4zVuEqWAbgOCRvb8P7-Tn5cYsnvlmL3dMPO0t2xmxIs2smka7VTiZD

I wonder how many terms you;re allowed in prison?  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 20, 2020, 05:09:29 pm
VP Biden was warned by other Democrats in the Obama administration to recuse himself from involvement in Ukraine.  He should not have gotten rid of the prosecutor looking into the corrupt corporation Burisma his son was getting $50K a month from.  Biden refused and continued his involvement either because he's stupid, politically inept after being a politician for 45 years, or because he deliberately did what he did to help his son.  That's not misinformation.  Biden looks corrupt except for the press trying to protect him.  The president argument will be he ask Ukraine to investigate corruption before releasing money.  Since there's an appearance of corruption on Biden;s part, that's a perfectly legal request.  Biden's democrat opponents are not saying anything but they're drooling behind the scenes.

False. Biden and his allies worked to oust the Ukrainian prosecutor because he *WAS NOT* pursuing corruption cases. Shokin (the prosecutor) was facing international calls for his ouster, and he was ousted by the Ukrainian parliament. His lack of action on corruption has been verified by Ukrainian officials and several Ukraine experts in the US gov't. He was not looking into the gas company or anything else, it seems. This is all crapola invented by Giuliani.

And what's wrong with Biden's son making $50k a month simply for lending his name to the company? Michael Jordan makes $15 MILLION a month for letting Nike use his name.

And Trump himself has licensed his name at least 50 times for money.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 20, 2020, 05:18:47 pm
False. Biden and his allies worked to oust the Ukrainian prosecutor because he *WAS NOT* pursuing corruption cases. Shokin (the prosecutor) was facing international calls for his ouster, and he was ousted by the Ukrainian parliament. His lack of action on corruption has been verified by Ukrainian officials and several Ukraine experts in the US gov't. He was not looking into the gas company or anything else, it seems. This is all crapola invented by Giuliani.

And what's wrong with Biden's son making $50k a month simply for lending his name to the company? Michael Jordan makes $15 MILLION a month for letting Nike use his name.

And Trump himself has licensed his name at least 50 times for money.

🤣🤣🤣
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 20, 2020, 06:30:57 pm
second term in the old office or first term in another place

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-avoiding-prison-adam-schiff_n_5c87f336e4b038892f47f47b?ri18n=true&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNhLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEclXP4Zo5lAFoF8glTjEO0IJ2Dy_DJZVxhbejTdAihEkIdR2DqEFrRi3O7eagYz7j3sYuQuqMhco_RTm0NwjerHojFQEB4DrFTtHGm3aq2kwE0ugFQNGK4zVuEqWAbgOCRvb8P7-Tn5cYsnvlmL3dMPO0t2xmxIs2smka7VTiZD

Or he steps down, e.g. for 'health' reasons, and gets Pardons from Mike Pence ...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 20, 2020, 06:55:59 pm
..Biden looks corrupt......      except for the press trying to protect him...
yes he can't help it... its just how he looks... not as handsome and honest looking as Trump....
but fortunately the press helps him look a lot better... more honest, younger also ...    hay! there he walks ! Your next President!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 20, 2020, 07:06:27 pm
LOL

Biden is the past.  The country’s moved on from weak foreign policy, bending over for China, anemic economic growth, the failures of the ACA, the Biden family business, etc. 

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 20, 2020, 07:18:18 pm
... not as handsome and honest looking as Trump...
... as he spits his coffee on his laptop screen...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 20, 2020, 08:03:35 pm
False. Biden and his allies worked to oust the Ukrainian prosecutor because he *WAS NOT* pursuing corruption cases. Shokin (the prosecutor) was facing international calls for his ouster, and he was ousted by the Ukrainian parliament. His lack of action on corruption has been verified by Ukrainian officials and several Ukraine experts in the US gov't. He was not looking into the gas company or anything else, it seems. This is all crapola invented by Giuliani.

And what's wrong with Biden's son making $50k a month simply for lending his name to the company? Michael Jordan makes $15 MILLION a month for letting Nike use his name.

And Trump himself has licensed his name at least 50 times for money.
Biden's son couldn't do a dunk shot if he stood on Michael Jordan's shoulders.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 20, 2020, 09:15:43 pm
LOL

Biden is the past.  ...
Trump is the future? The older the better? Old cynical men reign
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 20, 2020, 09:29:13 pm
In small countries like Austria or Finland, you can have 33-34 olds as head of the state.
The bigger the country, the older the president.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 21, 2020, 05:29:45 am
Trump is the future? The older the better? Old cynical men reign

When Biden was in the White House with Obama, we had anemic growth due to the same regulations and taxes he wants to put back in place.  China was getting away with murder, and everyone, on the right and left, nows feels they are a threat and need to be dealt with, except of course Biden.  He constantly calls them our friend.  Plus, he has been wrong on every single foreign policy decision, even advising Obama to stand down on the  Bin Laden raid solely because it could cost them the election.  Nothing says protector and chief like, hey we cant get the #1 terrorist on the planet because it could effect my re-election.  He supports the fairy tail of the Green New Deal without even suggesting nuclear as an option, which means he will shut down our energy sector and lead us back to being dependent on the Middle East. 

He has no qualms about this either.  In a debate, to whether or not he would be okay destroying 100,000s of jobs in the  energy sector, he said, "the answer  is yes."  He then later told coal miners that they better learn how to program.  Think of the great campaign commercials these comments will make. 

He constantly touts his civil rights experience, but even the NYTs has reports that nearly everything he boast about is false and the remaining events he claims he was at, there exist no documentation he was even there.  Another great set of commercials right here, Biden lying about his civil rights experience, which Trump will use. 

So yes, Biden is stuck in the last decade. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 21, 2020, 07:10:04 am
In small countries like Austria or Finland, you can have 33-34 olds as head of the state.
The bigger the country, the older the president.

Of course. When the country is the size of a post stamp, it doesn’t take that many years to walk around and get to know all the aspects of it (there aren't that many to begin with, due to a more homogeneous religious, racial, ethnic, etc. culture).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 21, 2020, 07:20:26 am
What real men think of Tump. Not metrosexuals, and the alphabet soup of freaks.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 21, 2020, 07:29:03 am
Of course. When the country is the size of a post stamp, it doesn’t take that many years to walk around and get to know all the aspects of it (there aren't that many to begin with, due to a more homogeneous religious, racial, ethnic, etc. culture).
So I understand that if your country is small it takes less time to walk from border to border;
With some big nations it may take a lifetime to walk from border to border.
After doing that you are fit to lead the country... ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 21, 2020, 03:20:59 pm
Four minute portion of an interview of Donald Trump when he was 34 during the Iranian hostage situation.  He  comments on the presidency, who would make a good leader, and also his feelings about the American hostages taken by Iran back then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAgJAxkALyc
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 21, 2020, 04:11:17 pm
Legal scholars demolish Trump's main defense in the impeachment trial.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/us/politics/trump-impeachment-legal-defense.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 21, 2020, 04:43:58 pm
Legal scholars demolish Trump's main defense in the impeachment trial...

If only legal scholars would be relevant for the political impeachment.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on January 22, 2020, 04:10:32 am
Legal scholars demolish Trump's main defense in the impeachment trial.

Some do, some don't. 'Tis ever thus; 100% consensus is a rare beast.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 22, 2020, 09:37:27 am
Some do, some don't. 'Tis ever thus; 100% consensus is a rare beast.

Jeremy

There's money to be made on both sides! 'Twas ever thus.

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on January 22, 2020, 11:18:46 am
There's money to be made on both sides!

And damned glad I am of it, too.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 22, 2020, 12:02:50 pm
I'd like to hear <insert usual suspects here>  defend the White House refusal to release documentation and to permit informed witness testimony.

If the records show that they're innocent, isn't it in their interest to produce those records?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 22, 2020, 12:03:58 pm
Some do, some don't. 'Tis ever thus; 100% consensus is a rare beast.

Jeremy

Let's not "both sides"this...  To be fair, Trump or no Trump, MOST without a direct interest argue that statutory crimes are not required for impeachment, and historically that argument matches with the available primary, contemporary (1789-era) writings and the *likely* concerns of my nation's founders (a subject I hold a degree in).  I have yet to see a counter argument that argues otherwise with any support from foundational documents.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 22, 2020, 12:11:45 pm
I'd like to hear <insert usual suspects here>  defend the White House refusal to release documentation and to permit informed witness testimony.

If the records show that they're innocent, isn't it in their interest to produce those records?

The usual suspect would like to reiterate, for the millionth time, that the very basics of the Western justice is that the accused do not need to prove their innocence.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 22, 2020, 12:45:34 pm
The usual suspect would like to reiterate, for the millionth time, that the very basics of the Western justice is that the accused do not need to prove their innocence.
Nonsense.  That's a modern civilized procedure that won't get the results we want. We should place the accused Trump on the rack and stretch him until he begs for mercy and admits his guilt.   If it worked in the 14th century,  it should work now.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 22, 2020, 03:20:31 pm
... To be fair, Trump or no Trump, MOST without a direct interest argue that statutory crimes are not required for impeachment...

Which is what I said several pages back, based on my, admittedly, rudimentary understanding of the subject. I said then, and now, that the Constitution technically allows the Congress to impeach Trump for being... orange. No crime required. Being orange with a combover is already a high misdemeanor. Now, in reality, although technically possible, that wouldn't sit well with most Americans, independents in particular, who would still expect some serious crime behind impeachment.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 22, 2020, 03:34:49 pm
Which is what I said several pages back, based on my, admittedly, rudimentary understanding of the subject. I said then, and now, that the Constitution technically allows the Congress to impeach Trump for being... orange. No crime required. Being orange with a combover is already a high misdemeanor. Now, in reality, although technically possible, that wouldn't sit well with most Americans, independents in particular, who would still expect some serious crime behind impeachment.
Asking a foreign head of state to dig up dirt on a political rival isn't enough for most Americans? Obviously not the conservatives, but most Americans?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 22, 2020, 03:39:00 pm
Which is what I said several pages back, based on my, admittedly, rudimentary understanding of the subject. I said then, and now, that the Constitution technically allows the Congress to impeach Trump for being... orange. No crime required. Being orange with a combover is already a high misdemeanor. Now, in reality, although technically possible, that wouldn't sit well with most Americans, independents in particular, who would still expect some serious crime behind impeachment.

Agreed.  And certainly I'm no staunch originalist, (In fact, I think I've made the argument somewhere before on here that I find strict originalism patently ridiculous), so the idea that the reason for impeachment needs to be congruent with modern sensibilities isn't that big of a stretch for me in a general sense.   

Thing is, I think Trump's behavior easily reaches this standard.  Others disagree :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 22, 2020, 03:40:21 pm
Asking a foreign head of state to dig up dirt on a political rival...

This, of course, I just your opinion. I do not agree that's what happened.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 22, 2020, 03:47:06 pm
This, of course, I just your opinion. I do not agree that's what happened.
I didn't expect you to agree with me. I just don't buy the argument that choosing Joe Biden as the only person to investigate for corruption was a pure coincidence.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 22, 2020, 03:52:47 pm
I didn't expect you to agree with me. I just don't buy the argument that choosing Joe Biden as the only person to investigate for corruption was a pure coincidence.

As is firing a single government official as the only person responsible for corruption in Ukraine.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 22, 2020, 04:11:25 pm
The argument that no crime has to have been committed is in opposition to the Constitution.  It's false and an argument used by the Democrats and those opposed to Trump to justify a political impeachment that had no basis as a crime, which is required.

The constitutional phrase says impeachment is for :"...Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."   The text uses the word crimes.  What could be clearer?  It also compares High crimes to Treason and Bribery which are crimes.  These are serious offenses and crimes that could lead to execution in the case of Treason.   Sure, Congress can do what it wants.  That doesn't mean they are conforming with the intent and specification of the Constitution. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 22, 2020, 04:19:35 pm
Bottom line is the Senate should dismiss the impeachment based on the fact that it did not specify a crime.  This is important for the future. Otherwise, we will have political impeachments every time the congress and the presidents are from different parties or whenever congress feels that it;s a good idea to impeach.  There would be no standards.  By drawing a line now, the Senate will prevent stupid impeachments in the future.  Otherwise we're going to face this as a regular situation which is very destructive to the democratic process.  That's why we have elections.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 22, 2020, 04:23:56 pm
“Why would an innocent man, and a jury interested in the truth, not want all the evidence out and all the witnesses to testify?"

The problem is, the jury is made up of Republicans, apparently sworn to defend Trump at all costs.  Even at the expense of justice.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 22, 2020, 04:26:04 pm
“Why would an innocent man, and a jury interested in the truth, not want all the evidence out and all the witnesses to testify?"

The problem is, the jury is made up of Republicans, apparently sworn to defend Trump at all costs.  Even at the expense of justice.
The problem was that the jury in the House was made up of Democrats, apparently sworn to destroy Trump at all costs.  Even at the expense of justice.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 22, 2020, 04:41:15 pm
The argument that no crime has to have been committed is in opposition to the Constitution.  It's false and an argument used by the Democrats and those opposed to Trump to justify a political impeachment that had no basis as a crime, which is required.

The constitutional phrase says impeachment is for :"...Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."   The text uses the word crimes.  What could be clearer?  It also compares High crimes to Treason and Bribery which are crimes.  These are serious offenses and crimes that could lead to execution in the case of Treason.   Sure, Congress can do what it wants.  That doesn't mean they are conforming with the intent and specification of the Constitution.

Absolutely and completely incorrect. 

Federalist #65 (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp) establishes that impeachment is a proper recourse for violation of the public trust, that the phrasing and the model are informed by the basis of English common law, and is prescient in addressing the exact problem we see today:

Quoth Publius

Quote
A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

Continued...

Quote
What, it may be asked, is the true spirit of the institution itself? Is it not designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men? If this be the design of it, who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves? It is not disputed that the power of originating the inquiry, or, in other words, of preferring the impeachment, ought to be lodged in the hands of one branch of the legislative body. Will not the reasons which indicate the propriety of this arrangement strongly plead for an admission of the other branch of that body to a share of the inquiry? The model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it. Several of the State constitutions have followed the example. As well the latter, as the former, seem to have regarded the practice of impeachments as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government. Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?

Look, then, to the impeachment process and usage of "high crimes" in English common law.  Time has a nice overview. (https://time.com/5745616/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors/)

Quote
The concept of impeachment was used by the British Parliament as early as 1376, as a legislative safeguard against overreach by the aristocracy, and the terms in question were part of the process early on.

“In England a lot of the impeachment cases had relied on this language of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ from the 1640s onward,” Bernadette Meyler, a law professor at Stanford Law School, explains.

But the phrase didn’t have a set definition in British practice; it was used to describe whatever thing the person was being impeached for, according to Bowman. There were several things for which people were impeached during this era: ordinary crimes, treason, corruption, abuse of power, ordinary incompetence and misbehavior in relation to foreign policy. Notably, the King could not be impeached.

Later, we can see the process by which this concept was adapted into the US Constitution:

Quote
When the framers of the U.S. Constitution realized they needed a way to remove executive officials who abused the nature of their positions, they decided to add a definition for an impeachable offense. Though many suggestions were made at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, by the end of the summer they’d winnowed it down to two examples: treason and bribery.

But George Mason of Virginia took issue with limiting it to the two definitions, arguing they were too narrow. At the same time the Constitution was being drafted, newspapers were covering the impeachment of a statesman named Warren Hastings for misconduct during his time the Governor General of India. Mason pointed out that under their current definition, Hasting wouldn’t be impeachable. Mason suggest they broaden the definition to include “maladministration,” meaning mismanagement or ineffective governance. James Madison argued back that the word would be too broad, and make it so the President would be serving at the “pleasure of the Senate.” He worried Senators could remove the President if they disliked a policy move.

George Mason then proposed including the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” instead, and that’s the term they settled on.


Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 22, 2020, 04:41:58 pm
The problem was, there were several witnesses who delivered corroborated, sworn testimony implicating Trump of crimes, including a type of bribery (QPP) and abuse of power.

Mulvaney copped to the QPP on television, realized his error and recanted what he said on the video recordings.  How much proof do you need?

Later, he effected obstruction of Congress by refusing to release documentation and continues to do so.

Despite Slobodan's partly valid excuse of "innocent until proven guilty", you can't in your wildest dreams call the Senate shenanigans a fair trial.  Withholding evidence remains a crime.

You're okay with this stuff?  You really think this is "all just politics"?  You really think he's innocent? 

Or are you just playing politics yourselves?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 22, 2020, 04:44:23 pm
Bottom line is the Senate should dismiss the impeachment based on the fact that it did not specify a crime.  This is important for the future. Otherwise, we will have political impeachments every time the congress and the presidents are from different parties or whenever congress feels that it;s a good idea to impeach.  There would be no standards.  By drawing a line now, the Senate will prevent stupid impeachments in the future.  Otherwise we're going to face this as a regular situation which is very destructive to the democratic process.  That's why we have elections.


See what I wrote above.  This concern is specifically why "high crimes and misdemeanors" language is used.  As with some other instances, the Founders left it vague, sometimes intentionally (in my opinion). 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 22, 2020, 05:17:04 pm
The argument that no crime has to have been committed is in opposition to the Constitution.  It's false and an argument used by the Democrats and those opposed to Trump to justify a political impeachment that had no basis as a crime, which is required. The constitutional phrase says impeachment is for :"...Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."   The text uses the word crimes.  What could be clearer?  It also compares High crimes to Treason and Bribery which are crimes.  These are serious offenses and crimes that could lead to execution in the case of Treason.   Sure, Congress can do what it wants.  That doesn't mean they are conforming with the intent and specification of the Constitution.
I know that you don't like to educate yourself by reading about a topic before pronouncing on it, but a perusal of Federalist 65 will show that you are mistaken.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 22, 2020, 06:43:31 pm
“Why would an innocent man, and a jury interested in the truth, not want all the evidence out and all the witnesses to testify?"

The problem is, the jury is made up of Republicans, apparently sworn to defend Trump at all costs.  Even at the expense of justice.

Why would a prosecution rush through an inquiry, and then expect the judge and jury to find evidence to help him out? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 22, 2020, 06:50:24 pm
The problem was, there were several witnesses who delivered corroborated, sworn testimony implicating Trump of crimes, including a type of bribery (QPP) and abuse of power.

Mulvaney copped to the QPP on television, realized his error and recanted what he said on the video recordings.  How much proof do you need?

Later, he effected obstruction of Congress by refusing to release documentation and continues to do so.

Despite Slobodan's partly valid excuse of "innocent until proven guilty", you can't in your wildest dreams call the Senate shenanigans a fair trial.  Withholding evidence remains a crime.

You're okay with this stuff?  You really think this is "all just politics"?  You really think he's innocent? 

Or are you just playing politics yourselves?

Annnnd ... no. 

Mulvaney was making the point that all foreign affairs involve a QPQ, like every single one.  And the vast majority of the time, it is not illegal. 

Furthermore, the President is allowed to claim privilege and deny the house documents as he sees fit.  This is not obstruction, but regularly excepted practice by the courts.  Now, if the house disagrees, they can then take the President to court and argue their case, which they did not do.  It is only after a judge rules in favor of the house and president still refuses, that it become obstruction. 

In this case, since the house refused to argue any subpoenas in court, Trump can not be legally guilty of obstruction.  They even went so far as to retract Bolton's subpoena after Bolton himself went to court to see if he could testify. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 22, 2020, 06:59:17 pm
Preposterous bafflegab.  Mulvaney said what he said.  Go and review the tape if you like.


Even the Government Accountability Office called the aid-withholding a crime.

https://www.businessinsider.com/top-government-watchdog-says-trump-illegally-withheld-aid-to-ukraine-2020-1

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 22, 2020, 07:04:31 pm
Preposterous bafflegab.  Mulvaney said what he said.  Go and review the tape if you like.


Even the Government Accountability Office called the aid-withholding a crime.

https://www.businessinsider.com/top-government-watchdog-says-trump-illegally-withheld-aid-to-ukraine-2020-1

Nope.  Mulvaney was making the point all foreign affairs have QPQs.  Always have, always will.  Your TDS is just keeping you from looking at what he said objectively. 

Insofar as the GAO, please.  The GAO said in 2018 Trump broke the law keeping the National Parks open during the shut down.  I guess the Dems were a year late taking out the very dangerous Trump for allowing people to visit our parks. 

The GAO said Obama broke the law with the Bo Bergdahl trade.  I guess Obama should have been impeached too. 

You guys have a weak case, and you know it.  That is why the Dems keep on calling for the Senate to get them more evidence and testimony.  You cant have a strong case but still need more evidence; it's a basic contradiction. 

The Dems rushed through the inquiry, did not do their work, and are now expecting the Republicans to do for them.  Tough.  Either except you did a bad job, or go back back to the House and start a new fact finding inquiry. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 22, 2020, 08:11:20 pm
Okay, so I think we can all get a laugh out of this one. 

Lawmakers only allowed to drink milk, water on the Senate floor (https://nypost.com/2020/01/21/lawmakers-only-allowed-to-drink-milk-water-on-the-senate-floor/)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 23, 2020, 10:18:56 am
Has Trump gone yet?

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 23, 2020, 10:27:31 am
Has Trump gone yet?

Dream on 🙃
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 23, 2020, 10:33:22 am
Has Trump gone yet?
:-)

He's gone from Davos.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 23, 2020, 11:28:28 am
Okay, so I think we can all get a laugh out of this one. 

Lawmakers only allowed to drink milk, water on the Senate floor (https://nypost.com/2020/01/21/lawmakers-only-allowed-to-drink-milk-water-on-the-senate-floor/)

Fortunately, when I am watching the trial, I have more choices !
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 23, 2020, 11:49:46 am
Fortunately, when I am watching the trial, I have more choices !

White Russians?   ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 23, 2020, 12:03:28 pm
Fortunately, when I am watching the trial, I have more choices !

Peter, as a psychiatrist are you still handing out free diagnoses? If so you might want to give us one on Schiff. The question is, can he be gotten under control with medication or will it require confinement?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 23, 2020, 03:03:50 pm
I think Senator Cruz put it that best, "if you have the facts, you bang the facts, if you have the law, you bang the law, and if you dont have either, you bang the table! ... we've seen a whole lot of table banging." 

Man, so many great Billy C. jokes here. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on January 24, 2020, 02:12:59 am
I think Senator Cruz put it that best, "if you have the facts, you bang the facts, if you have the law, you bang the law, and if you dont have either, you bang the table! ... we've seen a whole lot of table banging." 

Man, so many great Billy C. jokes here.

And if all you have is Stormy Daniels?  :)

Sorry. Couldn’t help myself. If just popped into my mind.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 24, 2020, 07:18:00 am
And if all you have is Stormy Daniels?  :)

Sorry. Couldn’t help myself. If just popped into my mind.

Get ready to learn new maneuvers. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 24, 2020, 10:08:21 am
Why would a prosecution rush through an inquiry, and then expect the judge and jury to find evidence to help him out?

You have an odd definition of "rush." The inquiry was officially opened on Sept 24. In Oct the three committees involved started deposing witnesses and gathering (or requesting) other evidence. On Dec 16 the Judiciary Committee voted to approve the articles of impeachment and on the 18th the full house voted to send them to the Senate. This is rushing?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 24, 2020, 10:13:25 am
It would appear that it’s the Republicans who are doing all the rushing.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 24, 2020, 10:15:12 am
You have an odd definition of "rush." The inquiry was officially opened on Sept 24. In Oct the three committees involved started deposing witnesses and gathering (or requesting) other evidence. On Dec 16 the Judiciary Committee voted to approve the articles of impeachment and on the 18th the full house voted to send them to the Senate. This is rushing?

Well then, since they did such a thorough job, I guess they don’t need to worry about new evidence or testimony. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 24, 2020, 10:16:48 am
It would appear that it’s the Republicans who are doing all the rushing.

wait until Bloomberg and Steyer start rising in the polls and Bernie, Warren and Biden start going down. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 24, 2020, 01:20:49 pm
The usual suspect would like to reiterate, for the millionth time, that the very basics of the Western justice is that the accused do not need to prove their innocence.
 


Of course, but how does any of that relate to the refusal to allow your own cats to mew in court? It doesn't, as you obviously know.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 24, 2020, 01:26:12 pm
He's gone from Davos.


Oh good, it's a start!

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 24, 2020, 01:29:29 pm
Oh good, it's a start!

:-)

Yes, it is the beginning of his next five years as our President.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 24, 2020, 01:32:56 pm


Oh good, it's a start!

He was socking it to the fundamentalists today in the abortion argument; I was most taken by a blonde behind him with constantly shining teeth and a red coat. They all looked so happy as he looked so seriously earnest as he blew his achievements trumpet. It's sure to get him elected again. Ayatollahs take note: you need more chicks on show.

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 24, 2020, 01:39:04 pm
Yes, it is the beginning of his next five years as our President.

Quite possibly; after all, even Boris managed to lie his way to victory in what some imagined a sophisticated country.

It's not what they say or do, it's what the population wants to image they are saying and doing. Reality and result are secondary to cant. Payment comes later.

Remember olde Nigel, anyone?

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 24, 2020, 05:57:07 pm
Uh, dude...the symptoms of the concussions showed up later.

At least it was reported that way. Then after the first injury reports about 11 soldiers hurt, Trump referred to them as “headaches”. The latest report states 34 injured soldiers.

Quote
Trump had initially said he was told that no troops had been injured in the Jan. 8 strike. he Jan. 8 strike. The military said symptoms were not immediately reported after the strike and in some cases became known days later.

After the first reports that some soldiers had been hurt, Trump referred to them as “headaches” and said the cases were not as serious as injuries involving the loss of limbs.

Hoffman’s disclosure that 34 had been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury, or TBI, was the first update on the number injured in Iran’s missile attack on Ain al-Asad air base in western Iraq since the Pentagon said on Jan. 17 that 11 service members had been flown out of Iraq with concussion-like symptoms.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/brain-injuries-iraq-missile-strike_n_5e2b2b4fc5b6d6767fd38146
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 24, 2020, 06:15:36 pm
Well then, since they did such a thorough job, I guess they don’t need to worry about new evidence or testimony.

They did as thorough a job as they could given the three or four important witnesses whom Trump ordered not to testify, despite subpoenas. Now we'd like to hear from these people so the evidence is more complete. But the last thing the GOP wants is complete evidence.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 24, 2020, 06:27:30 pm
They did as thorough a job as they could given the three or four important witnesses whom Trump ordered not to testify, despite subpoenas. Now we'd like to hear from these people so the evidence is more complete. But the last thing the GOP wants is complete evidence.

But they (the Dems) refused to argue their subpoenas in court.  They even went so far as to pull John Bolton's subpoena after he, himself, went to court to see if he could testify. 

That's right, John Bolton said he wanted to testify and went to court to see if he could.  And then, the Dems pulled his subpoena.  Not the best optics for their case. 

So, no, they did not do a thorough job.  If they were really concerned about the country, they would have done their job and taken the subpoenas to court (like with Nixon) but did not. 

Since they lacked the courage of their convictions, I see no reason why the Senate should do their job for them, unless of course they are okay with Hunter Biden taking the stand. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 24, 2020, 06:39:31 pm
Peter, for someone who writes with a sense of authority, you have a fairly sophomoric understanding of US Civics. 

You, and many others here, seem to completely ignore we have a judicial branch that settles disputes between the executive branch and the legislative branch.  Are you purposely ignoring this, or just that uninformed on civics? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 24, 2020, 08:17:51 pm
Peter, for someone who writes with a sense of authority, you have a fairly sophomoric understanding of US Civics. 

You, and many others here, seem to completely ignore we have a judicial branch that settles disputes between the executive branch and the legislative branch.  Are you purposely ignoring this, or just that uninformed on civics?

:/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 25, 2020, 12:48:15 am
Not that <insert usual suspects here> would ever have watched the last three days presentations, but I gotta say, having watched a lot of it, if I was in legal trouble, I’d want Schiff as my lawyer.


.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 25, 2020, 04:49:18 am
Not that <insert usual suspects here> would ever have watched the last three days presentations..

Broadcast networks' impeachment viewership falls short of soap operas, study says


https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-impeachment-ratings-soap-operas (https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-impeachment-ratings-soap-operas)[/font][/font]


 ;D ;D ;D 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 25, 2020, 04:58:53 am
Not that <insert usual suspects here> would ever have watched the last three days presentations, but I gotta say, having watched a lot of it, if I was in legal trouble, I’d want Schiff as my lawyer.

From a Facebook post:
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 25, 2020, 10:10:58 am
Not that <insert usual suspects here> would ever have watched the last three days presentations, but I gotta say, having watched a lot of it, if I was in legal trouble, I’d want Schiff as my lawyer.


.
I didn't watch it.  But I agree he's an effective speaker; most politicians are.  Although there's something sleazy about him that comes off.   I suspect the Republicans will have some effective speakers as well. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 25, 2020, 11:47:04 am
But they (the Dems) refused to argue their subpoenas in court.  They even went so far as to pull John Bolton's subpoena after he, himself, went to court to see if he could testify. 

That's right, John Bolton said he wanted to testify and went to court to see if he could.  And then, the Dems pulled his subpoena.  Not the best optics for their case. 

So, no, they did not do a thorough job.  If they were really concerned about the country, they would have done their job and taken the subpoenas to court (like with Nixon) but did not. 

Since they lacked the courage of their convictions, I see no reason why the Senate should do their job for them, unless of course they are okay with Hunter Biden taking the stand.

A thorough investigation does not mean a perfect investigation. Maybe the Dems figured (correctly) that they had enough damning evidence without those witnesses and didn't want to play, as I have heard it called, rope-a-dope and drag things out. Christ, when you Trumpies are not accusing the Dems of rushing you are accusing them of dragging things out.

And answer me this: Why is the "innocent" Trump so anxious to keep so many witnesses and documents away from Congress? We all know why, some of us just won't admit it.

And, by the way, the Senate calling witnesses is not "doing the House's job for them." It is doing their own job. But, with the Chinless Worm running things, I have little hope--unless enough GOP senators discover their spine and do what is right.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on January 25, 2020, 11:48:27 am
So, no, they did not do a thorough job.  If they were really concerned about the country, they would have done their job and taken the subpoenas to court (like with Nixon) but did not.

You, and many others here, seem to completely ignore we have a judicial branch that settles disputes between the executive branch and the legislative branch.

This a complex issue and the case law is sparse.  But the two Supreme Court decisions that are directly applicable hold (1) that a president may not assert executive privilege to avoid complying with a subpoena issued pursuant to a criminal investigation* and (2) that the enforcement of a congressional subpoena issued as part of the impeachment process is a nonjusticiable "political question" that the courts are not constitutionally authorized to resolve.**

___
*In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), the Supreme Court decision involving President Nixon, the subpoena was issued by the Watergate special prosecutor.  In other words, the Court resolved a dispute about a claim of presidential privilege between the president and another official of the executive branch of the federal government.

**Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), a case involving the impeachment of a different Nixon (a federal judge).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 25, 2020, 12:23:13 pm
And answer me this: Why is the "innocent" Trump so anxious to keep so many witnesses and documents away from Congress? We all know why, some of us just won't admit it.

They have been asked this question several times.  They'll never, ever answer.

The alternative, they say is "Take it to court" - a process which would take years to resolve, as Schiff pointed out.  Far too late, in other words. 

"Justice delayed is justice denied"
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 25, 2020, 12:26:20 pm
George Conway, husband of Presidential advisor Kellyanne, gets it right.  The one witness who can clear all of this mess up is...............................President Trump himself!!  A 15 minute White House deposition would end it all pretty quickly (this was in fact done with President Clinton). 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/24/george-conway-oped-impeachment-witness/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 25, 2020, 12:38:59 pm
An excellent perspective, Alan.  Thanks for that. It perfectly answers the question of why Trump will never testify.

Of course, <insert usual suspects here> will say "You have the right to remain silent".   So I'll save them the keystrokes.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 25, 2020, 01:07:32 pm
I didn't watch it.  But I agree he's an effective speaker; most politicians are.  Although there's something sleazy about him that comes off.   I suspect the Republicans will have some effective speakers as well.

I watched it. It was a good speech. Even by Republican standards.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 25, 2020, 01:43:13 pm
I love it how the usual suspects are now compiling a list of excuses for the botched impeachment.


Mommy, mommy, snif, they didn't want to testify  :-X  Mommy, why do we need to wait for years for courts to come to our rescue?! Whaaaay, mommy, whaaaay!?  :'(
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 25, 2020, 02:11:39 pm
I love it how the usual suspects are now compiling a list of excuses for the botched impeachment.


Mommy, mommy, snif, they didn't want to testify  :-X  Mommy, why do we need to wait for years for courts to come to our rescue?! Whaaaay, mommy, whaaaay!?  :'(

Slobodan, you need a good dinner with some excellent wine to get your mind out of this place, this vale of sorrows, fibs and madness. I need one too (good dinner), but unlike you, I can't eat the damned thing unless I am prepared to sit up all night to avoid suffocating myself. Bon appetite!

:-(
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 25, 2020, 02:19:11 pm
George Conway, husband of Presidential advisor Kellyanne, gets it right.  The one witness who can clear all of this mess up is...............................President Trump himself!!  A 15 minute White House deposition would end it all pretty quickly (this was in fact done with President Clinton). 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/24/george-conway-oped-impeachment-witness/

Really?  So you’re telling me Trump would just be believed and not accused of lying?  Or Schiff would not make up his own “parity” of it? 

I have a bridge I am trying to get off my balance sheet if you’re interested. 

PS, I say let’s really drag this out and bring in everybody, Bolton, Mulvaney, Parnes, Hunter, Biden.  Let’s make it a party.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 25, 2020, 06:44:49 pm
This a complex issue and the case law is sparse.  But the two Supreme Court decisions that are directly applicable hold (1) that a president may not assert executive privilege to avoid complying with a subpoena issued pursuant to a criminal investigation* and (2) that the enforcement of a congressional subpoena issued as part of the impeachment process is a nonjusticiable "political question" that the courts are not constitutionally authorized to resolve.**

___
*In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), the Supreme Court decision involving President Nixon, the subpoena was issued by the Watergate special prosecutor.  In other words, the Court resolved a dispute about a claim of presidential privilege between the president and another official of the executive branch of the federal government.

**Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), a case involving the impeachment of a different Nixon (a federal judge).

Thanks for the insight Chris, you always bring interesting things to the table.  Btw, are you an attorney?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on January 25, 2020, 07:10:57 pm
Btw, are you an attorney?

I have a law degree and am a member of the District of Columbia Bar, but I've never practiced law.  Many years ago, as a young news reporter, I spent 12 years covering the U.S. Supreme Court, the Watergate investigations of the Senate select committee and the U.S. special prosecutor, and the hearings by the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives that resulted in the preparation of the articles of impeachment against President Nixon.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 25, 2020, 08:20:40 pm
I have a law degree and am a member of the District of Columbia Bar, but I've never practiced law.  Many years ago, as a young news reporter, I spent 12 years covering the U.S. Supreme Court, the Watergate investigations of the Senate select committee and the U.S. special prosecutor, and the hearings by the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives that resulted in the preparation of the articles of impeachment against President Nixon.

Thank you.  That’s a very interesting background.  And your photography is quite interesting as well. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 25, 2020, 08:53:12 pm
George Conway, husband of Presidential advisor Kellyanne, gets it right.  The one witness who can clear all of this mess up is...............................President Trump himself!!  A 15 minute White House deposition would end it all pretty quickly (this was in fact done with President Clinton). 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/24/george-conway-oped-impeachment-witness/
Why would anyone testify when the whole thing is a Democrat party political hit job that's been going on for 3 1/2 years? Why add credibility to the circus?  No, he's better off just going about doing the president's business serving the public's interest like he has been doing signing deals with China for example.  Just let the politicians throw pot shots at each other.  The public will see it for what it is.  Politics.  Nothing more.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 25, 2020, 09:00:36 pm
So, how long before we hear the verdict?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 25, 2020, 09:01:10 pm
So, how long before we hear the verdict?

A few weeks ago.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 25, 2020, 11:11:48 pm
A few weeks ago.

Exactly, and that's probably why Nancy Pelosi decided to stay (at least) one step ahead and not wait for more evidence. Adam Shiff did well in making the case, thus forcing the Rebublicans to oppose (action --> reaction):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo89S64CBWA

The outcome of the impeachment trial is predetermined, so she focuses on inflicting as much damage to the Trump reelection campaign as possible. It's the period after the trial when the evidence is going to be presented to the American voters, and it's going to be made clear that the (Senate) Republicans were actively not trying to find the truth (thus violating their oath to protect the constitution).

Step 1 is to make sure that the people understand that the logical thing (from a truth-finding perspective) for the Senate to do, is to call more witnesses, which they won't because of the Republican majority.

A next step is disclosing the body of evidence that Lev Parnas has only started to reveal, as a personal insurance policy to avoid being 'eliminated':
What Does Audio Of Trump Seeming To Order Yovanovitch's Firing Change?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L5YuM_7Ba8

This too, will be 'ignored' by Republicans, "because it was not entered as evidence for the impeachment trial".

One of the next things, after the trial, may be an increasing pressure on revealing the role of Mike Pompeo, who has gotten 'surprisingly' little attention for his role in the scheme that he was fully aware of. Bolton was clever enough to distance himself from the 'drug deal'. Pompeo has larger ambitions, so he is forced to stay on board, until he bails to avoid being dragged under.

This also helps Pelosi to improve the odds of a Democrat winning the elections, despite the relatively 'weak' line-up of candidates ...

Brilliant, chapeau...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 26, 2020, 06:15:18 am
... The outcome of the impeachment trial is predetermined, so she focuses on inflicting as much damage to the Trump reelection campaign as possible...


 ;D ;D ;D


So, it is not about the Constitution, national security, truth, blah, blah, blah... but about inflicting as much political damage to Trump 2020, as Karla Marx already blurted out. Sounds like a great boomerang strategy. No doubt it is going to work.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 26, 2020, 07:30:38 am
LOL Bart. 

I know that most of what leaves the USA in terms of opinion are from our media and celebrities.  But if you are basing your opinion on how we feel about Trump on them, then you are going to be off. 

It is a fact that pretty much everyone who voted for Trump in 2016 plans on voting for him in 2020.  The never-Trumper conservatives, who were primarily worried about electing a liberal dressed as a Republican, are more then satisfied with his conservative bona-fides in his first terms and most will be voting for him in 2020.  Then, in other polling, a sizable amount of people who voted for HRC in 2016 have already said they plan on voting for Trump in 2020. 

Throw into that that many conservatives who end up being polled lie and say they will be voting Blue just to screw with the pollsters. 

Last, this whole ordeal is making me think of Brexit.  Basically you had elites in office who thought they knew better then the country and tried to undo their vote.  In the end it only made the voters more and more irate.  The same thing is happening with this impeachment. 

Throw into that nothing but flawed candidates on the Dems side, and the Dems are heading for a reckoning in November. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 26, 2020, 07:34:53 am

 ;D ;D ;D


So, it is not about the Constitution, national security, truth, blah,[...]

Of course the impeachment about the Constitution, but the Republicans seemingly don't care.

So, wadaya gonna to do ..., have it backfire on them.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 26, 2020, 09:29:08 am
Of course the impeachment about the Constitution, but the Republicans seemingly don't care.

So, wadaya gonna to do ..., have it backfire on them.
Bart: You can;t take back what you said.  Slobodan called you on it.  It's about damaging Trump for the re-election.  That's all it's been about for 3 1/2 years.  Nobody gives a damn about the constitution.  These are politicians we're talking about.  All they care about is power. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 26, 2020, 09:44:16 am
Bart: You can;t take back what you said.  Slobodan called you on it.  It's about damaging Trump for the re-election.  That's all it's been about for 3 1/2 years.  Nobody gives a damn about the constitution.  These are politicians we're talking about.  All they care about is power.

I was watching a recent interview with Daniel Hannan on Brexit and he made an interesting point.  He noted that after a while, the Labour Party's constant objections on the conditions of the Brexit deal made it obvious it was about voiding the vote and staying in the EU.  This did nothing but piss off the voters who choose to leave and set up the perfect condition for the recent win for Boris Johnson and the Tories. 

Yesterday, I was listening to an interview with Victor Davis Hanson who, without even mentioning Breixt or Daniel Hannan, pretty much said he is seeing the same set up with our election this year.  Even within his state of CA, he seeing a lot of anger amongst conservatives about having the last 3 years robbed from them by the Dems' non-stop partisan inquiries. 

Unless Biden suddenly become charismatic and creates a level of enthusiasm beyond, "we need to vote for him because he says he can beat Trump," the Dems are in for a rude awakening this Autumn. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 26, 2020, 10:27:26 am
I was watching a recent interview with Daniel Hannan on Brexit and he made an interesting point.  He noted that after a while, the Labour Party's constant objections on the conditions of the Brexit deal made it obvious it was about voiding the vote and staying in the EU.  This did nothing but piss off the voters who choose to leave and set up the perfect condition for the recent win for Boris Johnson and the Tories. 

Yesterday, I was listening to an interview with Victor Davis Hanson who, without even mentioning Breixt or Daniel Hannan, pretty much said he is seeing the same set up with our election this year.  Even within his state of CA, he seeing a lot of anger amongst conservatives about having the last 3 years robbed from them by the Dems' non-stop partisan inquiries. 

Unless Biden suddenly become charismatic and creates a level of enthusiasm beyond, "we need to vote for him because he says he can beat Trump," the Dems are in for a rude awakening this Autumn.



I will grant you this: in the Brexit fiasco, we saw the parallel of your Trumpian status, in that those with the more insular eye voted as they voted. I kinda suspect that your great "American People" are much the same as the wider British population in that what happens in Germany, Ethiopia, Iraq, Israel , and the rest of the world matters not a jot in Kansas or Ohio, for example.

I mean no disrespect with the "American People" number; I quote it as I do because since US politics has almost replaced British politics on our tv, our politicians and commentators have started to refer to the "British People" too, something quite revolutionary in linguistic terms: we previously, historically, referred to ourselves as British, the British in the collective sense of the island population, or English, Scottish etc. when being more specific. We never spoke of our countrymen as the British People; it's an unwelcomed aberration.

It used to make sense when speaking of the Navajo People or members of tribes; not when talking about the Brits. It reeks of too much exposure to US media, largely bequeathed us courtesy the era when an Australian owned Sky News. Diluting the Brtish heritage is a sweet kind of revenge for the creation of Australia, don't you think?

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 26, 2020, 11:23:45 am
Interesting point, Rob. Someone did a street interrogation of passing people in their late twenties and early thirties. I've forgotten where he was, but he asked the subjects who Adam Schiff is. None of them knew. Of course, Schiff would be appalled. After all, he's a politician who's been on TV a lot lately. But the survey shows you something about people's attention to politics.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 26, 2020, 12:02:07 pm
The GOP is at it again with this "overturn the election" crapola. More hysterical nincompoopery to stir up the "base." If it were the case that Clinton would become president on Trump's removal, there would be some validity in that claim. But it would be Mike "hallucinator" Pence who would take over. And he received the exact same minority of votes that Trump did.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 26, 2020, 12:04:47 pm
... But the survey shows you something about people's attention to politics.
Shooting Out Loud      Whatever the contents... seems very effective...
The basic defense calling everything a witchhunt, without going into the matter and taking the responsibility to testify as a President to the people... seems very effective...


Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 26, 2020, 12:08:35 pm
...he received the exact same minority of votes that Trump did.

Not from the Electoral College, Peter. What they both got was a significant majority. It's gonna be deja vu all over again this November. Prepare to eat your heart out.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 26, 2020, 12:38:38 pm
We never spoke of our countrymen as the British People...

Perhaps because you’ve never been people, only the Queen’s subjects? 😉
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 26, 2020, 01:04:07 pm
Not from the Electoral College, Peter. What they both got was a significant majority. It's gonna be deja vu all over again this November. Prepare to eat your heart out.
If that occurs, it will be a real shame that the country will have to endure four more years of Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 26, 2020, 01:11:28 pm
Perhaps because you’ve never been people, only the Queen’s subjects? 😉

How arrogant!

Anyway, your suggestion is specious: the situation was and remains the same before and after the introduction of the word "people" into the appellation.

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 26, 2020, 01:27:19 pm
If that occurs, it will be a real shame that the country will have to endure four more years of Trump.

Hoe exactly are you worse off today?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on January 26, 2020, 02:17:55 pm
Perhaps because you’ve never been people, only the Queen’s subjects? 😉

I think the Queen's subjects were generally regarded as people. In any event, with some exceptions, anyone born in the UK after the coming into force of the British Nationality Act 1948 has been a citizen of the UK.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 26, 2020, 02:30:47 pm
Hoe exactly are you worse off today?

We are ALL worse off today.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 26, 2020, 03:16:32 pm
If that occurs, it will be a real shame that the country will have to endure four more years of Trump.

Yes, it’ll be sad, Fab. We may see another four million or more jobs created in the following four years. We’ll probably be able to continue with economic growth of more than 4 percent. Unemployment claims probably will drop even lower than the 49-year low we see at the moment. Median household income probably will continue to rise, even though it’s already hit an all-time high under Trump. African-American and Hispanic unemployment probably will drop even further than their all-time lows at the moment. I could go on listing these disastrous failures under Trump, but why bother. We’ll just have to continue with these catastrophes once Trump’s in for another four years.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 26, 2020, 03:17:05 pm
We are ALL worse off today.

I am not, at least not because of Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 26, 2020, 03:19:07 pm
We are ALL worse off today.

In what way, Peter?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 26, 2020, 03:33:20 pm
In what way, Peter?

look at this tweet:  It says it all in a nutshell...

Remember; this is the president of the United States-
not your nextdoor neighbour ( i hope for you)

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Shifty Adam Schiff is a CORRUPT POLITICIAN, and probably a very sick man. He has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 26, 2020, 03:42:10 pm
look at this tweet:  It says it all in a nutshell...

Remember; this is the president of the United States-
not your nextdoor neighbour ( i hope for you)

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Shifty Adam Schiff is a CORRUPT POLITICIAN, and probably a very sick man. He has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!

And you think this is an inaccurate statement about Schiff?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 26, 2020, 04:24:45 pm
I watched a comedy show recently, can't remember which one, that sent out a "reporter" on the street to ask people if they had voted yet on the "impeachment". They didn't show the ones who saw through it all, it is just a comedy show, but they found a fair number who treated the question seriously and even a few who admitted to having voted.

If I were a US voter with no a priori axe to grind, the one thing I would certainly take away from the whole impeachment show is that witnesses were prevented from speaking. People can spin that all they want, I know what I think about it. Whether the average US voter has even noticed is a different matter.

Whatever is going at the level of the media, or social media, or anywhere else, the one thing that the Democrats should be doing at the grass roots level is to get people to register to vote. From what has been widely reported, there has been a widespread systematic effort to dis-enfranchise federal voters in the US and given the ignorance of most people on how the system works, it might be a full-time job for a lot of staffers to educate their supporters about how to vote. From my point of view, this silliness exists only because the US insists on making the right to vote a political matter instead of what it should be, a civic issue dealt with by a public body. (Btw, Alan is going to pipe in now to tell me that the way the US does it is the best way possible just like he did the last time I brought this up. And he will still be wrong.)

I was amused by Pompeo blowing up at a reporter who asked him a question he didn't like. Politics 101: when politicians get angry at journalists, that's a sure sign that the journalist is on to something.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 26, 2020, 04:31:32 pm
In what way, Peter?

Hmm, let me name the ways. You are living in a world where Iran is more likely to get the bomb. You are living in a world where the climate is more likely to change in disastrous ways. W where the air and water are more polluted. You are living in a country where scientific expertise is being stripped from the government. Where mendacity and venality have become the norm at the highest levels of government. Where the rule of law is flouted. Etc etc etc.

Are you really not aware of all this? Or do you just not care?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 26, 2020, 05:10:27 pm
And you think this is an inaccurate statement about Schiff?
I think this president is an embarrassment for the US.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 26, 2020, 06:03:10 pm
In what way, Peter?

PeterAit said most of it for me. To his excellent (but far from exhaustive) list, I'll add:

Most of the western world has lost much of their respect for America.  To those of you who will invariably respond "Why should we care?", there is no temperate response.

"Get rid of her!" Trump is heard saying in recording (in the presence of a guy he claimed on TV that he'd never met) referring to one of his ambassadors.  "Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it."

It's like something from a gangster movie.  But it's real.

The really stupid thing about Trump is that his lies are so obvious.  You'd think the "most powerful man in the world" would be smarter than that. 

But no.

We are all worse off for having to endure this atrocious, demeaning, corrupt public spectacle for nearly four years.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 26, 2020, 06:06:26 pm
We’ll probably be able to continue with economic growth of more than 4 percent.

Validation, please.  This document says that you're exaggerating by a factor of two.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

 
Quote
Unemployment claims probably will drop even lower than the 49-year low we see at the moment.

You want fries with those jobs?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 26, 2020, 07:28:56 pm
Drip, drip, drip, drip......................................................  Stuff keeps coming out every day.  We now have a video of President Trump requesting that Ambassador Yovanovitch be removed from office.  Tonight we have the outlines of what John Bolton might say if called to testify.  The NY Times has an article on what is in the draft of the book and it's not painting a pretty picture:  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html   What morsels will come out tomorrow?  Where is the President's key lawyer, Mr. Giuliani, when he is really needed?

Of course the truth doesn't matter in this age of bots and hashtags. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 26, 2020, 07:48:32 pm
Right, Alan. A lot of drips are working to unseat this president. Happily it's clear to a majority that they're drips, and crooked drips at that. In the long run those drips are going to help Trump get reelected. I realize that if you're deep into fake news you'll never understand that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 26, 2020, 07:49:41 pm
Drip, drip, drip, drip......................................................  Stuff keeps coming out every day.  We now have a video of President Trump requesting that Ambassador Yovanovitch be removed from office.  Tonight we have the outlines of what John Bolton might say if called to testify.  The NY Times has an article on what is in the draft of the book and it's not painting a pretty picture:  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html   What morsels will come out tomorrow?  Where is the President's key lawyer, Mr. Giuliani, when he is really needed?

Of course the truth doesn't matter in this age of bots and hashtags.

So, what did you actually learn that was new from Bolton's so called outline?   Or the video tape for that matter?

And don't you just LOVE the timing?  Not a pre-planned hit job, no sir!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 26, 2020, 07:56:07 pm
The GOP is at it again with this "overturn the election" crapola. More hysterical nincompoopery to stir up the "base." If it were the case that Clinton would become president on Trump's removal, there would be some validity in that claim. But it would be Mike "hallucinator" Pence who would take over. And he received the exact same minority of votes that Trump did.
Pence wasn't elected president.  Trump was.  So it would be overturning the election.  The losing party wants to overturn an American presidential election.  As Pelosi said, she's been working at it for 2 1/2 years. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 26, 2020, 08:01:35 pm
The GOP is at it again with this "overturn the election" crapola. More hysterical nincompoopery to stir up the "base." If it were the case that Clinton would become president on Trump's removal, there would be some validity in that claim. But it would be Mike "hallucinator" Pence who would take over. And he received the exact same minority of votes that Trump did.
Pence wasn't elected president.  Trump was.  So it would be overturning the election.  The losing party wants to overturn an American presidential election.  As Pelosi said, she's been working at it for 2 1/2 years. 
I watched a comedy show recently, can't remember which one, that sent out a "reporter" on the street to ask people if they had voted yet on the "impeachment". They didn't show the ones who saw through it all, it is just a comedy show, but they found a fair number who treated the question seriously and even a few who admitted to having voted.

If I were a US voter with no a priori axe to grind, the one thing I would certainly take away from the whole impeachment show is that witnesses were prevented from speaking. People can spin that all they want, I know what I think about it. Whether the average US voter has even noticed is a different matter.

Whatever is going at the level of the media, or social media, or anywhere else, the one thing that the Democrats should be doing at the grass roots level is to get people to register to vote. From what has been widely reported, there has been a widespread systematic effort to dis-enfranchise federal voters in the US and given the ignorance of most people on how the system works, it might be a full-time job for a lot of staffers to educate their supporters about how to vote. From my point of view, this silliness exists only because the US insists on making the right to vote a political matter instead of what it should be, a civic issue dealt with by a public body. (Btw, Alan is going to pipe in now to tell me that the way the US does it is the best way possible just like he did the last time I brought this up. And he will still be wrong.)

I was amused by Pompeo blowing up at a reporter who asked him a question he didn't like. Politics 101: when politicians get angry at journalists, that's a sure sign that the journalist is on to something.

I don't recall what I said the last time.  Please refresh my memory as they say in court.  :)  In any case, what did you mean by the bolded statement? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 26, 2020, 08:04:24 pm
Drip, drip, drip, drip......................................................  Stuff keeps coming out every day.  We now have a video of President Trump requesting that Ambassador Yovanovitch be removed from office.  Tonight we have the outlines of what John Bolton might say if called to testify.  The NY Times has an article on what is in the draft of the book and it's not painting a pretty picture:  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html   What morsels will come out tomorrow?  Where is the President's key lawyer, Mr. Giuliani, when he is really needed?

Of course the truth doesn't matter in this age of bots and hashtags. 

Alan, you said the same thing about Russian collusion.  Didn't all the drips prove it. Well, no. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 26, 2020, 08:44:44 pm
... We now have a video of President Trump requesting that Ambassador Yovanovitch be removed from office...

So?

It is a presidential prerogative to appoint and recall ambassadors.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 26, 2020, 09:10:50 pm
As an outsider, I don't understand why is White House banning Bolton from testifying at Trump's impeachment hearing? Isn't that suppression of critical and factual information related to the impeachment?

Quote
In an August 2019 discussion with Bolton, Trump said he preferred sending no aid to Ukraine until officials there turned over all materials they had about the investigation that involved Biden, as well as Hillary Clinton backers in Ukraine.

The White House has directed Bolton and other administration officials not to cooperate with the impeachment probe, although Bolton has said he would testify on the matter if subpoenaed.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-bolton/trump-told-bolton-he-wanted-to-hold-ukraine-aid-pending-help-on-biden-probe-nytimes-idUSKBN1ZP0VD?il=0
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 26, 2020, 09:34:09 pm
As an outsider, I don't understand why is White House banning Bolton from testifying at Trump's impeachment hearing? Isn't that suppression of critical and factual information related to the impeachment?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-bolton/trump-told-bolton-he-wanted-to-hold-ukraine-aid-pending-help-on-biden-probe-nytimes-idUSKBN1ZP0VD?il=0 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-bolton/trump-told-bolton-he-wanted-to-hold-ukraine-aid-pending-help-on-biden-probe-nytimes-idUSKBN1ZP0VD?il=0)


The Constitution provides for separation of power between the executive branch (the presidency) and the legislative branch (Congress including the House of Representatives and the Senate).   Each are co-equal branches of the government.   The President's personal advisors are considered part of the executive branch and the president has authority over his people. It's called Executive Privilege.  It's sort of like attorney-client privilege.  The Congress cannot violate that privilege any more than the President can compel a congressman or Senator to do things. 

There are cases where this privilege can be superceded.  However, the House never bothered to follow through with Bolton having rushed to judgement without any real evidence.  Shame on them.  So now, whether Trump agrees or not, it's up to the Republican controlled Senate to call witnesses.  I suspect they won;t as the whole thing is political, Democrats vying for power and Republicans trying to keep it.  I think Republicans see this as a losing situation the longer it goes on. Democrats will just continue to bang Republican heads with a brick during the whole proceedings. The quicker it's over, the quicker everyone could forget about impeachment and go about thrashing each other in other ways.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 26, 2020, 10:09:04 pm
So?

It is a presidential prerogative to appoint and recall ambassadors.

Listen to the recording and see if you agree with the way he chose to do that.  His words and his tone of voice.  Presidential?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 26, 2020, 10:44:14 pm
Listen to the recording and see if you agree with the way he chose to do that.  His words and his tone of voice.  Presidential?

What's "Presidential"?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 26, 2020, 10:47:49 pm
Man, this is so confusing. I thought Trump and Bolton were best buds. What happened?

It's a sh*t show.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 26, 2020, 11:48:31 pm
Man, this is so confusing. I thought Trump and Bolton were best buds. What happened?

It's a sh*t show.

You don't mean the Schitt's Creek Show? That one earned several awards, but they use professional actors and writers.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 27, 2020, 05:05:04 am
Listen to the recording and see if you agree with the way he chose to do that.  His words and his tone of voice.  Presidential?

https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/foul-mouthed-presidents-and-how-donald-trump-compares.html/ (https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/foul-mouthed-presidents-and-how-donald-trump-compares.html/)


 Not every president has been [/font][/size]perfectly presidential (https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/presidents-with-the-most-unpresidential-personalities-including-donald-trump.html/)[/font][/size]. Especially not behind closed doors at the [/font][/size]White House (https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/all-the-secrets-about-the-white-house-youve-always-wondered-revealed.html/)[/font][/size]. Some people (on both sides of the political aisle) consider the use of profanity a sign of a [/font][/size]limited vocabulary (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-swearing-a-sign-of-a-limited-vocabulary/)[/font][/size]. But many presidents have resorted to vulgar language at some point during their tenure in the Oval Office. Yet some presidents had more of a reputation for their foul mouths than others.[/font][/size][size=78%]
Quote
[/font][/size]
[size=78%]
[/size]
[size=78%]P.S. Apologies for the garbled post, this appears to be a new forum glitch [/size]
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 27, 2020, 07:00:50 am
So?

It is a presidential prerogative to appoint and recall ambassadors.

For personal reasons?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 27, 2020, 07:07:11 am
For personal reasons?

Have you ever heard the term "serving at the pleasure of the President"? Besides, nothing personal about that. If an ambassador does not support President's policy, they should either resign, or be kicked out.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 27, 2020, 07:38:06 am
Black Latina for Trump: "Impeached & re-elected"  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 27, 2020, 07:44:09 am
Slobodan,

I doubt that the formatting problem you are experiencing is caused by the forum software. More likely by the combination of various factors at your end.
What device and browser are you using for writing? Is the Internet speed fast enough or does it slow down as you write?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 27, 2020, 07:55:40 am
Slobodan,

I doubt that the formatting problem you are experiencing is caused by the forum software. More likely by the combination of various factors at your end.
What device and browser are you using for writing? Is the Internet speed fast enough or does it slow down as you write?


Les,


It is possible that something is wrong on my end, but not sure what that could be. I've been posting on this site for, gasp, 15 years the same way. It's been two months since I moved to Europe, and have been posting here without problems until a day or two ago. My Internet speed is 150Mbps, that is, 15x faster here in Belgrade than what I had in Miami.


I am using the latest iMac, both in terms of software and hardware. The same things happen if I write a post on my iPad (a bit old, but with the latest iOS) or iPhone (the latest everything).


Most issues arise when copying and pasting text to quote. but even without that, you can see in this very post that extra space between paragraphs has been inserted, but not by me.


I just posted additional examples in the About This Site thread, so I suggest we move any further discussion there, and leave the poor Trump alone: https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=133681.0 (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=133681.0)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 27, 2020, 07:58:33 am
Have you ever heard the term "serving at the pleasure of the President"? Besides, nothing personal about that. If an ambassador does not support President's policy, they should either resign, or be kicked out.

So you prefer a corrupt President over a valuable and respected diplomat, just because he can fire people at will, or start a war?

Trump wanted aid to Ukraine frozen until it helped on probes of political rivals: New York Times
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment/trump-wanted-aid-to-ukraine-frozen-until-it-helped-on-probes-of-political-rivals-new-york-times-idUSKBN1ZP0K6
Quote
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump told a then-top aide in August he wanted to freeze security aid to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden, the New York Times reported on Sunday.

Bolton was correct in not wanting to participate in that drug deal, so he resigned. The ambassador to Ukraine probably had other urgent reasons (like defending American interests against a local Russian invasion) rather than her personal job security, to stay on her post.

Others show less moral backbone and a sense of duty.

And we've e.g. not even started exposing Mike Pompeo's role in all this ...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 27, 2020, 08:02:47 am
Hmm, let me name the ways. You are living in a world where Iran is more likely to get the bomb. You are living in a world where the climate is more likely to change in disastrous ways. W where the air and water are more polluted. You are living in a country where scientific expertise is being stripped from the government. Where mendacity and venality have become the norm at the highest levels of government. Where the rule of law is flouted. Etc etc etc.

Are you really not aware of all this? Or do you just not care?

Hi, Peter. I'm fully aware that this is the kind of garbage our fake news media pump out by the bushel. I'm aware enough of what's really going on to ignore it. How about you? Guess not.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 27, 2020, 08:08:11 am
So you prefer a corrupt President over a valuable and respected diplomat, just because he can fire people at will, or start a war?...

Yes, because that's who we elected. We didn't elect her and couldn't care less about her "value and respectability." However, my "yes" doesn't mean I agree with your descriptor "corrupt."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 27, 2020, 08:10:04 am
You want fries with those jobs?

Hi, Peter. So as far as you're concerned, the only jobs worth having are as CEO of a multinational? You'd rather have your government hand out taxpayers' money to unemployed people than let them make a buck pushing hamburgers and fries? Well, that's certainly the spirit that pumped up Venezuela's economy to its world-beating level.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 27, 2020, 09:18:48 am
The rooster: <crows>

The sun: <comes up>

The rooster: "Lookie what I did!"

In a nutshell, this is Trump taking credit for the economic recovery, which started in 2010. The most one can say about Trump is that he didn't screw it up.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 27, 2020, 09:20:11 am
The most one can say about Trump is that he didn't screw it up.

Which Obama did, again and again.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 27, 2020, 09:28:16 am
Hi, Peter. I'm fully aware that this is the kind of garbage our fake news media pump out by the bushel. I'm aware enough of what's really going on to ignore it. How about you? Guess not.

We'd appreciate it if you shared with us your alternate sources of information, given that the ones mentioned so far are so unreliable.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 27, 2020, 09:36:23 am
Which Obama did, again and again.

The economy has been on an upward trajectory since after the 2008 crash. Tying current economic performance with the sitting President's actions is a mug's game. They manipulate strategic levers, which by definition means that their effects are diffuse and felt over the long term. Correlating the number of jobs created last month with current politics is propaganda. Unfortunately, everyone engages in it.

Your assertion that Obama screwed up the economy is simply ridiculous. You're just repeating Trump talking points. We have enough of that from politicians.

More generally, the constant references back to Obama and Hilary are getting old. Change the record.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 27, 2020, 09:39:46 am
Yes, because that's who we elected. We didn't elect her and couldn't care less about her "value and respectability." However, my "yes" doesn't mean I agree with your descriptor "corrupt."

You may be missing the larger point. Maybe the ambassador serves at the pleasure of the president, but that's not the same thing as the president's whim, is it? He may have the right to fire them at his whim, but others have the right to judge that action, maybe even the duty to call him on it. You may not like that, but that's ok.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 27, 2020, 09:58:52 am
Trump fired someone?  Why is that news?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 27, 2020, 10:02:28 am
Here's the people closest to him who were fired or left or disappeared??  :)
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/08/politics/trump-admin-departures-trnd/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 27, 2020, 10:06:15 am
The economy has been on an upward trajectory since after the 2008 crash. Tying current economic performance with the sitting President's actions is a mug's game. They manipulate strategic levers, which by definition means that their effects are diffuse and felt over the long term. Correlating the number of jobs created last month with current politics is propaganda. Unfortunately, everyone engages in it.

Your assertion that Obama screwed up the economy is simply ridiculous. You're just repeating Trump talking points. We have enough of that from politicians.

More generally, the constant references back to Obama and Hilary are getting old. Change the record.

Robert, the economy always is on an upward trajectory after a recession. Were it not, we'd call it a continuing recession. The problem with the Obama "upward trajectory" was that time and again he did things to slow it down. Compare his recovery to the recovery during Reagan's era-- and for that matter during Trump's partial term. At the moment, employment is rising and wages are rising. Yes, during Obama's terms employment was rising, but not nearly as fast as it's rising now. At the moment, African-American and Hispanic employment are higher than they've ever been. (Oh yeah, pointing that out is a "mug's game). Happily, we don't know what the situation would have been under Hillary, and, happily, we're never going to find out.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 27, 2020, 10:06:20 am
Hi, Peter. I'm fully aware that this is the kind of garbage our fake news media pump out by the bushel. I'm aware enough of what's really going on to ignore it. How about you? Guess not.

So your answer is that you don't care. Why am I not surprised.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 27, 2020, 10:08:36 am
So your answer is that you don't care. Why am I not surprised.

I care very much, and looking at what Trump's achieved, I'm happy as a clam. You can go on being unhappy if that's your choice.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 27, 2020, 10:09:35 am
The economy has been on an upward trajectory since after the 2008 crash. Tying current economic performance with the sitting President's actions is a mug's game. They manipulate strategic levers, which by definition means that their effects are diffuse and felt over the long term. Correlating the number of jobs created last month with current politics is propaganda. Unfortunately, everyone engages in it.

Your assertion that Obama screwed up the economy is simply ridiculous. You're just repeating Trump talking points. We have enough of that from politicians.

More generally, the constant references back to Obama and Hilary are getting old. Change the record.



Trump's tax bill helped the economy a lot.  More personal wealth, lower business taxes, better trade agreements, lowered regulations have all contributed to a better economy.  Unfortunately, we're still spending like drunken sailors on a six month shore leave, my apologies to the navy.  So increased borrowing and new printing of dollars will hurt us more in the future.  Short term it looks good for the re-election.  But I'm afraid we'll all pay the piper later on. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 27, 2020, 10:12:27 am
... but others have the right to judge that action, maybe even the duty to call him on it. You may not like that, but that's ok.

I am ok with people not agreeing with his reasoning for firing her. I am, however, also pointing out that it is not some sort of a smoking gun in a mafia trial, like "omg, there is a tape with him asking to get rid of her," with the implication that involves a larga trunk and a shovel. He fired her for disagreeing with his policies, not on a whim. Perfectly within his rights.


I am not making any judgment about her reputation or respectability. I do not know her. In my seven years of working for the State Department, I met plenty of smart people and plenty of dumb people (the latter being more ideologically aggressive). I do not know where she falls within that spectrum.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 27, 2020, 10:27:51 am
  But I'm afraid we'll all pay the piper later on.

"afraid" ?  Really?  Debt is debt. The chickens will come home to roost. He stole that money from your kids and their kids.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 27, 2020, 10:28:37 am
Ambassadors not only serve at the pleasure of the president.  They are the president's voice.  They are suppose to echo his policies which are the people's policies.  The president is elected.  Ambassadors are not.  If they can't support the president's views, they should resign.  If they screw up, the president takes the hit, not them, like when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking he got an OK from the American ambassador that America would look the other way.  In that case, an ambassador's screw-up caused a war that the president had to to correct. 

How many here would go against their boss's requests and ignore their policies? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 27, 2020, 10:33:07 am
We'd appreciate it if you shared with us your alternate sources of information, given that the ones mentioned so far are so unreliable.

Relevant to this topic is a new poll where a bunch of people all over the political spectrum were presented with a list of 30 media sources, ranging from very liberal to very conservative, and asked which ones they trusted. The conservative-leaning responders trusted only 7, and 4 of them were Fox, Breitbart, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh. Amazing! Four or the most inaccurate news sources on earth, as proven over and over, and so many people actually trust them?!?! I knew this, of course, but to see it laid out in black and white.....?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 27, 2020, 10:33:51 am
"afraid" ?  Really?  Debt is debt. The chickens will come home to roost. He stole that money from your kids and their kids.
Well,  congress is responsible for spending and the budget.  They should have cut spending the same time they cut taxes.   Of course he's involved as much as they are.  But so are the voters who refuse to ever give up a government benefit.  SO all the politicians, president and congressmen and senators alike, all go on spending like drunken sailors. Otherwise they''ll lose our greedy vote.  It's all our fault and it's been going on for decades. 

We won;t have to wait until our kids and grandkids.  Inflation will wipe out our wealth and value of our assets.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 27, 2020, 10:36:23 am
Yes, because that's who we elected. We didn't elect her and couldn't care less about her "value and respectability." However, my "yes" doesn't mean I agree with your descriptor "corrupt."

"We" did not elect him. "We" (the American people) rejected him by a large majority.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 27, 2020, 10:36:33 am
Relevant to this topic is a new poll where a bunch of people all over the political spectrum were presented with a list of 30 media sources, ranging from very liberal to very conservative, and asked which ones they trusted. The conservative-leaning responders trusted only 7, and 4 of them were Fox, Breitbart, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh. Amazing! Four or the most inaccurate news sources on earth, as proven over and over, and so many people actually trust them?!?! I knew this, of course, but to see it laid out in black and white.....?

How do you know if the poll wasn;t biased? Why don;t you provide the link so we can check?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 27, 2020, 10:37:44 am
"We" did not elect him. "We" (the American people) rejected him by a large majority.
We're going in circles.  We already nauseously discussed the electoral system ad infinitum.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 27, 2020, 10:40:57 am
"We" did not elect him. "We" (the American people) rejected him by a large majority.

Broken record.

Move to a country where "American people" vote, instead of people in the fifty American states.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 27, 2020, 10:49:55 am
Not directly Trump-related, but I am sure he would approve. The GOP government of North Dakota passed a law that in order to register to vote you must have a valid street address, such as 123 Main St, Anytown, ND. The GOP knew perfectly well that the Native American reservations, where thousands of citizens live, simply are not set up with street addresses. So thousands of people do not have street addresses and cannot get them--and these most original of US citizens, who lean Democratic, are not allowed to vote.

The GOP continues its long slide into vileness.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 27, 2020, 11:00:25 am
Relevant to this topic is a new poll where a bunch of people all over the political spectrum were presented with a list of 30 media sources, ranging from very liberal to very conservative, and asked which ones they trusted. The conservative-leaning responders trusted only 7, and 4 of them were Fox, Breitbart, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh. Amazing! Four or the most inaccurate news sources on earth, as proven over and over, and so many people actually trust them?!?! I knew this, of course, but to see it laid out in black and white.....?

Last I checked, Hannity is not a media source.  He is a biased commentator, which he admits to.  Second, why the hell would you put Limbaugh on that list?  He too is not a news source, which I would consider an entire network or company. 

Seems like this could be a stacked sample to make a point.  Please provide the entire study. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 27, 2020, 11:05:24 am
Validation, please.  This document says that you're exaggerating by a factor of two.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

 
You want fries with those jobs?

Do you have to buy your own delivery bike? Are you self-employed if you drive for Uber?

We used to have a thing in the UK called National Service, where for two years you could be conscripted into the military of some sort. Didn't produce much other than low youth unemployment figures. It did get in the way of many careers, though, mine included, as you had to find something that attracted deferment, and so with luck, the idea might run out before you had to waste those two years. It ran out just in time to allow me to get into photography without first wearing khaki or blue; one more year and I'd have been painting coal piles white and then black again. With a toothbrush.

All that said, both Bailey and Donovan got into photography via that N.S. scheme.

Politicians. I wonder if they are born that way or develop it to survive?

;-(
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 27, 2020, 11:09:20 am
Not directly Trump-related, but I am sure he would approve. The GOP government of North Dakota passed a law that in order to register to vote you must have a valid street address, such as 123 Main St, Anytown, ND. The GOP knew perfectly well that the Native American reservations, where thousands of citizens live, simply are not set up with street addresses. So thousands of people do not have street addresses and cannot get them--and these most original of US citizens, who lean Democratic, are not allowed to vote.

The GOP continues its long slide into vileness.

Where are you getting this horse-hockey, Peter? Oh yeah. I see that some of it comes from NPR, that famously unbiased, taxpayer-supported outfit. Here are the facts:

https://vip.sos.nd.gov/idrequirements.aspx

https://www.courthousenews.com/eighth-circuit-upholds-north-dakota-voter-id-law/

and

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/oct/23/occupy-democrats/native-americans-werent-last-get-right-vote-occupy/

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 27, 2020, 11:20:12 am
Where are you getting this horse-hockey, Peter? Oh yeah. I see that some of it comes from NPR, that famously unbiased, taxpayer-supported outfit. Here are the facts:

https://vip.sos.nd.gov/idrequirements.aspx

https://www.courthousenews.com/eighth-circuit-upholds-north-dakota-voter-id-law/

and

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/oct/23/occupy-democrats/native-americans-werent-last-get-right-vote-occupy/
The sources you linked to confirm Peter's position, that in ND if you don't have a residential street address, you can't vote.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 27, 2020, 11:24:37 am
Right, Fab, so this acceptable form of identification rules out native Americans?

"Tribal government issued identification (including those issued by BIA for a tribe located in North Dakota, any other tribal agency or entity, or any other document that sets forth the tribal member’s name, date of birth, and current North Dakota residential address)"
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 27, 2020, 11:27:00 am
Right, Fab, so this acceptable form of identification rules out native Americans?

"Tribal government issued identification (including those issued by BIA for a tribe located in North Dakota, any other tribal agency or entity, or any other document that sets forth the tribal member’s name, date of birth, and current North Dakota residential address)"
What part of "current North Dakota residential address" don't you understand. If you don't have a street address, you can't vote.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 27, 2020, 11:44:10 am
Not directly Trump-related, but I am sure he would approve. The GOP government of North Dakota passed a law that in order to register to vote you must have a valid street address, such as 123 Main St, Anytown, ND. The GOP knew perfectly well that the Native American reservations, where thousands of citizens live, simply are not set up with street addresses. So thousands of people do not have street addresses and cannot get them--and these most original of US citizens, who lean Democratic, are not allowed to vote.

The GOP continues its long slide into vileness.
Here's an AP article covering:  Native Americans not stripped of voting rights in North Dakota

Arrangements were made for Indians who live on reservations and don;t have formal addresses to be able to vote.  Most people live at an address.  Besides helping to verify the person actually exists, it provides the election district where they vote.  How else would you know which congressional district you can vote in for your Congressperson?  Someone in the same ZIP coud live across the street and be in another district.  An address defines exactly where you live. 

https://apnews.com/afs:Content:6949540043
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 27, 2020, 12:09:31 pm
How do you know if the poll wasn;t biased? Why don;t you provide the link so we can check?

Find it yourself, I am not your librarian. Anyway, if you don't like the result you'll just squawk "fake news" and ignore it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 27, 2020, 12:10:48 pm
We're going in circles.  We already nauseously discussed the electoral system ad infinitum.

Yet what I say is still true.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 27, 2020, 12:13:44 pm
Yet what I say is still true.

And totally irrelevant.

Like me saying yesterday was a Sunday. True, right?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 27, 2020, 12:20:33 pm
Find it yourself, I am not your librarian. Anyway, if you don't like the result you'll just squawk "fake news" and ignore it.

You referenced it.  Either you can verify it or it is not true. 

It would be nice to see the full list of “news media.”
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 27, 2020, 12:20:58 pm
Last I checked, Hannity is not a media source.  He is a biased commentator, which he admits to.  Second, why the hell would you put Limbaugh on that list?  He too is not a news source, which I would consider an entire network or company. 

Seems like this could be a stacked sample to make a point.  Please provide the entire study.

I did not make the list of news sources, the survey people did. And don't ask me to provide the link. I am not your librarian. You can look it up yourself. But of course, if you manage to find it, you will immediately label it as "fake news."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 27, 2020, 12:22:49 pm
I did not make the list of news sources, the survey people did. And don't ask me to provide the link. I am not your librarian. You can look it up yourself. But of course, if you manage to find it, you will immediately label it as "fake news."

Peter, from now on, anything you post regarding some 3rd party source without you verifying it I am going to consider it made up BS on your part. 

Just like any professor grading an essay. 

FYI, the polite thing to do would be to at least mention where you read it, which I would find impossible to believe you forgot altogether.  But you’re not the most polite person on this forum. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 27, 2020, 12:56:53 pm
Peter, from now on, anything you post regarding some 3rd party source without you verifying it I am going to consider it made up BS on your part. 

Just like any professor grading an essay. 

FYI, the polite thing to do would be to at least mention where you read it, which I would find impossible to believe you forgot altogether.  But you’re not the most polite person on this forum.

A simple search on Google, it was the 3rd link in the list of results (the other two linked to older topics), turned up this article:
Opinion
Why Democrats Still Have to Appeal to the Center, but Republicans Don’t

Polarization has changed the two parties — just not in the same way.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/opinion/sunday/democrats-republicans-polarization.html
Quote
American politics has been dominated by the Democratic and Republican Parties since the Civil War. That gives us the illusion of stability — that today’s political divisions cut roughly the same lines as yesteryear.

But in recent decades, the two parties have been changing, and fast. Those changes are ideological — the Democratic Party has moved left, and the Republican Party has moved right. But more fundamentally, those changes are compositional: Democrats have become more diverse, urban, young and secular, and the Republican Party has turned itself into a vehicle for whiter, older, more Christian and more rural voters.

This is the root cause of intensifying polarization: Our differences, both ideological and demographic, map onto our party divisions today in ways they didn’t in the past. But the changes have not affected the parties symmetrically.

Put simply, Democrats can’t win running the kinds of campaigns and deploying the kinds of tactics that succeed for Republicans. They can move to the left — and they are — but they can’t abandon the center or, given the geography of American politics, the center-right, and still hold power. Democrats are modestly, but importantly, restrained by diversity and democracy. Republicans are not.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 27, 2020, 01:04:48 pm
A simple search on Google, it was the 3rd link in the list of results (the other two linked to older topics), turned up this article:
Opinion
Why Democrats Still Have to Appeal to the Center, but Republicans Don’t

Polarization has changed the two parties — just not in the same way.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/opinion/sunday/democrats-republicans-polarization.html

Thanks Bart, and interesting quote.  I think this is a much more complicated issue for both parties then what I can write on my phone right now though.  There was another podcast I was listening (by the Hoover Institute?) to that touched on the same subject, but specifically compared Trump’s campaign to what Rubio would have possibly done.  In short, Trump abdapted whereas Rubio would have lost. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 27, 2020, 01:05:43 pm
A simple search on Google, it was the 3rd link in the list of results (the other two linked to older topics), turned up this article:
Opinion
Why Democrats Still Have to Appeal to the Center, but Republicans Don’t

Polarization has changed the two parties — just not in the same way.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/opinion/sunday/democrats-republicans-polarization.html
Well, the story was in the New York Times, and we know that supporters of Trump think the New York Times is fake news.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 27, 2020, 01:46:56 pm
Hi, Peter. So as far as you're concerned, the only jobs worth having are as CEO of a multinational?

I didn't say that.  You did.  Please don't volunteer my opinions for me.
 
Quote
You'd rather have your government hand out taxpayers' money to unemployed people than let them make a buck pushing hamburgers and fries? Well, that's certainly the spirit that pumped up Venezuela's economy to its world-beating level.

Venezuela failed due to corruption, cronyism, mismanagement and failure to adjust to falling oil prices, not due to paying the unemployed to work in fast food restaurants.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 27, 2020, 01:49:39 pm
What's "Presidential"?

Not Trump.  He can hardly put five words together in a sentence.  This is not an opinion, this is an observation.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 27, 2020, 01:53:11 pm
. But many presidents have resorted to vulgar language at some point during their tenure in the Oval Office. Yet some presidents had more of a reputation for their foul mouths than others.

Classic whataboutism.  Referencing others' misdeeds doesn't excuse his behaviour.

You gotta do better than that threadbare attempt.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 27, 2020, 02:27:11 pm
I didn't say that.  You did.  Please don't volunteer my opinions for me.

That's exactly what you said, and I quote: "You want fries with those jobs?"
 
Quote
Venezuela failed due to corruption, cronyism, mismanagement and failure to adjust to falling oil prices, not due to paying the unemployed to work in fast food restaurants.

No, Venezuela failed due to socialism, which pays the unemployed to be faithful socialists.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 27, 2020, 03:15:55 pm
... Venezuela failed due to corruption, cronyism, mismanagement and failure to adjust to falling oil prices...

Artist previously known as Socialism.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 27, 2020, 04:06:11 pm
Ambassadors not only serve at the pleasure of the president.  They are the president's voice. 

Seems to me they should be the country's voice, not the president's, or do you think you live in a dictatorship.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 27, 2020, 04:08:15 pm
Artist previously known as Socialism.

You imagine those bedfellows are unique to Socialism?

Be real.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 27, 2020, 04:08:34 pm
So much about "national security":

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democrat-impeachment-managers-military-aid-ukraine-deroy-murdock

Democrat impeachment managers voted AGAINST military aid to Ukraine

Quote
Nadler, Lofgren, and Jeffries are working tirelessly to dislodge President Trump for delaying aid to Ukraine when they themselves voted to stop such relief, dead in its tracks.

On July 26, 2018, all three voted against the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, which included $250 million in security assistance to Ukraine.

Quote
Even worse, Nadler opposed $300 million in aid to Ukraine when he voted against the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. Astonishingly, Nadler’s vote was on December 11, 2019, two days after he chaired a Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing and exactly one week before he was the House floor manager for the December 17 debate and December 18 votes on articles of impeachment.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 27, 2020, 04:14:58 pm
Seems to me they should be the country's voice, not the president's, or do you think you live in a dictatorship.

Oh, please! Enough with those cutesy proclamations!

What exactly is the "country's voice"? When was the last time, this country, or any country, in any point in history, spoke with a single voice as the "country's voice"? That's why we have executive and legislative branches, to represent the country. As you can imagine, the "country's voice" under Democrats is quite different than the "country's voice" under Republicans. Or any other political division in any other country.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 27, 2020, 04:24:19 pm
Oh, please! Enough with those cutesy proclamations!

What exactly is the "country's voice"? When was the last time, this country, or any country, in any point in history, spoke with a single voice as the "country's voice"? That's why we have executive and legislative branches, to represent the country. As you can imagine, the "country's voice" under Democrats is quite different than the "country's voice" under Republicans. Or any other political division in any other country.

There is a large US  foreign service with ties to many intelligence services. In a sane administration, the President gets his info from them so his word has the benefit of knowledge from people who do this for a living and so in that sense represents the country, that is, it is there for the good of the country. Reading all the various reportings from the frist couple of years of this clown's administration, his info came from cable news and his own ego, and the good of the country doesn't seem to be close to his heart.

I wasn't trying to be cute with my proclamation, I was objecting to Alan's phrasing. The Trump cult worshipping on these pages is sometimes embarrassing to read. For a bunch of people who claim to be clear-eyed and cynical about the world, the slavish adulation of a goofball like him is alarming.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 27, 2020, 04:33:44 pm
For a bunch of people who claim to be clear-eyed and cynical about the world, the slavish adulation of a goofball like him is alarming.

What's truly alarming is that after a couple hundred years of demonstrations of what socialism brings, we have Democrats pushing socialism.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 27, 2020, 04:38:08 pm
Democrat impeachment managers voted AGAINST military aid to Ukraine

Please don't insult our intelligence, and list which other elements were in that NDAA 2019 which could explain why certain Representatives voted in favor of, or against, the total package.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 27, 2020, 04:54:04 pm
Please don't insult our intelligence, and list which other elements were in that NDAA 2019 which could explain why certain Representatives voted in favor of, or against, the total package.

Right. The point is not whether military aid to Ukraine is a good idea. The point is that once it had been approved and was in the pipeline, Trump held it up as leverage for personal political gain. And then released the aid only after the whistleblower went public and congress and the press started getting suspicious.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 27, 2020, 04:54:57 pm
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-bolton-idUSKBN1ZP0VD

How are you Trump supporters going to explain us why the Republicans will not ask Bolton to testify?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 27, 2020, 04:58:33 pm
It's so funny to watch the former Florida AG going after Hunter Biden's joining the board of Burisma.  One could equally attack Elaine Chao, aka Ms. Mitch McConnell for her service on US corporate boards.  She served on the Wells Fargo board for a number of years when I was a shareholder and never raised any objection to the predatory actions for which Wells Fargo was fined and sanctioned.  If this is the best that the President's team can do it's pretty pathetic.  Of course we could also discuss the Chinese trademarks that were mysteriously granted to Ivanka Trump and the phony stuff the Trump family pulled in trying to sell condo units in a building where nobody wanted to live.  Corruption is endemic with this family and one reason the President wants to stay in office is he will be facing a number of criminal and civil lawsuits when he leaves office.

One big question is why the Republican Congress in 2017 when the President first came into office did not launch any oversight investigations of Hunter Biden.  It was only after VP Biden announced his candidacy that this happened and of course the Republicans had already lost the House.  This is all just too funny and I can't wait for the next Parnas video drop.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 27, 2020, 05:06:08 pm
It's so funny to watch the former Florida AG going after Hunter Biden's joining the board of Burisma.  One could equally attack Elaine Chao, aka Ms. Mitch McConnell for her service on US corporate boards.  She served on the Wells Fargo board for a number of years when I was a shareholder and never raised any objection to the predatory actions for which Wells Fargo was fined and sanctioned.  If this is the best that the President's team can do it's pretty pathetic.  Of course we could also discuss the Chinese trademarks that were mysteriously granted to Ivanka Trump and the phony stuff the Trump family pulled in trying to sell condo units in a building where nobody wanted to live.  Corruption is endemic with this family and one reason the President wants to stay in office is he will be facing a number of criminal and civil lawsuits when he leaves office.


Said Florida AG was also the one who dropped an investigation into Trump University (later found to be guilty of fraud by another investigation) right after receiving a 25K campaign contribution if I recall... 

These people.  ::)   I guess I'm jaded enough not to be moved by the "corruption" that probably happens across the political spectrum, but the blatant gaslighting and hypocrisy by Trump and his administration is really something to behold, and not in a good way.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 27, 2020, 05:06:51 pm
Currently on TV live the Republicans are making the case in front of the Senate about Biden's corruption - how Hunter got a sweetheart deal and how his father the VP Joe Biden protected him by insisting that Ukraine fire the prosecutor or Obama would withhold 1 billion dollars in military aid.  So it seems the Bidens were doing what everyone is accusing Trump of doing.  Small world.

Like I posted previously, this is all bad for Biden's nomination. I don;t understand why Pelosi pushed it.  She's shooting Biden while aiming at Trump.  Biden gets smeared but Trump will get off because the Republicans will vote to acquit.  Maybe Democrats want to destroy Biden because they feel he's going to lose against TRump.  That opens the nomination to a closed convention where a Bloomberg or so other stronger candidate (Hillary?) would wind up being selected to run against Trump. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 27, 2020, 05:12:20 pm
It's so funny to watch the former Florida AG going after Hunter Biden's joining the board of Burisma.  One could equally attack Elaine Chao, aka Ms. Mitch McConnell for her service on US corporate boards.  She served on the Wells Fargo board for a number of years when I was a shareholder and never raised any objection to the predatory actions for which Wells Fargo was fined and sanctioned.  If this is the best that the President's team can do it's pretty pathetic.  Of course we could also discuss the Chinese trademarks that were mysteriously granted to Ivanka Trump and the phony stuff the Trump family pulled in trying to sell condo units in a building where nobody wanted to live.  Corruption is endemic with this family and one reason the President wants to stay in office is he will be facing a number of criminal and civil lawsuits when he leaves office.

One big question is why the Republican Congress in 2017 when the President first came into office did not launch any oversight investigations of Hunter Biden.  It was only after VP Biden announced his candidacy that this happened and of course the Republicans had already lost the House.  This is all just too funny and I can't wait for the next Parnas video drop.

What's funny is how Pelosi's push for impeachment now headlines Joe Biden's apparent corruption protecting his son's sweetheart deal.  This makes it harder for him to win the Democrat nomination.  Talk about the democrats shooting themselves in the foot. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 27, 2020, 05:12:40 pm
Currently on TV live the Republicans are making the case in front of the Senate about Biden's corruption - how Hunter got a sweetheart deal and how his father the VP Joe Biden protected him by insisting that Ukraine fire the prosecutor or Obama would withhold 1 billion dollars in military aid.  So it seems the Bidens were doing what everyone is accusing Trump of doing.  Small world.

Like I posted previously, this is all bad for Biden's nomination. I don't understand why Pelosi pushed it.  She's shooting Biden while aiming at Trump.  Biden gets smeared but Trump will get off because the Republicans will vote to acquit.  Maybe Democrats want to destroy Biden because they feel he's going to lose against TRump.  That opens the nomination to a closed convention where a Bloomberg or so other stronger candidate (Hillary?) would wind up being selected to run against Trump.

Because, Alan, They. Are. LYING.  The timeline is all wrong - Neither Burisma nor Biden was under investigation when Ukraine was pressured into removing Shokin.  Further, the EU, independent of Biden, the US, had been pushing for the same as a matter of policy. Further still, all of these people wanted Shokin replaced because he WASN'T being aggressive enough.  Every source at the time confirms this, and I linked several contemporaneous articles here from various EU media sources that were published at the time. 

What don't y'all understand about this???  Literally, this has the same  factual credibility as it would if Trump was claiming Biden was a space alien because he was trying to cut off SETI funding lest he be outed..
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 27, 2020, 05:19:43 pm
Because, Alan, They. Are. LYING.  The timeline is all wrong - Neither Burisma nor Biden was under investigation when Ukraine was pressured into removing Shokin.  Further, the EU, independent of Biden, the US, had been pushing for the same as a matter of policy. Further still, all of these people wanted Shokin replaced because he WASN'T being aggressive enough.  Every source at the time confirms this, and I linked several contemporaneous articles here from various EU media sources that were published at the time. 

What don't y'all understand about this???  Literally, this has the same  factual credibility as it would if Trump was claiming Biden was a space alien.
Yes it was very convenient that the prosecutor was a crook.  Then the real reason VP Biden had for getting rid of him, to protect his son, could be explained away.  VP Biden was told to recuse himself by other Democrats including President Obama because it wouldn't look good being involved in this matter because his son worked for the corrupt corporation Burisma that was being investigated.  But he didn't.  Why not?  Well, protecting his son could be the reason.  Certainly there's an appearance of something afoul that would call for an investigation.  So Trump did his job calling for it.  Biden should have recused himself.  Now he and his son look like crooks. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 27, 2020, 05:20:46 pm
Not Trump.  He can hardly put five words together in a sentence.  This is not an opinion, this is an observation.

Nice attempt at deflection.  Now why not answer the question?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 27, 2020, 05:24:00 pm
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-bolton-idUSKBN1ZP0VD

How are you Trump supporters going to explain us why the Republicans will not ask Bolton to testify?

Cheers,
Bernard

How about we actually find out If the WP is actually telling the truth, before you run off all half cocked...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 27, 2020, 05:28:21 pm
How about we actually find out If the WP is actually telling the truth, before you run off all half cocked...
You mean by having Bolton testify?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 27, 2020, 05:29:20 pm
Because, Alan, They. Are. LYING.  The timeline is all wrong - Neither Burisma nor Biden was under investigation when Ukraine was pressured into removing Shokin.  Further, the EU, independent of Biden, the US, had been pushing for the same as a matter of policy. Further still, all of these people wanted Shokin replaced because he WASN'T being aggressive enough.  Every source at the time confirms this, and I linked several contemporaneous articles here from various EU media sources that were published at the time. 

What don't y'all understand about this???  Literally, this has the same  factual credibility as it would if Trump was claiming Biden was a space alien because he was trying to cut off SETI funding lest he be outed..

Well why don’t you prove your point about all of this by posting your research?  Then we can compare your “timeline” woth Glenn Becks, who has invested considerable effort to actually review court documents from Ukraine.  He made some very interesting finds. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 27, 2020, 05:31:22 pm
Well why don’t you prove your point about all of this by posting your research?  Then we can compare your “timeline” woth Glenn Becks, who has invested considerable effort to actually review court documents from Ukraine.  He made some very interesting finds.
Glenn Beck? Seriously?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 27, 2020, 05:33:31 pm
You mean by having Bolton testify?

I have no problem with Bolton testifying.  But has he either confirmed or denied the story by the WP?   Maybe the WP can actually give it’s readers something other than their current raft of nameless “sources”.  Don’t you want from your “news” outlets?   Or is it any port in a storm when it benefits your TBS?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 27, 2020, 05:34:48 pm
You mean by having Bolton testify?
Let's get the Bidens to testify.  Then we can find out how everyone is corrupt.  Which is worse?  Trump using his office to get re-elected.  Or Biden using his office to enrich his son?   I think bribery is in the constitution as a High Crime.   If Biden wins the presidency, then the House could impeach him for Bribery.  The Constitution doesn;t define a time limit.  He didn't have to do it during a future presidency.  He could be impeached for previous bribery while being vice president under Obama.  Now wouldn't that be interesting.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 27, 2020, 05:35:22 pm
Glenn Beck? Seriously?

Yep.  I don’t care who is reporting as long as they do real work.  Are you afraid of what he has?  Or better yet offer up some other source who has done the hard work...I’ll be more than happy to read it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: faberryman on January 27, 2020, 05:35:26 pm
I have no problem with Bolton testifying.  But has he either confirmed or denied the story by the WP?   Maybe the WP can actually give it’s readers something other than their current raft of nameless “sources”.  Don’t you want from your “news” outlets?   Or is it any port in a storm when it benefits your TBS?
It's a NYT story. I don't know what TBS stands for.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 27, 2020, 05:37:45 pm
It's a NYT story. I don't know what TBS stands for.

My bad, you are correct.  I’ve read it in both, and my typo should have said TDS. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 27, 2020, 05:39:35 pm
Glenn Beck? Seriously?

So post your research, let’s see what you have.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 27, 2020, 05:40:51 pm
No one cares about Bolton or Beck.  The lawyers will apparently be the only presenters.  Then the Senate will vote to acquit.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 27, 2020, 05:43:01 pm
Well why don’t you prove your point about all of this by posting your research?  Then we can compare your “timeline” woth Glenn Becks, who has invested considerable effort to actually review court documents from Ukraine.  He made some very interesting finds.

Go back in the thread... it's there.  As I recall from the Glenn back stuff, he thinks the fact that George Soros talked to someone is important,  relies on Shokin himself claiming he was wronged and was TOTALLY INNOCENT, and on a false report that a "do not prosecute"list was given to Ukraine by Yavanovitch. 

But hey, you do you. It totally makes more sense than the idea that Donald Trump did something petty and stupid.  Really.  ::)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 27, 2020, 06:43:57 pm
Currently on TV live the Republicans are making the case in front of the Senate about Biden's corruption - how Hunter got a sweetheart deal and how his father the VP Joe Biden protected him by insisting that Ukraine fire the prosecutor or Obama would withhold 1 billion dollars in military aid.  So it seems the Bidens were doing what everyone is accusing Trump of doing.  Small world.

What on earth does that have to do with the charges against Trump?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 27, 2020, 06:59:20 pm
What on earth does that have to do with the charges against Trump?
If the Bidens hadn't done anything that is or has the appearance of being corrupt, there would have been no point in Trump calling for their investigation. An investigation under these circumstances makes it perfectly legal.  A twelve year-old knows what the Bidens did looks fishy.   Only someone in complete denial thinks VP Biden acted in the country's interest only by getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired.  How can you see corruption so clearly with Trump but are oblivious to it with Biden?  Of course Trump did the same thing.  Using a legitimate reason for an investigation as the excuse to go after his opponent.  But people are allowed to walk and chew gum at the same time.  Biden should have recused himself.  I guess his son;s job was more important. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 27, 2020, 07:03:58 pm
... The timeline is all wrong - Neither Burisma nor Biden was under investigation when Ukraine was pressured into removing Shokin.  Further, the EU, independent of Biden, the US, had been pushing for the same as a matter of policy. Further still, all of these people wanted Shokin replaced because he WASN'T being aggressive enough.  Every source at the time confirms this, and I linked several contemporaneous articles here from various EU media sources that were published at the time. 

What don't y'all understand about this???...

Because those are just claims without proof. I have yet to see a single piece of compelling evidence for the above. From what I remember, you did post ONE link to an Irish news piece with a generic complaint about corruption in Ukraine. Never seen anything linking the ouster of Shokin to, say, MMF loan, or anything concrete, like Biden's 1 billion blackmail. Yes, everybody complained about corruption in Ukraine, but that is a far cry from linking it to a single person.

So, several questions:

- if investigation into Burisma was stalled because Shokin was not aggressive enough, what happened after his ouster? The investigation renewed with a gusto? Didn't happen.

- does anyone really believe that the source of corruption in Ukraine was one guy??? Hence his ouster would end it? And a billion dollars can be freely given without fear of further corruption? Several years later, Ukraine is still #1 corrupt country in the world.

- everyone involved in the investigation of Burisma, and that is not just Ukraine and Shokin, but EU was investigating it, was perfectly aware that the son of the US vice-president is sitting on its board. And everyone involved understood how awkward would be to investigate it, if not downright dangerous (for one's career). Especially after Biden so publicly put everyone in their place with his $1 billion blackmail. Nobody had to say a word, but everyone involved understood without a question that investigating Burisma is out of the question.

- if the EU complained that they could not finalize their investigation in Burisma because Shokin was dragging his feet, why didn't they continue after his ouster? Instead they freed Burisma's frozen funds soon after Biden's blackmail.

- where were the brave leftie whistleblowers to talk to their congressman about how uncomfortable they were with the glaringly apparent VP's conflict of interest? They wouldn't betray their guy, of course.

- if the aid to Ukraine was of such a national security importance, was it really in the U.S. national interest to withhold one.billion.dollars over a single guy!?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 27, 2020, 07:16:39 pm
Because those are just claims without proof. I have yet to see a single piece of compelling evidence for the above. From what I remember, you did post ONE link to an Irish news piece with a generic complaint about corruption in Ukraine. Never seen anything linking the ouster of Shokin to, say, MMF loan, or anything concrete, like Biden's 1 billion blackmail. Yes, everybody complained about corruption in Ukraine, but that is a far cry from linking it to a single person.

So, several questions:

- if investigation into Burisma was stalled because Shokin was not aggressive enough, what happened after his ouster? The investigation renewed with a gusto? Didn't happen.

- does anyone really believe that the source of corruption in Ukraine was one guy??? Hence his ouster would end it? And a billion dollars can be freely given without fear of further corruption? Several years later, Ukraine is still #1 corrupt country in the world.

- everyone involved in the investigation of Burisma, and that is not just Ukraine and Shokin, but EU was investigating it, was perfectly aware that the son of the US vice-president is sitting on its board. And everyone involved understood how awkward would be to investigate it, if not downright dangerous (for one's career). Especially after Biden so publicly put everyone in their place with his $1 billion blackmail. Nobody had to say a word, but everyone involved understood without a question that investigating Burisma is out of the question.

- if the EU complained that they could not finalize their investigation in Burisma because Shokin was dragging his feet, why didn't they continue after his ouster? Instead they freed Burisma's frozen funds soon after Biden's blackmail.

- where were the brave leftie whistleblowers to talk to their congressman about how uncomfortable they were with the glaringly apparent VP's conflict of interest? They wouldn't betray their guy, of course.

- if the aid to Ukraine was of such a national security importance, was it really in the U.S. national interest to withhold one.billion.dollars over a single guy!?

Well, the single guy wasn't Shokin.  It was Hunter Biden, a rather important person to the VP.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 27, 2020, 07:17:25 pm
If the Bidens hadn't done anything that is or has the appearance of being corrupt, there would have been no point in Trump calling for their investigation.

Trump didn't ask for an investigation, he just wanted them to announce an investigation, in order to hurt his personal opponent.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 27, 2020, 07:37:41 pm
Trump didn't ask for an investigation, he just wanted them to announce an investigation, in order to hurt his personal opponent.

Bart, are you scheduled to testify soon? I am surprised you have not already been invited, given your first-hand knowledge.

Btw, “personal” opponent!?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 27, 2020, 07:49:56 pm
Btw, “personal” opponent!?

Trump takes everybody who is not supporting him as his personal adversary.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 27, 2020, 07:51:35 pm
Bart, are you scheduled to testify soon? I am surprised you have not already been invited, given your first-hand knowledge.

No, the Republicans won't let me.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 27, 2020, 09:07:39 pm
I have no problem with Bolton testifying.  But has he either confirmed or denied the story by the WP?   Maybe the WP can actually give it’s readers something other than their current raft of nameless “sources”.  Don’t you want from your “news” outlets?   Or is it any port in a storm when it benefits your TBS?

As mentioned, the story is coming from the NYT.

What happens if Bolton confirms the story? Is that going to change your earlier reading of the testimony of Sonderland about the existence of a Quid Pro Quo?

Or are you going to tell us that Bolton's story will only be relevant if he testifies officially?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 27, 2020, 09:13:41 pm
American taxpayers don't give our dollars to foreign countries for nothing.  We expect something from them.  We're not in the charity business.  Certainly Trump isn;t.   Quid quo pros are perfectly normal.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 27, 2020, 09:14:43 pm
American taxpayers don't give our dollars to foreign countries for nothing.  We expect something from them.  We're not in the charity business.  Certainly Trump isn;t.   Quid quo pros are perfectly normal.

I have just counted, it's the 72nd time you write the same non sense.

No, quid pro quos are not normal, and certainly not when what is being exchanged is a personal favor to the president that will provide him an advantage against a key political rival.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 27, 2020, 09:24:47 pm
I have just counted, it's the 72nd time you write the same non sense.

No, quid pro quos are not normal, and certainly not when what is being exchanged is a personal favor to the president that will provide him an advantage against a key political rival.

Cheers,
Bernard


Well, if you stop making the same point, I'll stop making the same counterpoint.  :)

In any case, don't you think it's amusing that the Democrats are calling Trump's quid pro quo illegal while VP Biden and the Obama administration did the same thing.  Obama and Biden threatened to withhold 1 billion military aid from Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor and cleared up their corruption.  It's like they're accusing the Republicans for the same thing they did in the same country - Ukraine.  Either quid pro quos are legal or illegal.  Make up your mind.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 27, 2020, 09:58:44 pm
Well, if you stop making the same point, I'll stop making the same counterpoint.  :)

In any case, don't you think it's amusing that the Democrats are calling Trump's quid pro quo illegal while VP Biden and the Obama administration did the same thing.  Obama and Biden threatened to withhold 1 billion military aid from Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor and cleared up their corruption.  It's like they're accusing the Republicans for the same thing they did in the same country - Ukraine.  Either quid pro quos are legal or illegal.  Make up your mind.

Totally different situations and you know it.

The firing of the prosecutor was an international action that went through official channels.

And Obama and Biden didn’t benefit from it.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 27, 2020, 10:19:00 pm
That's exactly what you said, and I quote: "You want fries with those jobs?"
 
No, Venezuela failed due to socialism, which pays the unemployed to be faithful socialists.

I never suggested that CEO jobs were the only jobs worth mentioning.  YOU did.
Show me where the word "CEO" appears in that quotation of mine.  You will NOT mis-quote me and get away with it.

Nor can you state the GDP growth is 4% and get away with it.

You have a very narrow (and misinformed) view of socialism.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 27, 2020, 10:24:49 pm
As mentioned, the story is coming from the NYT.

What happens if Bolton confirms the story? Is that going to change your earlier reading of the testimony of Sonderland about the existence of a Quid Pro Quo?

Or are you going to tell us that Bolton's story will only be relevant if he testifies officially?

Cheers,
Bernard

I would have no problem if he confirmed it, because in my opinion it’s still not impeachable.

As to Sondland, no it won’t change a thing about his “guess” about a Quid Pro Que.  It was and will always simply a guess on his part. He had zero first hand knowlege.  Period. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 27, 2020, 10:27:02 pm

And Obama and Biden didn’t benefit from it.

Cheers,
Bernard

ROFLMAO
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 27, 2020, 10:30:09 pm
ROFLMAO

 ::)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 27, 2020, 10:33:51 pm
Nice attempt at deflection.  Now why not answer the question?

Your question, I believe, was "What's presidential?"  "Presidential" begins with honorable behavior.  Of that, we have seen none. 

Do we really need to list them again?  Just off the top of my head, here are a few.  They are legion, but it's bed time and you won't read this anyway.

He lies constantly about things that are easily disproved, can't speak, spell or write coherently or accurately, brags of his sexual assaults, stiffs his creditors, settles with consumers for tens of millions of dollars in partial compensation for his business malpractices, diverts charity funds for his own use, pays porn stars to have sex with him, physically shoves people aside when there are cameras around, can't close an umbrella, is the laughing stock of most of the western political world and he cheats at golf.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 27, 2020, 10:38:40 pm
Go back in the thread... it's there.  As I recall from the Glenn back stuff, he thinks the fact that George Soros talked to someone is important,  relies on Shokin himself claiming he was wronged and was TOTALLY INNOCENT, and on a false report that a "do not prosecute"list was given to Ukraine by Yavanovitch. 

But hey, you do you. It totally makes more sense than the idea that Donald Trump did something petty and stupid.  Really.  ::)

So I found your “research”.  Went and found the articles.  This stuff is weak.   So many holes.  But at least I now know where you are coming from.

Now, Beck.  Your claim the do not prosecute list was a false claim, Beck has the docs that prove that one wrong.  Shokin is allowed to make his claims, and again Beck has the docs.  It’s really quite clear you don’t know what Bech has at all.  Spend the two hours and watch him lay it all out. You might actually learn something. 

Interesting note.  I don’t listen to his radio show often but I had to drive an hour last Friday to a meeting so I listened.  He has Ukrainian court docs. ( and I’ll admit I’ve not Seen them) that supposedly show Hunter Biden was scheduled to be deposed about Burisma the day AFTER Shokin was fired.  If true, it’s a game changer.  Just don’t expect the weasel MSM to actually try and dig that one out.   

Then read John Soloman’s.stuff.  If you don’t you can’t make an informed decision.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 27, 2020, 10:45:27 pm
Your question, I believe, was "What's presidential?"  "Presidential" begins with honorable behavior.  Of that, we have seen none. 

Do we really need to list them again?  Just off the top of my head, here are a few.  They are legion, but it's bed time and you won't read this anyway.

He lies constantly about things that are easily disproved, can't speak, spell or write coherently or accurately, brags of his sexual assaults, stiffs his creditors, settles with consumers for tens of millions of dollars in partial compensation for his business malpractices, diverts charity funds for his own use, pays porn stars to have sex with him, physically shoves people aside when there are cameras around, can't close an umbrella, is the laughing stock of most of the western political world and he cheats at golf.

So was JFK “presidential”?  Shall we ask Miss Monroe?  Clinton?  Johnson?  Heck even Obama could not even tell the truth about ACA, and bowed down to the world. 

You may not have done so but I didn’t vote for “presidential”. I didn’t vote for a priest.   I voted for exactly the opposite. I much prefer results.  I’m thrilled with what we got.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 27, 2020, 10:58:54 pm
Totally different situations and you know it.

The firing of the prosecutor was an international action that went through official channels.

And Obama and Biden didn’t benefit from it.   

Cheers,
Bernard
Biden benefitted by getting the prosecutor fired who was investigating Burisma, the company that his son was getting paid $50K a month for a no show job because he was the VP Biden's son and had a channel  into the White House.  Wink Wink nod nod. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 27, 2020, 11:08:22 pm
So I found your “research”.  Went and found the articles.  This stuff is weak.   So many holes.  But at least I now know where you are coming from.

Now, Beck.  Your claim the do not prosecute list was a false claim, Beck has the docs that prove that one wrong.  Shokin is allowed to make his claims, and again Beck has the docs.  It’s really quite clear you don’t know what Bech has at all.  Spend the two hours and watch him lay it all out. You might actually learn something. 

Interesting note.  I don’t listen to his radio show often but I had to drive an hour last Friday to a meeting so I listened.  He has Ukrainian court docs. ( and I’ll admit I’ve not Seen them) that supposedly show Hunter Biden was scheduled to be deposed about Burisma the day AFTER Shokin was fired.  If true, it’s a game changer.  Just don’t expect the weasel MSM to actually try and dig that one out.   

Then read John Soloman’s.stuff.  If you don’t you can’t make an informed decision.

Ok.  So contemporary accounts from the EU, before anyone had any reason to slant the coverage, are “weak” but retroactive claims from Glenn Beck and John Solomon are solid?  That’s your claim?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 27, 2020, 11:12:22 pm
So was JFK “presidential”?  Shall we ask Miss Monroe?  Clinton?  Johnson?  Heck even Obama could not even tell the truth about ACA, and bowed down to the world. 

You may not have done so but I didn’t vote for “presidential”. I didn’t vote for a priest.   I voted for exactly the opposite. I much prefer results.  I’m thrilled with what we got.

Is it the islamophobic part, the white nationalist part, or the third grade reading and speaking level that thrills you the most?  Just curious.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 27, 2020, 11:12:34 pm
OK, I'll challenge your whataboutism just one more time. But then it really is time for bed.

So was JFK “presidential”?
He took America to the moon, ensuring the admiration of the entire world.  Stared down Russian adventurism in Cuba, ensuring the admiration of the entire world.
He published his book Profiles in Courage, which won a Pulitzer Prize.  Trump had his books written for him, but claimed authorship. (see "cheats at golf", above)

Quote
  Shall we ask Miss Monroe?
What shall we ask her?  She was a movie star, not a political actor.

 
Quote
Clinton?
Clinton presided over the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in American history.  During the last three years of Clinton's presidency, the Congressional Budget Office reported a budget surplus—the first such surplus since 1969.  (since you're "thrilled" with such things)

 
Quote
Johnson?
Johnson is ranked favorably by many historians because of his domestic policies and the passage of many major laws that affected civil rights, gun control, wilderness preservation, and Social Security, although he also drew substantial criticism for his escalation of the Vietnam War.

 
Quote
Heck even Obama could not even tell the truth about ACA,
But he did earn the respect of most of the world's politicians (and many of it's citizens) and incidentally rescue America (and possibly the western world) from the economic disaster resulting from corruption and greed fostered by previous administrations.

Quote
I much prefer results.  I’m thrilled with what we got.

Good for you.  And all the others who put their pocketbooks ahead of their brains.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 27, 2020, 11:17:49 pm
Is it the islamophobic part, the white nationalist part, or the third grade reading and speaking level that thrills you the most?  Just curious.

Oh!  I know.  This even relates to Biden.  It must be the steely-eyed anti-corruption work  (https://apnews.com/d533bfca6c934034be0ed745cad8c611) and all that swamp-draining. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 27, 2020, 11:28:30 pm
OK, I'll challenge your whataboutism just one more time. But then it really is time for bed.
He took America to the moon, ensuring the admiration of the entire world.  Stared down Russian adventurism in Cuba, ensuring the admiration of the entire world.
He published his book Profiles in Courage, which won a Pulitzer Prize.  Trump had his books written for him, but claimed authorship. (see "cheats at golf", above)
What shall we ask her?  She was a movie star, not a political actor.

 Clinton presided over the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in American history.  During the last three years of Clinton's presidency, the Congressional Budget Office reported a budget surplus—the first such surplus since 1969.  (since you're "thrilled" with such things)

 Johnson is ranked favorably by many historians because of his domestic policies and the passage of many major laws that affected civil rights, gun control, wilderness preservation, and Social Security, although he also drew substantial criticism for his escalation of the Vietnam War.

 But he did earn the respect of most of the world's politicians (and many of it's citizens) and incidentally rescue America (and possibly the western world) from the economic disaster resulting from corruption and greed fostered by previous administrations.

Good for you.  And all the others who put their pocketbooks ahead of their brains.

Boy the brain washing runs deep in you....and yes it is late and I was up at 5 so I'll be happy to rebut your "whataboutyisms" tomorrow.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 27, 2020, 11:31:13 pm
Is it the islamophobic part, the white nationalist part, or the third grade reading and speaking level that thrills you the most?  Just curious.

No, what I really like is watching him live rent free in the heads of his detractors. 

Does it hurt when he bangs around inside your brain?  Just asking?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 27, 2020, 11:34:42 pm
Ok.  So contemporary accounts from the EU, before anyone had any reason to slant the coverage, are “weak” but retroactive claims from Glenn Beck and John Solomon are solid?  That’s your claim?

Oh they all count James.  You take them as a whole.  And yes the accounts you used are very weak given the complexity of the issue.  But i guess for some its just easier to read a few quick articles rather than really look.  But hey if that works for you, have at it. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 27, 2020, 11:35:03 pm
OK, I'll challenge your whataboutism just one more time. But then it really is time for bed.
He took America to the moon, ensuring the admiration of the entire world.  Stared down Russian adventurism in Cuba, ensuring the admiration of the entire world.
He published his book Profiles in Courage, which won a Pulitzer Prize.  Trump had his books written for him, but claimed authorship. (see "cheats at golf", above)
What shall we ask her?  She was a movie star, not a political actor.

 Clinton presided over the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in American history.  During the last three years of Clinton's presidency, the Congressional Budget Office reported a budget surplus—the first such surplus since 1969.  (since you're "thrilled" with such things)

 Johnson is ranked favorably by many historians because of his domestic policies and the passage of many major laws that affected civil rights, gun control, wilderness preservation, and Social Security, although he also drew substantial criticism for his escalation of the Vietnam War.

 But he did earn the respect of most of the world's politicians (and many of it's citizens) and incidentally rescue America (and possibly the western world) from the economic disaster resulting from corruption and greed fostered by previous administrations.

Good for you.  And all the others who put their pocketbooks ahead of their brains.
Peter, I was there and remember the "staring down the Russian missiles" nearly started a nuclear WWIII.  Because of Kennedy's Bay of Pigs fiasco, Castro invited the Russians to install their missiles in Cuba creating the crisis.  Kennedy's amateurish and weak response when he met Soviet Chairman Khrushchev convinced the Russian he had nothing to fear from Kennedy.  So he install the missiles, cementing the crisis.  You need to read some history to get the facts right.

Clinton lied to a grand jury about "not having sex with that woman" and lost his license to practice law besides getting impeached.

Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and started the VietNam war because of his lie that killed 58,000 Americans. 

Shall I go on?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 28, 2020, 02:31:58 am
I would have no problem if he confirmed it, because in my opinion it’s still not impeachable.

Which must be the reason why the lawyers of Trump have insisted that the lack of a direct witness was a key aspect demonstrating his innocence...  ;D ;D ;D

And also why Mitt Romney and Susan Colins are now requesting the testimony of Bolton...

You are making a lot of sense here Craig and demonstrating more objectivity. Yes, I am being ironic.

But I am not surprised, you are aligned with the "deep lie" approach of other key Republicans such as Alan Dershowitz who now claims that a crime is needed to impeach a president while he claimed the exact opposite before the impeachement of Bill clinton. Truth doens't seem to have any relevance for you guys, does it?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 28, 2020, 03:09:24 am
[...]
Shall I go on?

Yes, you 'forgot' Bush (Sr & Jr) ...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 28, 2020, 03:14:39 am
American taxpayers don't give our dollars to foreign countries for nothing.  We expect something from them.  We're not in the charity business.  Certainly Trump isn;t.   Quid quo pros are perfectly normal.

But there was no Quid Pro Quo, according to Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: RSL on January 28, 2020, 08:02:05 am
Which must be the reason why the lawyers of Trump have insisted that the lack of a direct witness was a key aspect demonstrating his innocence...  ;D ;D ;D

Cheers,
Bernard

You probably need to think before you write, Bernard. His lawyers aren't saying anything about his "innocence." What they're saying is that an opinion isn't evidence. All we've heard or seen so far are opinions coming from people with bad cases of Trump derangement syndrome. It isn't evidence. It's the cheapest kind of hearsay and it's clearly biased.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 28, 2020, 08:46:35 am
Yes, you 'forgot' Bush (Sr & Jr) ...
OK.  Jr lied about WMD and I'm not sure what Sr. did.  But the point is our presidents are far less than angels when it comes to personal and political deceptiveness.  Isn't that the definition of a politician?  Plus most of them are lawyers and well, no disrespect to any counselors here.  But they know how to spin a tale or two.  Trump has the burden of never have done politics and not being a lawyer.  So he's not smooth like the slippery and sleazy Schiff or Pocahontas.  Heck, President William Clinton was called Slick Willie in his home state of Arkansas before he moved on to bigger and better corruptions. So our people understand our pols pretty well.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 28, 2020, 08:50:34 am
But there was no Quid Pro Quo, according to Trump.
He's entitled to his opinion and I'm entitled to mine.  I'm saying that calling for an investigation and threatening withholding foreign aid is acceptable when the Bidens may have broken American law. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 28, 2020, 09:10:34 am
Which must be the reason why the lawyers of Trump have insisted that the lack of a direct witness was a key aspect demonstrating his innocence...  ;D ;D ;D

And also why Mitt Romney and Susan Colins are now requesting the testimony of Bolton...

You are making a lot of sense here Craig and demonstrating more objectivity. Yes, I am being ironic.

But I am not surprised, you are aligned with the "deep lie" approach of other key Republicans such as Alan Dershowitz who now claims that a crime is needed to impeach a president while he claimed the exact opposite before the impeachement of Bill clinton. Truth doens't seem to have any relevance for you guys, does it?

Cheers,
Bernard

The Deep lie.  Wow.  Let’s be clear here. Trump wanted the investigations.   He had every right to want them.   In fact every American should have wanted them too.  If Biden is dirty, as it seems if one actually follows the evidence, then it’s a true National Security issue.  And Trump had every right to decided to hold aid for a time....he could have cancelled it if he wanted.  That’s truth. 

Ok, you hate Trump.   Good for you.   Many don’t.   

Romney and Collins.   What a surprise.  But it is what it is.  Witnesses could blow up in either sides faces.  Which is why attorneys seldom ask questions when they don’t know the answers.   



Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 28, 2020, 09:16:56 am
Trump derangement syndrome.

I love it that people now have a handle to use.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 28, 2020, 09:21:34 am
More infantile behavior from this administration. After Pompeo fell to the floor and drummed his heels over unwanted questions from an NPR reporter, the State Dept. has taken a different NPR reporter off the press list for Pompeo's upcoming official trip to Ukraine.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/27/npr-reporter-pompeo-clash-plane-106969

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 28, 2020, 09:27:35 am
Which must be the reason why the lawyers of Trump have insisted that the lack of a direct witness was a key aspect demonstrating his innocence...  ;D ;D ;D

And also why Mitt Romney and Susan Colins are now requesting the testimony of Bolton...

You are making a lot of sense here Craig and demonstrating more objectivity. Yes, I am being ironic.

But I am not surprised, you are aligned with the "deep lie" approach of other key Republicans such as Alan Dershowitz who now claims that a crime is needed to impeach a president while he claimed the exact opposite before the impeachement of Bill clinton. Truth doens't seem to have any relevance for you guys, does it?

Cheers,
Bernard

The NY Times and others on the left always have an October surprise.  They drag out information that they supposedly got at the last minute to damage the other side.  They do this every October before the November elections, hence the term.  They did it with Justice Kavanaugh.  Who's the reporter who did it against Bush, I think he was from CBS, and lost his job.  It's a smear campaign based on rumor that's hard to counter.  You think the public would have learned already and not be fooled so easily. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: RSL on January 28, 2020, 09:32:27 am
I love it that people now have a handle to use.

Right, Robert. And it quite accurately describes the current mental condition of Democrats.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 28, 2020, 09:35:40 am
Yes, you 'forgot' Bush (Sr & Jr) ...

Boys, boys...this is silly. You can take any president in history and find both good and bad things that he did.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 28, 2020, 09:36:57 am
Boys, boys...this is silly. You can take any president in history and find both good and bad things that he did.
That's something we finally agree on.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 28, 2020, 09:41:55 am
But there was no Quid Pro Quo, according to Trump.

The problem isn't the existence of a quid pro quo. The problem is that it was for Trump's personal gain.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 28, 2020, 09:45:50 am
More infantile behavior from this administration. After Pompeo fell to the floor and drummed his heels over unwanted questions from an NPR reporter, the State Dept. has taken a different NPR reporter off the press list for Pompeo's upcoming official trip to Ukraine.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/27/npr-reporter-pompeo-clash-plane-106969

Oh man, those reporters must be onto something for sure!

Does the administration think that the press corps is the government's marketing department?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 28, 2020, 10:01:18 am
The problem isn't the existence of a quid pro quo. The problem is that it was for Trump's personal gain.
The issue is whether what he did was legal.  Getting a side benefit does not make it illegal.  We all do things for different reasons.  But we can't get into the heads of people to try to determine these things.  Since the Bidens appear to have done something illegal, the president, any president, is allowed to follow up to ask for an investigation. 

Let me give you another example.  Let's say someone apparently hurts a person who's a minority in an apparent hate crime.  So a president calls for an investigation knowing that he will gain political points from the voters.  Is that allowed?  Well, of course.  Because the president has the authority to call for an investigation of apparent crimes even though he gets a side benefit politically.  He can walk and chew gum at the same time. The problem here was that Biden opened himself up to an investigation by not recusing himself and using his office to help in what appears his son's financial interest.  He was warned by Obama and other key democrats to not get involved in the corruption in Ukraine because his son was involved.  Had he not, we wouldn't be discussing this because the president would not have called for an investigation.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 28, 2020, 10:19:13 am
Boy the brain washing runs deep in you.

Amazing, innit?  What historical fact can do?

Quote
...and yes it is late and I was up at 5 so I'll be happy to rebut your "whataboutyisms" tomorrow.

Breathlessly awaiting your point-by point rebuttal of my answers to your request.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on January 28, 2020, 10:36:28 am
I'm saying that calling for an investigation and threatening withholding foreign aid is acceptable when the Bidens may have broken American law.

What "American law" are you referring to?  The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (15 U.S.C. §78dd-1) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78dd-1),* prohibits certain American business entities from paying bribes to officials of other countries.  I'm not aware that President Trump or even any of his most ardent defenders has accused former Vice President Biden of violating it or any other federal statute.

The issue of Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine was raised in 2015 by career officials of the U.S. State Department, who were concerned that it created the appearance of a conflict of interest for the then vice president.  (Biden-père could only have had an actual conflict of interest if he had personally been receiving some of the income paid by the Ukrainian company to Biden-fils, which no one has ever alleged.)  When the State Department contacted Biden's staff to discuss the issue, an aide reportedly declined to raise it with the vice president, saying Biden didn't have the "bandwidth" to deal with Hunter Biden's business arrangements in Ukraine while his other son was dying of cancer.
___
*In 2017, President Trump reportedly told then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to "get rid of the law" because it is "just so unfair that American companies aren’t allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas."  Tillerson had to explain to Trump that an act of Congress is required to repeal a law.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 28, 2020, 10:47:51 am
What "American law" are you referring to?  The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (15 U.S.C. §78dd-1) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78dd-1),* prohibits certain American business entities from paying bribes to officials of other countries.  I'm not aware that President Trump or even any of his most ardent defenders has accused former Vice President Biden of violating it or any other federal statute.

The issue of Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine was raised in 2015 by career officials of the U.S. State Department, who were concerned that it created the appearance of a conflict of interest for the then vice president.  (Biden-père could only have had an actual conflict of interest if he had personally been receiving some of the income paid by the Ukrainian company to Biden-fils, which no one has ever alleged.)  When the State Department contacted Biden's staff to discuss the issue, an aide reportedly declined to raise it with the vice president, saying Biden didn't have the "bandwidth" to deal with Hunter Biden's business arrangements in Ukraine while his other son was dying of cancer.
___
*In 2017, President Trump reportedly told then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to "get rid of the law" because it is "just so unfair that American companies aren’t allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas."  Tillerson had to explain to Trump that an act of Congress is required to repeal a law.

The conflict of interest is that Joe Biden used his VP office to pressure a foreign country to fire their investigator looking into corruption of the firm his son Hunter Biden was getting paid $50k a month from for a no-show job.  Exactly why they hired his son in the first place.  For protection.  Wink wink nod nod.   All the rest is conversation.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 28, 2020, 12:06:23 pm
The conflict of interest is that Joe Biden used his VP office to pressure a foreign country to fire their investigator looking into corruption of the firm his son Hunter Biden was getting paid $50k a month from for a no-show job.  Exactly why they hired his son in the first place.  For protection.  Wink wink nod nod.   All the rest is conversation.
Alan, maybe you should start a new thread about Hunter Biden, now you are just repeatingly polluting this thread that is about the real and actual impeachment of Donald Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 28, 2020, 12:33:11 pm
Amazing, innit?  What historical fact can do?

Breathlessly awaiting your point-by point rebuttal of my answers to your request.

No need to reply point by point since you entire post is a non sequitur.  You begin by listing  your considered personal faults of President Trump and conditioned by your "Presidental"..."Presidential" begins with honorable behavior.  Of that, we have seen none.", and instead use POLICY examples when you describe other Presidents.  A perfect example of a non sequiter.

So now why don't you do a correct compatison, if you can.

And then ask yourself if JFK's personal faults in regards to Miss Monroe are "Presidental".
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 28, 2020, 12:43:45 pm
No need to reply point by point since you entire post is a non sequitur.

zzzzz
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 28, 2020, 12:48:47 pm
zzzzz

Nice to know you failed again.  Great work.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 28, 2020, 12:53:36 pm
Peter, I was there and remember the "staring down the Russian missiles"
So that gives you over-arching power to pass judgment on those events?
Quote
You need to read some history to get the facts right.
I have done so, thank you.
Quote
Clinton lied to a grand jury about "not having sex with that woman"
Yup.  He did.  In fact he lied to me.  He stared right into the lens and made that statement.  For which I hated him. 
Unlike Trump, however, he also had significant positive effects on the world stage, and on America's global status, enumerated elsewhere in this thread.

Quote
Shall I go on?

Please do.  Your posts are enlightening and entertaining.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 28, 2020, 12:55:02 pm
Nice to know you failed again.  Great work.

Ah, so it's not about facts, it's about winning.  Thanks for that re-clarification.  You stated this position before.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 28, 2020, 12:57:48 pm
Ah, so it's not about facts, it's about winning.  Thanks for that re-clarification.  You stated this position before.

The facts often lead to winning.  In your case your "facts" were a loser.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 28, 2020, 01:05:45 pm
And then ask yourself if JFK's personal faults in regards to Miss Monroe are "Presidental".

Definitely more discreet and more presidential and also showing a class and a good taste. Compared with some deplorables who boast publicly about their p***y grabbing exploits.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 28, 2020, 01:08:09 pm
Definitely more discreet and more presidential and also showing a class and a good taste.

Now thats funny.  I wonder if Jackie found it classy and "a good taste". 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 28, 2020, 01:11:12 pm
Now thats funny.  I wonder if Jackie found it classy and "a good taste".

If she were the French First Lady, she might have.  Not in the country where the god fearing men wear 2 feet long swimming shorts.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 28, 2020, 01:23:33 pm
Alan, maybe you should start a new thread about Hunter Biden, now you are just repeatingly polluting this thread that is about the real and actual impeachment of Donald Trump.

Yes, exactly. What the Bidens did or didn't do is irrelevant to the impeachment issue. It's a distraction--one of many--thrown up by the GOP to divert attention from the real issues, what Trump did.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 28, 2020, 01:29:07 pm
If she were the French First Lady, she might have.  Not in the country where the god fearing men wear 2 feet long swimming shorts.

Maybe here the shorts need to be that long :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 28, 2020, 01:40:29 pm
The conflict of interest is that Joe Biden used his VP office to pressure a foreign country to fire their investigator looking into corruption of the firm his son Hunter Biden was getting paid $50k a month from for a no-show job.  Exactly why they hired his son in the first place.  For protection.  Wink wink nod nod.   All the rest is conversation.

Wrong wrong wrong. The Ukrainian investigator was fired because he *was not* investigating corruption. The dismissal was advocated by the  International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform--and Joe Biden. And somehow the Trumplets have turned this around into a big lie--and some saps believe it. Unfortunately these saps vote.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 28, 2020, 02:00:47 pm
Maybe here the shorts need to be that long :)
Cloak or deception?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 28, 2020, 02:02:24 pm
Wrong wrong wrong. The Ukrainian investigator was fired because he *was not* investigating corruption. The dismissal was advocated by the  International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform--and Joe Biden. And somehow the Trumplets have turned this around into a big lie--and some saps believe it. Unfortunately these saps vote.

Maybe you should dig a little depper on that one...just a suggestion.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 28, 2020, 02:02:42 pm
Cloak or deception?

Good one!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 28, 2020, 02:15:25 pm
Here comes Rudy.

Take it for what it is. Maybe true, maybe not.  Interesting to say the least.

https://dcdirtylaundry.com/watch-giuliani-begins-releasing-doomsday-files-reveals-records-suggesting-fired-amb-yovanovitch-perjured-herself-denied-visas-to-witnesses-who-could-prove-obama-admin-corruption/

The Gateway Pundit reported:

‘Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani taunted the Deep State-Democrat-media complex Sunday morning and said he will be sharing evidence he “has garnered through hundreds of hours of research.”

“Stay tuned,” Rudy said building anticipation.

And boy did he deliver.

Rudy revealed a huge money laundering operation involving the Bidens and Burisma Holdings. Money was flowing through Latvia and Cyprus disguised as loans to various tech companies then paid out as ‘board fees’ to Hunter Biden.

“That is a straight out violation of a money laundering statute,” Giuliani said.

Giuliani revealed that there is documents showing Schiff’s star witness, fired US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself at least twice during her impeachment testimony.

Documents prove Yovanovitch was personally involved in the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s investigations and denied visas to witnesses who could prove Biden, Dem corruption, Giuliani said.

Witness Yuri Lutsenko, the inheritor of prosecutor general Viktor Shokin’s office told Giuliani that Yovanovitch was sent information showing that $7 BILLION went to the US in a possible money laundering scheme to a firm called “Franklin Templeton Investments,” she refused to him help by connecting him to American law enforcement.

Lutsenko wanted help from the US Justice Department to track down where the $7 BILLION in supposed laundered money went.

Lutsenko went on to state: “I was once again shocked when madame Yovanovitch told two members of the committee that Lutsenko asked me to organize his meeting with American attorney general, but you know gentlemen that there is a procedure for this she told, the procedure that Lutsenko should even — must give us and short topic what points he want he wants to discuss with American law enforcement bodies and Yovanovitch said he never gave us such an information.”

If this testimony is infact true, that means that the former Ambassador to the Ukraine, lied under oath, before Congress.

“I have bad news for madame Yovanovitch,” Lutsenko said. “This is my letter to request for cooperation in investigation against the criminal organization of Yanukovytch regarding possible investment in the US-based mutual and other funds for the purpose of money laundering,” Lutsenko said holding up the letter he wrote dated October of 2017.

WATCH!

Rudy only doubled down:

Witness Yuri Lutsenko, inheritor of Shokin’s office:

Records proving Amb Yovanovitch perjured herself at least twice.

Doc’s showing she was denying visas to witnesses who could prove Biden & Dem corruption.

Clear doc proof of money laundering by Burisma & Biden’s. pic.twitter.com/uHwa6PorLB

— Rudy Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) December 15, 2019

How about that … it looks like this whole thing is about to blow up in their faces … BIGLY.

Watch for Cyprus to become a huge hub and part of this story … so far we have only scratched the tip of the iceberg!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 28, 2020, 02:17:42 pm
Wrong wrong wrong. The Ukrainian investigator was fired because he *was not* investigating corruption. The dismissal was advocated by the  International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform--and Joe Biden. And somehow the Trumplets have turned this around into a big lie--and some saps believe it. Unfortunately these saps vote.
The optics look awful.  Biden was told to recuse himself, to not be involved because his son was working for a corrupt Ukrainian corporation.  So what does he do?  He gets a prosecutor fired and than brags about it. Is that the kind of political sense you want in your president?

So Trump, just as stupidly, does the same thing not looking at the optics and demands  an investigation of Biden who's his first competitor in the upcoming election.

Two dopes.   

See.  We agree again.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 28, 2020, 02:32:00 pm
Definitely more discreet and more presidential and also showing a class and a good taste. Compared with some deplorables who boast publicly about their p***y grabbing exploits.

Precisely.  JFK didn't brag about it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 28, 2020, 02:37:40 pm
The facts often lead to winning.  In your case your "facts" were a loser.

Yet you studiously avoided contesting (let alone discussing) any of my facts, instead stating they were "A perfect example of a non sequiter".
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 28, 2020, 02:47:18 pm
Precisely.  JFK didn't brag about it.

How do you know he didnt brag about it?  But that aside, JFK screwing pretty much every woman he could while married, makes JFK so much more "presidental.  Right.  You should learn the first rule of holes....
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 28, 2020, 02:50:24 pm
Yet you studiously avoided contesting (let alone discussing) any of my facts, instead stating they were "A perfect example of a non sequiter".

What's to discuss.  You were talking about personal traits and when challanged you brought up something entirely different.  Just take your lumps. admit you did it wrong and move on.  Just a suggestion, mind you.

BTW, I'm not contesting each of those Presidents did some good things policy wise.  The same can be said for Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 28, 2020, 02:57:38 pm
How do you know he didnt brag about it? 

If he did, at least he didn't get caught on tape doing it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 28, 2020, 02:58:21 pm
Just take your lumps. admit you did it wrong and move on.  Just a suggestion, mind you.

Studiously ignored.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 28, 2020, 03:07:26 pm
If he did, at least he didn't get caught on tape doing it.

Thanks for admitting you were wrong...again.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 28, 2020, 03:07:32 pm
If he did, at least he didn't get caught on tape doing it.
Trump never was a politician until becoming president.  So he didn't care much.  That's why many people like him.  He tells it like it is.  Of course that gets him into trouble very often today because he is a politician.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 28, 2020, 03:14:46 pm
Interesting things about the Impeachment Hearings, nearly all of which I've watched live, including the sessions before and after the holidays:

1) Those lawyers are good!  Both Schiff's and Sekulow's presentations were very, very convincing.

2) The only television network in the US to offer continuous, live, commercial-free broadcast of the hearings in their entirety is the ever-hated target of <insert usual suspects here> the despicable beacon of MSM, CNN. 

By contrast, Fox News studiously avoided any live coverage.

3) These hearings are an excellent window into the opaque world of US politics.  Witnessing these proceedings live and unedited is privilege for all of us, especially foreigners.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 28, 2020, 03:15:47 pm
That's why many people like him.  He tells it like it is.

No, Alan.  He tells it like you think you want to hear.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 28, 2020, 03:17:13 pm
Thanks for admitting you were wrong...again.

[sarcasm on] At least I have the courage to do so.  [/sarcasm off]
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 28, 2020, 03:26:09 pm
Peter I only saw a little of the lawyers.  Unfortunately, the spin that comes afterwards is what's important because most people don't have time to watch.  They're working trying to feed their families.   So each news center will broadcast the part that makes their side's viewpoint look better.  Since most of the news media is anti-Trump, that's how it will appear to most people. 

The fact is there are good arguments on both sides.  But to remove a president, you need a really convincing case, one that crosses party lines like with Nixon.  The case here is too minor to get that reaction.  It's just not an impeachable offense even if there was totally convincing evidence, which there isn;t.  Frankly, it's all politics.   A tempest in a teapot.

What I find interesting is that the Senators can't say a damn thing.  They have to listen to both side's lawyers give their speil.   It must be very heady to be a lawyer giving a statement to the US Senate and 100 senators who have to sit there quietly listening to what you have to say.  Think of all the books they can write later and make millions. 

I wonder how all this will affect Biden's nomination.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 28, 2020, 03:32:26 pm
I wonder how all this will affect Biden's nomination.

Should be good for Buttigieg.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 28, 2020, 03:35:18 pm
Trump never was a politician until becoming president.  So he didn't care much.  That's why many people like him.  He tells it like it is.  Of course that gets him into trouble very often today because he is a politician.

I think the biggest reason we have nothing like that from JFK is the press did not usually report such things then.  Lots of interesting detail about that if you search.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 28, 2020, 03:37:37 pm
Interesting things about the Impeachment Hearings, nearly all of which I've watched live, including the sessions before and after the holidays:

1) Those lawyers are good!  Both Schiff's and Sekulow's presentations were very, very convincing.

2) The only television network in the US to offer continuous, live, commercial-free broadcast of the hearings in their entirety is the ever-hated target of <insert usual suspects here> the despicable beacon of MSM, CNN. 

By contrast, Fox News studiously avoided any live coverage.

3) These hearings are an excellent window into the opaque world of US politics.  Witnessing these proceedings live and unedited is privilege for all of us, especially foreigners.

I've watched a lot of live coverage on Fox.  Maybe your set is broken.


Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 28, 2020, 03:39:11 pm
[sarcasm on] At least I have the courage to do so.  [/sarcasm off]

[sarcasm on] Yes, you are truly courageous[/sarcasm off]
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 28, 2020, 03:41:49 pm
Quote
continuous, live, commercial-free broadcast of the hearings in their entirety

In case you need remedial work in reading comprehension.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 28, 2020, 03:50:11 pm
In case you need remedial work in reading comprehension.

Maybe YOU need to learn what YOU write...Sheesh...

Quote from: Peter McLennan
By contrast, Fox News studiously avoided any live coverage

First rule of holes.....
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 28, 2020, 04:28:39 pm
... boast publicly about their p***y grabbing exploits.

Sorry, Les, it was not public, it was a private conversation, that should have never been aired publicly.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 28, 2020, 04:31:29 pm
Maybe here the shorts need to be that long :)

 :D

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 28, 2020, 04:39:11 pm
... The dismissal was advocated by the  International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform...

Please quote some sources for the above claims.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 28, 2020, 04:44:36 pm
Sorry, Les, it was not public, it was a private conversation, that should have never aired publicly.

You are absolutely right, Slobodan, it should have never been aired publicly. Maybe he should have never mentioned it. Or done in the first place.
But then some say it was just a locker room talk. OTOH, one woman said about Trump who flew with her that he was like an octopus and "his hands were everywhere".
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 28, 2020, 04:51:27 pm
Please quote some sources for the above claims.

https://www.ft.com/content/e1454ace-e61b-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc (https://www.ft.com/content/e1454ace-e61b-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc) covers just about all of them.

Also, Here's Rob Portman (R) (https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-durbin-shaheen-and-senate-ukraine-caucus-reaffirm-commitment-help) asking for Ukraine prosecutor's office reform just before Shokin was fired.

And sorry for not getting back to your other questions yet.  Gotta work ;)

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 28, 2020, 05:04:31 pm
...Gotta work ;)

Much better choice :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 28, 2020, 05:24:09 pm
Much better choice :)

Right?  :D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 28, 2020, 06:21:42 pm
Should be good for Buttigieg.

Buttigieg is finish.  Even the NYTs has written him off in their endorsement of Warren.  They patted him on the head and said, "maybe when you're older you'll make a great politician someday."  I'm paraphrasing of course, but this was pretty much the gist of it. 

This is all great for Bernie, which would be the biggest gift to Trump. 

With the impeachment, if Biden wins, it will be a referendum on Trump.  If Bernie wins, it instantly becomes a referendum on Bernie, and then the Dems pretty much implode.  You cant really defend a guy who insisted that Castro was a better person then Kennedy.  A person who said it was a good thing country's have bread lines, who hung actual USSR leaders in his Senate office during the Cold War. 

It will be interesting watching Dems get behind Bernie and try to defend him when it is pretty obvious nearly all of the Dems dont agree with his ideas.  You guys will be spinning it 10 times faster then what Trump has ever done in your wildest dreams. 

You better hope it is Biden, or game over. 

PS, the fact that so many news organizations on the left are endorsing Warren shows just how out of touch the news media is with even Dems at this point.  The fakest and most loathsome politician in history that had the biggest fall from grace I can remember is getting endorsements. 

The mainstream media is dead. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 28, 2020, 07:55:20 pm
You probably need to think before you write, Bernard. His lawyers aren't saying anything about his "innocence." What they're saying is that an opinion isn't evidence. All we've heard or seen so far are opinions coming from people with bad cases of Trump derangement syndrome. It isn't evidence. It's the cheapest kind of hearsay and it's clearly biased.

OK, so I am the one not thinking here...  ;D When you say "a proof that he is not guilty is that there is no first hand testimony", how are you not saying "a proof that he is innocent is that there is no first hand testimony"?

And... how are you not saying "our arguments would be demolished if a person with first hand evidence did testify"?

Besides, Sonderland would be a "bad case of Trump derangement syndrome"? Sonderland was put in function by Trump himself for god's sake.

I wonder whether you realize that your insistence on the misguided usage of rethorics only goes to highlight how desperate your arguments are?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 28, 2020, 07:58:14 pm
OK, so I am the one not thinking here...  ;D When you say "a proof that he is not guilty is that there is no first hand testimony", how are you not saying "a proof that he is innocent is that there is no first hand testimony"?

And... how are you not saying "our arguments would be demolished if a person with first hand evidence did testify"?

Besides, Sonderland would be a "bad case of Trump derangement syndrome"?

I wonder whether you realize that your insistence on the misguided usage of rethorics only goes to highlight how desperate your arguments are?

Cheers,
Bernard

In Western courts, you don't prove you are innocent, since you are assumed innocent until proven guilty.  You just need to show you are not guilty. 

Pretty basic stuff. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 28, 2020, 08:02:16 pm
In Western courts, you don't prove you are innocent, since you are assumed innocent until proven guilty.  You just need to show you are not guilty. 

Pretty basic stuff.

Exactly. I am glad to see we agree.

Proof of non guilt means innocence since innocence can only be proven by the lack of guilt.

So when the lawyers of Trump are saying he is not guilty due to the lack of first hand testimony, they are demonstrating he is innocent.

And this demonstration fails the moment a first hand testimony demonstrating his guilt is brought forward, such as the one of Bolton.

So by refusing the testimony of Bolton the Republicans are obviously preventing the demonstration of guilt from being made, which can only be seen as an obstruction to the spirit of the impeachement process.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 28, 2020, 08:10:30 pm
Exactly. I am glad to see we agree.

Proof of non guilt means innocence since innocence can only be proven by the lack of guilt.

So when the lawyers of Trump are saying he is not guilty due to the lack of first hand testimony, they are demonstrating he is innocent.

And this demonstration fails the moment a first hand testimony demonstrating his guilt is brought forward, such as the one of Bolton.

So by refusing the testimony of Bolton the Republicans are obviously preventing the demonstration of guilt from being made, which can only be seen as an obstruction to the spirit of the impeachement process.

Cheers,
Bernard

I will give that the defense Trump insisted on was completely bonk.  The fact is he did engage in a QPQ, just like Obama did no several occasions.  The question is whether or not it was a legitimate QPQ. 

All evidence, including the recent leak by Bolton, shows Trump was concerned about corruption in the 2016 election.  Trump wanting to investigate this corruption is perfectly legitimate under his prevue, which means Bolton's leak is inconsequential in the greater scheme of things. 

Of course, Trump absolutely insisting on the furtherest possible ground being defended (it was a perfect phone call ...) makes his case rank with holes and looks bad, but it does not mean it is impeachable.  It was a stupid position brought on by his instance he is free of mistakes. 

All of this opened the door for more testimony.  And BTW, if you think Bolton will testify without Hunter being called, you're crazy.  The only way Bolton testifies is if Hunter does as well.  McConnell will probably forth a duel resolution to call both with a single vote.  That will be an interesting to see who goes on the record on the Dems side to vote for Hunter taking the stand. 

Like I said before, if this winds up boomeranging on Biden and Bernie wins the primary, none of this will matter.  Bernie is indefensible. 

LOL, your last statement is quite the stretch btw.  The whole process up to now has been nothing but partisan.  That goes for the Dems just as much as it goes for the Republicans, if not more so. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 28, 2020, 11:21:41 pm
Hunter could be subpoenaed to testify but then not show up, or claim the 5th,  after Bolton has testified. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 29, 2020, 02:02:09 am
LOL, your last statement is quite the stretch btw.  The whole process up to now has been nothing but partisan.  That goes for the Dems just as much as it goes for the Republicans, if not more so.

Well... Bolton's (let's not forget he is a right winged Republican) testimony will demonstrate that everything the Democrats have been saying was true, which makes their action non partisan.

They just followed the spirit of the constitution and have tried to protect the Democracy in the US. Any civil servant faced with this situation who would not have started an impeachment process would have failed to execute his/her duty. Like it or not, this is the constitution of the US.

What is clearly partisan on the other hand is the way Republicans are currently conducting the Senate inquiries.

But by now this doesn't matter anymore really, all these facts demonstrate with sufficient clarity where the truth is. The only outcome of the current trial is going to be a fatal loss of credibility for the GOP. Those here sticking to their position represent a few % of the population and are mostly irrelevant.

The honest and hard working Americans have understood by now.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 29, 2020, 03:41:38 am
Well... Bolton's (let's not forget he is a right winged Republican) testimony will demonstrate that everything the Democrats have been saying was true, which makes their action non partisan.

They just followed the spirit of the constitution and have tried to protect the Democracy in the US. Any civil servant faced with this situation who would not have started an impeachment process would have failed to execute his/her duty. Like it or not, this is the constitution of the US.

What is clearly partisan on the other hand is the way Republicans are currently conducting the Senate inquiries.

But by now this doesn't matter anymore really, all these facts demonstrate with sufficient clarity where the truth is. The only outcome of the current trial is going to be a fatal loss of credibility for the GOP. Those here sticking to their position represent a few % of the population and are mostly irrelevant.

The honest and hard working Americans have understood by now.

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 29, 2020, 03:55:19 am
Exactly. I am glad to see we agree.

Proof of non guilt means innocence since innocence can only be proven by the lack of guilt...

In Western courts, you don't prove you are innocent, since you are assumed innocent until proven guilty.  You just need to show you are not guilty...

Sorry, you both are wrong.

Showing you are not guilty = proving your innocence... and that is NOT what is happening in Western courts, where indeed you don’t have to prove your innocence.

What happens in Western courts is not you showing you are not guilty, but showing that the prosecutor didn’t show, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are guilty. Theoretically, you don’t have to say a word during a trial, or not even have a lawyer, and the jury still might find you innocent, if they believe the prosecution didn’t provide sufficient proof of your guilt.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 29, 2020, 06:43:35 am
Hunter could be subpoenaed to testify but then not show up, or claim the 5th,  after Bolton has testified.

In that case the Senate would more then likely give him testimonial amunity, and hold him in contempt if he then refused to testify. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 29, 2020, 07:34:25 am
Well... Bolton's (let's not forget he is a right winged Republican) testimony will demonstrate that everything the Democrats have been saying was true, which makes their action non partisan.

They just followed the spirit of the constitution and have tried to protect the Democracy in the US. Any civil servant faced with this situation who would not have started an impeachment process would have failed to execute his/her duty. Like it or not, this is the constitution of the US.

What is clearly partisan on the other hand is the way Republicans are currently conducting the Senate inquiries.

But by now this doesn't matter anymore really, all these facts demonstrate with sufficient clarity where the truth is. The only outcome of the current trial is going to be a fatal loss of credibility for the GOP. Those here sticking to their position represent a few % of the population and are mostly irrelevant.

The honest and hard working Americans have understood by now.

Cheers,
Bernard

Quite rich.  Have you thought about going into the news business? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 29, 2020, 08:39:03 am
In that case the Senate would more then likely give him testimonial amunity, and hold him in contempt if he then refused to testify. 
I'm not sure how that would be done since the DOJ prosecutes as do the states.  Why just call Hunter?  Call Joe Biden as well since it's his testimony that would confirm or refute whether there as something illegal going on.  If Bidens got nothing to hide, he should be willing to testify.  No? :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 29, 2020, 08:42:03 am
Well... Bolton's (let's not forget he is a right winged Republican) testimony will demonstrate that everything the Democrats have been saying was true, which makes their action non partisan.

They just followed the spirit of the constitution and have tried to protect the Democracy in the US. Any civil servant faced with this situation who would not have started an impeachment process would have failed to execute his/her duty. Like it or not, this is the constitution of the US.

What is clearly partisan on the other hand is the way Republicans are currently conducting the Senate inquiries.

But by now this doesn't matter anymore really, all these facts demonstrate with sufficient clarity where the truth is. The only outcome of the current trial is going to be a fatal loss of credibility for the GOP. Those here sticking to their position represent a few % of the population and are mostly irrelevant.

The honest and hard working Americans have understood by now.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard, The Democrats are not concerned with the Constitution.  They have their eyes on the 2020 presidential election and winning it.  That's what the whole impeachment noise has been about since Trump was elected.  It's been a smear campaign from day one.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 29, 2020, 09:06:41 am
Bernard, The Democrats are not concerned with the Constitution.  They have their eyes on the 2020 presidential election and winning it.  That's what the whole impeachment noise has been about since Trump was elected.  It's been a smear campaign from day one.
As i recall it were the republicans that made a 180 degrees turn when they realized that Trump was going to be the winning candidate; The democrats just were and are and stayed the democrats.
From day one Trump has been ...lying about the most simple facts anybody could check... has been daily vomiting on twitter ... has turned the presidency into a kind of family Soprano dynasty ... has even changed the course of hurricanes if they did not suite him.
And now he has tried to change the course of the election of 2020 to his advantage by abusing his presidential power.
It is in this light the consitution is under threat and action is a neccessity for democrats and republicans alike.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 29, 2020, 09:20:20 am
Well... Bolton's (let's not forget he is a right winged Republican) testimony will demonstrate that everything the Democrats have been saying was true, which makes their action non partisan.

They just followed the spirit of the constitution and have tried to protect the Democracy in the US. Any civil servant faced with this situation who would not have started an impeachment process would have failed to execute his/her duty. Like it or not, this is the constitution of the US.

What is clearly partisan on the other hand is the way Republicans are currently conducting the Senate inquiries.

But by now this doesn't matter anymore really, all these facts demonstrate with sufficient clarity where the truth is. The only outcome of the current trial is going to be a fatal loss of credibility for the GOP. Those here sticking to their position represent a few % of the population and are mostly irrelevant.

The honest and hard working Americans have understood by now.

Cheers,
Bernard

That has got to be the craziest thing posted in this tread yet.  You do understand, don’t you, that Trump voters still stand with him and they are not “mostly irrelevant “.  Did you see that yesterday he had nearly 100k requests for rally tickets for a 20k arena and nearly 30% were Democrats!  In New Jersey!

I’ll cut you some slack for not being American, but being blind to the partisan nature of this  3 year long Democrat attack...not so much.  You don’t know as much as you think you do. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 29, 2020, 09:26:21 am
As i recall it were the republicans that made a 180 degrees turn when they realized that Trump was going to be the winning candidate; The democrats just were and are and stayed the democrats.
From day one Trump has been ...lying about the most simple facts anybody could check... has been daily vomiting on twitter ... has turned the presidency into a kind of family Soprano dynasty ... has even changed the course of hurricanes if they did not suite him.
And now he has tried to change the course of the election of 2020 to his advantage by abusing his presidential power.
It is in this light the consitution is under threat and action is a neccessity for democrats and republicans alike.

Based on the numbers as of mid December ( the most recent I could find ) a Gallup poll has Trump with a higher approval rating at this point in his term, compared To Obama at the same point in his. 

Lots of people love Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 29, 2020, 09:30:03 am
As i recall it were the republicans that made a 180 degrees turn when they realized that Trump was going to be the winning candidate; The democrats just were and are and stayed the democrats.
From day one Trump has been ...lying about the most simple facts anybody could check... has been daily vomiting on twitter ... has turned the presidency into a kind of family Soprano dynasty ... has even changed the course of hurricanes if they did not suite him.
And now he has tried to change the course of the election of 2020 to his advantage by abusing his presidential power.
It is in this light the consitution is under threat and action is a neccessity for democrats and republicans alike.
You don;t know anything about America.  We don;t fired our presidents.  We unelect them. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: RSL on January 29, 2020, 09:32:39 am
That has got to be the craziest thing posted in this tread yet.

Craig, you have to understand that Bernard resides in Japan. He's completely out of touch except for the "news" media and TV, both of which are oriented in one direction. He only gets one side of the story, so don't expect him to understand the situation.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 29, 2020, 09:35:38 am
You don;t know anything about America.  We don;t fired our presidents.  We unelect them.

As they say;  you don't have to go to the Antarctic to know it is cold...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 29, 2020, 09:38:06 am
As they say;  you don't have to go to the Antarctic to know it is cold...
Looking at photos of the Grand Canyon is not the same as visiting.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 29, 2020, 09:45:04 am
It was stunning yesterday, watching the heads of Israel and of the States hold hands and mutually kiss ass, both of them under investigation for crimes of one sort or another, blithely think it wonderfull to carve out parts of the Jordan Valley and Palestinian territory. One has to wonder if they are truly mad or just think of the Palestinians as non-people; you know, like the tribes that had the run of America before the Europeans moved in with their superior weaponry.

How amazingly comforting for Benji to be negotiating Israeli expansionism with the Jewish son-in-law of the "most powerful man in the world"; and yet, some question why the Palestinians refuse to attend and thus legitimise those cosy sewing meetings! As it's said, turkeys choosing how to be cooked for Christmas seems something from the land of the absurd. Funny only the Palestinians realise that tiny detail.

Just ask how the people of Florida might feel if some non-American third party decided to tell them how little they should be allowed to retain of their own land, controlled their boat access to the Gulf and the Atlantic, and by road into the other states.

Maybe that's why the modern gun lobby is what it is: it learned from the Palestinians what can happen to you.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 29, 2020, 09:46:58 am
Craig, you have to understand that Bernard resides in Japan. He's completely out of touch except for the "news" media and TV, both of which are oriented in one direction. He only gets one side of the story, so don't expect him to understand the situation.

I know that, and I cut him some slack because of it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 29, 2020, 09:50:37 am
This is an interesting link to the Ukraine timeline and the document includes a lot of supporting links.

Great website name too.  Sure to make Lib  heads explode with claim of “ this is not a reputable source”.  But let them dispute the claims.  Nope, no need to investigate the Bidens..

https://thedonald.win/p/3ijH7Ac/the-real-ukraine-scandal-part-1/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 29, 2020, 10:03:13 am
It was stunning yesterday, watching the heads of Israel and of the States hold hands and mutually kiss ass, both of them under investigation for crimes of one sort or another, blithely think it wonderfull to carve out parts of the Jordan Valley and Palestinian territory. One has to wonder if they are truly mad or just think of the Palestinians as non-people; you know, like the tribes that had the run of America before the Europeans moved in with their superior weaponry.

How amazingly comforting for Benji to be negotiating Israeli expansionism with the Jewish son-in-law of the "most powerful man in the world"; and yet, some question why the Palestinians refuse to attend and thus legitimise those cosy sewing meetings! As it's said, turkeys choosing how to be cooked for Christmas seems something from the land of the absurd. Funny only the Palestinians realise that tiny detail.

Just ask how the people of Florida might feel if some non-American third party decided to tell them how little they should be allowed to retain of their own land, controlled their boat access to the Gulf and the Atlantic, and by road into the other states.

Maybe that's why the modern gun lobby is what it is: it learned from the Palestinians what can happen to you.

Rob

Well heck yes, let’s just have them keep just lobbing rockets and trying to kill each other.  Much more productive don’t you think than trying to find some solution.  Yea, that’s the ticket.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 29, 2020, 10:22:42 am
... One has to wonder if they are truly mad or just think of the Palestinians as non-people...

Rob, wasn't it the Brits who royally (how else) screwed the Palestinians post WWII?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 29, 2020, 10:24:41 am
I'm not sure how that would be done since the DOJ prosecutes as do the states.  Why just call Hunter?  Call Joe Biden as well since it's his testimony that would confirm or refute whether there as something illegal going on.  If Bidens got nothing to hide, he should be willing to testify.  No? :)

The testimony would be inadmissible in any court proceeding. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 29, 2020, 10:59:48 am
Rob, wasn't it the Brits who royally (how else) screwed the Palestinians post WWII?

Which makes it okay for the USA to do the same, how?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 29, 2020, 11:22:44 am
You don;t know anything about America.  We don;t fired our presidents.  We unelect them.

The point is not removing Trump, which of course will never happen given the makeup of the Senate. The point is getting the information out there so the people can decide next December. Unfortunately, many people have their fingers stuck in their ears and don't care about what is really going on. Sort of like the GOP senators.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 29, 2020, 11:30:05 am
The testimony would be inadmissible in any court proceeding.

What the Bidens did or didn't do is totally irrelevant to the impeachment proceedings. They could be corrupt as hell or totally innocent, doesn't matter. The issue is what Trump did to get the Ukraine to investigate them. So, the GOP trying to call them as witnesses is nothing more than a distraction and delaying tactic.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 29, 2020, 11:49:52 am
This is an interesting link to the Ukraine timeline and the document includes a lot of supporting links.

Great website name too.  Sure to make Lib  heads explode with claim of “ this is not a reputable source”.  But let them dispute the claims.  Nope, no need to investigate the Bidens..

https://thedonald.win/p/3ijH7Ac/the-real-ukraine-scandal-part-1/

Can anyone with the wits of an oyster take seriously a website called thedonald.win? Obviously, the answer is "no." This is on the same level as the "swift boat" gang who spent a lot of time and money spreading lies about John Kerry's service in Vietnam.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 29, 2020, 12:07:01 pm
Can anyone with the wits of an oyster take seriously a website called thedonald.win? Obviously, the answer is "no." This is on the same level as the "swift boat" gang who spent a lot of time and money spreading lies about John Kerry's service in Vietnam.


LOL!  Here come the usual suspects with their hair on fire.  Refute the claims if you can.  Or are you afraid of what they may actually tell you.  Heres a hint, if you look it is well sourced with links to "reputable" sources.  Of course you didn't look, did you?

Ignore the facts at your own peril.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 29, 2020, 12:07:59 pm
What the Bidens did or didn't do is totally irrelevant to the impeachment proceedings. They could be corrupt as hell or totally innocent, doesn't matter. The issue is what Trump did to get the Ukraine to investigate them. So, the GOP trying to call them as witnesses is nothing more than a distraction and delaying tactic.

Nice try, a failure, but nice try regardless.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on January 29, 2020, 12:28:05 pm
It was stunning yesterday, watching the heads of Israel and of the States hold hands and mutually kiss ass, both of them under investigation for crimes of one sort or another, blithely think it wonderfull to carve out parts of the Jordan Valley and Palestinian territory.

I'm not familiar enough with Israeli law or politics to know how the announcement will benefit Netanyahu, but the timing from Trump's perspective couldn't be better.  Perhaps as soon as the end of the week, the Senate will decide by majority vote whether to summon witnesses in the impeachment trial, several of whom could provide testimony that would undermine Trump's defense—in particular, former national security advisor John Bolton, who has already revealed in the manuscript of a forthcoming memoir what he believes were Trump's motives for delaying congressionally-appropriated military assistance to Ukraine.

Public opinion surveys indicate that a large majority of likely voters, including approximately half of those who identify themselves as Republicans, want witnesses to be called.  But public sentiment in general tends to have less influence over American politicians than the views of the political activists within their respective parties.

I suspect the timing of the announcement of the Middle East "peace plan" and quite possibly at least to some extent its substance were intended to energize parts of Trump's political base that could influence Republican Party senators who are considering voting with the Democrats to include witness testimony rather than proceed immediately to judgment.  The critical constituency isn't Jewish voters or donors, who are divided both in their party affiliations and their approach to an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, but Christian evangelicals, who believe the Jewish state is a biblical imperative and whose support or opposition is critical to many of the Republican senators who must run for re-election this year.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 29, 2020, 12:41:32 pm
What the Bidens did or didn't do is totally irrelevant to the impeachment proceedings. They could be corrupt as hell or totally innocent, doesn't matter. The issue is what Trump did to get the Ukraine to investigate them. So, the GOP trying to call them as witnesses is nothing more than a distraction and delaying tactic.

LOL. 

The president has the right and responsibility to investigate corruption.  If the Bidens appeared corrupt, then the president can and must investigate, which is what Trump is claiming he did.  So, point in fact, the Bidens have a lot to do with this impeachment. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 29, 2020, 12:56:35 pm
I am putting the odds at 60% that witnesses will not be called. 

Cocaine Mitch is going to put forth a resolution that will call both Hunter Biden and Bolton with a single vote.  If the Dems want Bolton then they will be forced to vote for Hunter as well.  This puts the Dems in a no win situation.   

The impeachment is already inflicting enough damage on Biden that now it will be more then likely a contested convention.  Biden's polling numbers are going down compared to Bernie's.  At this point in time, this is already a no win situation for the dems, but would still give them a fighting chance to maintain the house.  Fact is, if Biden and Bernie both have around 40% of the vote, neither one can be voted for since picking either would split the party.  On top of that, since all other candidates are polling in the low teens, none of them can be picked either.  So the only option is to pick someone not currently running, which never works unless there is some outside major event taking place like the Great Depression.  So, this path leads the Dems to loose the presidency but still gives them a 50/50 of maintaining the house. 

If Hunter testifies, Joe Biden's candidacy is over and Bernie wins.  Right now, 76% of the country identify as either conservative or centrist, and Bernie is so far to the left, even centrists need a telescope to see him.  So Bernie has no path to 270.  On top of that though, Bernie as the candidate puts the Dems between a rock and a hard place.  Either support Bernie and loose all credibility, or denounce Bernie, which for all intents and purposes would be an endorsement for Trump.  (FYI, Bernie's plans are so radical, that any answer to any question on whether you support those plans besides a clear no would be a suicidal political move.)  I suspect most Dems would pick the former, and that, combined with voting to impeach, would cost many Dems their seats, allowing the Republicans to take back the house. 

Not calling any witnesses would be the best play for the Dems, and, maybe if Obama endorses Biden, Biden could even win the primary fair and square.  But if Hunter testifies, even an endorsement from Obama will not save Sleepy Joe.

With that being said, I would not be surprised if the Dems cut off their nose to spite their face and call Hunter to get Bolton. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 29, 2020, 01:05:41 pm
Rob, wasn't it the Brits who royally (how else) screwed the Palestinians post WWII?


As many other peope, including those in Rhodesia.

It does nor forgive Israeli (100% supported physically if sometimes not verbally by the USA) and the USA for the charade taking place today and over many years.

And for Craig: lobbing rockets over the fence is tit for tat. What would you do if held virtual prisoner in your slum? Apart from emboldening Israel in grabbing ever more land for settlements, the US has contributed what, apart from arms? In echoes of Ukraine, the US also played the withholding game concerning aid to the Palestinians. Nice.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 29, 2020, 01:16:45 pm
...in particular, former national security advisor John Bolton, who has already revealed in the manuscript of a forthcoming memoir what he believes were Trump's motives for delaying congressionally-appropriated military assistance to Ukraine.

What John Bolton "believes" about Trump's "motives" is not evidence. Not even close.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 29, 2020, 01:26:19 pm
Israel is the first line of defense against medieval islamism. That’s why we support it. An island of democracy and civilization among the barbarians. That’s why we support it. Should Palestinians abandon the futile fight and the goal to destroy Israel, billions of investments would pour into the region and they too would quickly become quite prosperous. But, of course, the Democrats need victims to represent, just like the blacks here. That is their raison d’etre, without peddling victimhood domestically and internationally, they would run out of ideas. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 29, 2020, 01:35:57 pm
I'm not familiar enough with Israeli law or politics to know how the announcement will benefit Netanyahu, but the timing from Trump's perspective couldn't be better.  Perhaps as soon as the end of the week, the Senate will decide by majority vote whether to summon witnesses in the impeachment trial, several of whom could provide testimony that would undermine Trump's defense—in particular, former national security advisor John Bolton, who has already revealed in the manuscript of a forthcoming memoir what he believes were Trump's motives for delaying congressionally-appropriated military assistance to Ukraine.

Public opinion surveys indicate that a large majority of likely voters, including approximately half of those who identify themselves as Republicans, want witnesses to be called.  But public sentiment in general tends to have less influence over American politicians than the views of the political activists within their respective parties.

I suspect the timing of the announcement of the Middle East "peace plan" and quite possibly at least to some extent its substance were intended to energize parts of Trump's political base that could influence Republican Party senators who are considering voting with the Democrats to include witness testimony rather than proceed immediately to judgment.  The critical constituency isn't Jewish voters or donors, who are divided both in their party affiliations and their approach to an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, but Christian evangelicals, who believe the Jewish state is a biblical imperative and whose support or opposition is critical to many of the Republican senators who must run for re-election this year.
I see it somewhat differently Chris. While Congress and the senate in particular are fussing around with political nonsense accomplishing nothing, Trump is doing stuff with Isreal, has just signed a new NAFTA agreement regarding trade between America and Canada and Mexico, and doing the other business of America. What are the Democrats going to say they did in November's election?  He'll still be president.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 29, 2020, 01:37:25 pm

As many other peope, including those in Rhodesia.

It does nor forgive Israeli (100% supported physically if sometimes not verbally by the USA) and the USA for the charade taking place today and over many years.

And for Craig: lobbing rockets over the fence is tit for tat. What would you do if held virtual prisoner in your slum? Apart from emboldening Israel in grabbing ever more land for settlements, the US has contributed what, apart from arms? In echoes of Ukraine, the US also played the withholding game concerning aid to the Palestinians. Nice.

Rob, they have had over 30 years to work this out.  Its not going to happen. Unless you destroy Israel, which I think is the goal.  At least for Hamas.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 29, 2020, 01:42:53 pm
What John Bolton "believes" about Trump's "motives" is not evidence. Not even close.

It depends on what those believes are based on. Maybe Trump told him?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 29, 2020, 02:22:06 pm
It depends on what those believes are based on. Maybe Trump told him?

Maybe that would be true in The Netherlands, Bart, but what somebody "believes," no matter what those beliefs are based on isn't admissible evidence in the United States. The only possible exception would be if Trump were dead. Ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 29, 2020, 02:24:14 pm
Rob, they have had over 30 years to work this out.  Its not going to happen. Unless you destroy Israel, which I think is the goal.  At least for Hamas.


30 years is just dandy: a few more like the current and there will be no Palestinian land left; it will be de facto Israel. Just like the Wild West is now de facto paleface land. Time erodes everything to the advantage of the strong. You see the same thing in business, accelerating fast with the Internet, and the parlous state of High Street, Anywhere.

Hamas, Fatah or any of the others in the region: what do you think gives them their legitimacy in the eyes of the Palestinians? It's one anybody can guess right first time, but in case of doubts, it's because those groups are the only weapons or soldiers the folks can find to help them or even represent or misrepresent them. It's like joining the local gang because if you don't, another gang will kill you. It's about choices and lack of them. Neutrality is a luxury not on the table.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on January 29, 2020, 03:17:46 pm
Maybe that would be true in The Netherlands, Bart, but what somebody "believes," no matter what those beliefs are based on isn't admissible evidence in the United States.

No, his testimony as to what Trump said to him is admissible in any legal forum as evidence of what Trump said to him, although not as to the truth of what Trump said.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 29, 2020, 03:25:48 pm
No, his testimony as to what Trump said to him is admissible in any legal forum as evidence of what Trump said to him, although not as to the truth of what Trump said.

You're right, of course, Chris. I didn't say it very well. But in the end, it's the truth of what he said that matters.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on January 29, 2020, 04:07:03 pm
You're right, of course, Chris. I didn't say it very well. But in the end, it's the truth of what he said that matters.

I can just imagine Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow making the argument:

"Senators, you have heard John Bolton's testimony that President Trump said he was withholding congressionally-appropriated assistance to Ukraine as leverage to get the Ukrainian president to publicly announce he was investigating the Bidens, but can you believe what the president said was true?

"You all know the president is a serial liar.  He makes things up all the time to suit his purpose of the moment and then, when circumstances change, claims the exact opposite of what he previously said.  John Bolton testified that he believed President Trump when he spoke about Ukraine, which only goes to undermine Mr. Bolton's credibility.  How could anyone be so naive as not to question everything that comes out of the president's mouth?  For all we know, Mr. Trump wouldn't be able to point out Ukraine on one of Mike Pompeo's maps.

"Common sense dictates that you ignore Bolton's testimony and vote according to your political instincts, as the president's supporters expect you to do if you want them to stick with you in your next election.

"I rest my case."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 29, 2020, 04:16:09 pm
I can just imagine Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow making the argument:

"Senators, you have heard John Bolton's testimony that President Trump said he was withholding congressionally-appropriated assistance to Ukraine as leverage to get the Ukrainian president to publicly announce he was investigating the Bidens, but can you believe what the president said was true?

"You all know the president is a serial liar.  He makes things up all the time to suit his purpose of the moment and then, when circumstances change, claims the exact opposite of what he previously said.  John Bolton testified that he believed President Trump when he spoke about Ukraine, which only goes to undermine Mr. Bolton's credibility.  How could anyone be so naive as not to question everything that comes out of the president's mouth?  For all we know, Mr. Trump wouldn't be able to point out Ukraine on one of Mike Pompeo's maps.

"Common sense dictates that you ignore Bolton's testimony and vote according to your political instincts, as the president's supporters expect you to do if you want them to stick with you in your next election.

"I rest my case."

 8)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 29, 2020, 04:20:01 pm
Boom...

On Jan 23. John Bolton was told by the NSC via his attorney that he could not publish his book as written based on the manuscript he sumbitted.

On Jan 27 the NYT published the material he or someone else leaked.  Maybe he made changes and got it approved "over the weekend". :)

Somebody call a plumber, the sewer is leaking!

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 29, 2020, 04:36:30 pm
Duplicate post.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 29, 2020, 04:37:03 pm

Trump said to Bolton, maybe others, "That guy Biden is a crook.  He shouldn't be president and should be investigated.  I'm going to ask Ukraine to follow up or I'll withhold the money."

All perfectly legal.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 29, 2020, 04:55:14 pm
Trump said to Bolton, maybe others, "That guy Biden is a crook.  He shouldn't be president and should be investigated.  I'm going to ask Ukraine to follow up or I'll withhold the money."

All perfectly legal.

Lois Lerner and Peter Strzok appreciate your sudden change of heart.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 29, 2020, 04:56:40 pm
Trump said to Bolton, maybe others, "That guy Biden is a crook.  He shouldn't be president and should be investigated.  I'm going to ask Ukraine to follow up or I'll withhold the money."

All perfectly legal.

No, it was a decision made by Congress to supply the funding. It was not up to Trump to withold (without approval of Congress). Especially not when for his personal benefit, and not in the (military) interests of the USA.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 29, 2020, 05:41:27 pm
The aftermath of a Trump rally in New Jersey. Great citizens, these Trump supporters, real examples for their children.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 29, 2020, 05:44:02 pm
No, it was a decision made by Congress to supply the funding. It was not up to Trump to withold (without approval of Congress). Especially not when for his personal benefit, and not in the (military) interests of the USA.
It was not up to Obama to make a treaty with Iran without Senate approval.  Our constitution states that very clearly.  How about presidents that have gone to war without congressional approval. A lot worse.   Presidents do all sorts of things bending the rules.  But none of it's impeachable.  It's like when you tell your wife "No, you can't have that new dress."  And she goes out and buys it anyway.  Do you get a divorce?  :)

Withholding funds is not new.  Certainly not impeachable.  At least until now. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 29, 2020, 05:52:46 pm
It's like when you tell your wife "No, you can't have that new dress."  And she goes out and buys it anyway.  Do you get a divorce?  :)

That would be very prude. Otherwise, next time, she'll get you in a bigger trouble.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 29, 2020, 05:52:55 pm
No, it was a decision made by Congress to supply the funding. It was not up to Trump to withold (without approval of Congress). Especially not when for his personal benefit, and not in the (military) interests of the USA.

Actually all he had to do was NOTIFY Congress. He then had 45 days.  If Congress THEN passed a law saying it approved of his withoulding, he could do it. If not he had to spend it.  Of course he did not notify Congress.  Instead they issued "footnotes" to document advising of the delay and when they proposed actually releasing the funds.

However the White House lawyers, the DOJ and OMB Lawyers claimed he had immunity from that rule because he was CIC.  Others disagree.  The thinking was supposed to be that the notification would hinder his bargining power in respect to corruption in Ukraine.  No doubt Trump is pushing the envelope.  It will be interesing to see if it is tested in court.

Yourfinal point here is still undecided.  Did he use the bargining chip for his own personal benefit or was there a national interest?  Or both? 

Maybe Chris Kern could chime in and fix everything I screwed up here :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 29, 2020, 05:53:50 pm
The aftermath of a Trump rally in New Jersey. Great citizens, these Trump supporters, real examples for their children.
It would have been nice if they furnished a few more garbage cans for people's junk.    What I don;t get is I counted about ten chairs people left.

Here's the garbage at a Clinton rally.  It seems slobs don't have any particular party affiliation. 
https://www.fox29.com/news/people-fired-up-after-social-media-photo-shows-trash-on-independence-mall-after-clinton-rally
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 29, 2020, 05:55:17 pm
The aftermath of a Trump rally in New Jersey. Great citizens, these Trump supporters, real examples for their children.

Must be from that 30% of the ticket holders that were Democrats...:)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 29, 2020, 06:01:49 pm
It was stunning yesterday, watching the heads of Israel and of the States hold hands and mutually kiss ass, both of them under investigation for crimes of one sort or another, blithely think it wonderfull to carve out parts of the Jordan Valley and Palestinian territory. One has to wonder if they are truly mad or just think of the Palestinians as non-people; you know, like the tribes that had the run of America before the Europeans moved in with their superior weaponry.

How amazingly comforting for Benji to be negotiating Israeli expansionism with the Jewish son-in-law of the "most powerful man in the world"; and yet, some question why the Palestinians refuse to attend and thus legitimise those cosy sewing meetings! As it's said, turkeys choosing how to be cooked for Christmas seems something from the land of the absurd. Funny only the Palestinians realise that tiny detail.

Just ask how the people of Florida might feel if some non-American third party decided to tell them how little they should be allowed to retain of their own land, controlled their boat access to the Gulf and the Atlantic, and by road into the other states.

Maybe that's why the modern gun lobby is what it is: it learned from the Palestinians what can happen to you.

Rob

This commentary appeared yesterday on this very topic, in which you might be interested https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/28/the-real-goal-of-trumps-middle-east-plan-108125 (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/28/the-real-goal-of-trumps-middle-east-plan-108125).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 29, 2020, 06:13:42 pm
Actually all he had to do was NOTIFY Congress. He then had 45 days.  If Congress THEN passed a law saying it approved of his withoulding, he could do it. If not he had to spend it.  Of course he did not notify Congress.  Instead they issued "footnotes" to document advising of the delay and when they proposed actually releasing the funds.

However the White House lawyers, the DOJ and OMB Lawyers claimed he had immunity from that rule because he was CIC.  Others disagree.  The thinking was supposed to be that the notification would hinder his bargining power in respect to corruption in Ukraine.  No doubt Trump is pushing the envelope.  It will be interesing to see if it is tested in court.

Yourfinal point here is still undecided.  Did he use the bargining chip for his own personal benefit or was there a national interest?  Or both? 

Maybe Chris Kern could chime in and fix everything I screwed up here :)

Actually that's the point I've made over and over.  That he could chew gum and walk at the same time.  As long as there's reasonable belief that a crime was committed, an investigation seems to be in order.  Otherwise, any political opponent could claim political bias and an executive could not order an investigation of a politician from the other party even if he's guilty as sin.   Similarly, the House is doing the same thing.  Everyone knows the impeachment is for political reason for the upcoming election. Pelosi admitted she's been working for 2 1/2 years to impeach him, long before Ukraine.  They're using it for personal political reasons to win the White House in the next election.  Just what they're accusing the president of.    But since they have the legal power to do it, and there appears to be some nexus of a crime the President may have committed, it's perfectly legal.  In fact, VP Biden can claim the same defense.  Sure his son was protected, but the VP had a reasonable national security excuse to get the prosecutor fired. 

I just heard that this very question was asked in the Senate by three of the Republican senators, the one from Maine and two others.  Is it legal to call for an investigation for supposed violations of law if you also can a personal benefit?  This very issue is in the law regarding getting benefits in your campaign.  When Trump paid off the bimbo to keep her quiet, many said that was a violation of the campaign finance law.  But that's not so.  It allows the payment if the payment would have been made under ordinary circumstances anyway to keep the bimbo quiet.  The point being, Trump had a legal reason for investigating Biden as well as a selfishly personal one.  But the legal reason one is sufficient to make it fully legitimate. 

Oh, I found the article.  Here's the extract:

"Collins, along with Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah, directed the first question at Trump’s defense team.

“If President Trump had more than one motive for his alleged conduct, such as the pursuit of personal political advantage, rooting out corruption, and the promotion of national interests, how should the Senate consider more than one motive in its assessment of Article I?” the trio asked."

In response, White House counsel Patrick Philbin said that, if there was both public interest and personal interest motivating the president’s actions, that would not be the basis for an impeachable offense. He added that concerns about corruption in Ukraine meant that the president was acting in the public interest.


https://bangordailynews.com/2020/01/29/news/nation/susan-collins-and-two-colleagues-get-the-first-question-in-trumps-impeachment-trial/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 29, 2020, 06:14:49 pm
Must be from that 30% of the ticket holders that were Democrats...:)

Yeah, it looks like they grabbed the chairs belonging to the Republicans and smashed them in protest.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 29, 2020, 06:21:19 pm
This commentary appeared yesterday on this very topic, in which you might be interested https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/28/the-real-goal-of-trumps-middle-east-plan-108125 (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/28/the-real-goal-of-trumps-middle-east-plan-108125).
There may be other reasons as well.  The anti-Trump complaints falsely calling Trump an anti-Semite has forced him to go overboard to show he isn't.  So first you get an embassy in Jerusalem and now this.  You could blame the anti-Trumpers for actually making it harder on the Palestinians.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 29, 2020, 06:27:09 pm
"Collins, along with Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah, directed the first question at Trump’s defense team.

“If President Trump had more than one motive for his alleged conduct, such as the pursuit of personal political advantage, rooting out corruption, and the promotion of national interests, how should the Senate consider more than one motive in its assessment of Article I?” the trio asked."

In response, White House counsel Patrick Philbin said that, if there was both public interest and personal interest motivating the president’s actions, that would not be the basis for an impeachable offense. He added that concerns about corruption in Ukraine meant that the president was acting in the public interest.
What would you expect the President's lawyer to say? Surely you didn't believe everything else they said in the preceding three days.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on January 29, 2020, 06:50:32 pm
Actually all he had to do was NOTIFY Congress. He then had 45 days. . . .

Yourfinal point here is still undecided.  Did he use the bargining chip for his own personal benefit or was there a national interest?  Or both? 

Maybe Chris Kern could chime in and fix everything I screwed up here :)

I'm no expert on the interpretation of the Impoundment Control Act (http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/uscode/uscode1982-00100/uscode1982-001002017b/uscode1982-001002017b.pdf), but the U.S. Government Accountability Office decision of January 16 (https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf) notes that the law

Quote
. . . authorizes the deferral of budget authority in a limited range of circumstances:  to provide for contingencies; to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations; or as specifically provided by law. . . .  No officer or employee of the United States may defer budget authority for any other purpose.

If President Trump withheld the congressionally-appropriated assistance to Ukraine for policy reasons, as he and his defenders have stated―e.g., because he was concerned about corruption in Ukraine or wanted to ensure that European governments were incurring their share of the burden of support to that country―that apparently would be a violation of the statute, which is what the GAO concluded in its decision.  In other words, the 45-day notification requirement for authorized deferrals would not apply.

If his request for "a favor" from President Zelensky would have conferred a political benefit to Trump, regardless of whether he may have had another, independent, policy rationale, that would appear to be a violation of 52 USC §30121 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121): "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit . . . [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."

Whether either of these violations of law justifies removal from office pursuant to the constitutional provisions for impeachment is, of course, a decision for the Senate to make.

Addendum: I did not intend to imply in my initial version of this post that a violation of a statute is a prerequisite for impeachment.  There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires a statutory violation, and (the unorthodox claims of Alan Dershowitz notwithstanding) the surviving records of the constitutional convention and the common law of "high crimes and misdemeanors" clearly indicate that a crime is neither required nor sufficient to justify removal from office.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 29, 2020, 07:18:07 pm
I'm no expert on the interpretation of the Impoundment Control Act (http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/uscode/uscode1982-00100/uscode1982-001002017b/uscode1982-001002017b.pdf), but the U.S. Government Accountability Office decision of January 16 (https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf) notes that the law

If President Trump withheld the congressionally-appropriated assistance to Ukraine for policy reasons, as he and his defenders have stated―e.g., because he was concerned about corruption in Ukraine or wanted to ensure that European governments were incurring their share of the burden of support to that country―that apparently would be a violation of the statute, which is what the GAO concluded in its decision.  In other words, the 45-day notification requirement for authorized deferrals would not apply.

If his request for "a favor" from President Zelensky would have conferred a political benefit to Trump, regardless of whether he may have had another, independent, policy rationale, that would appear to be a violation of 52 USC §30121 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121): "It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit . . . [a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national."

Whether either of these violations of law justifies removal from office pursuant to the constitutional provisions for impeachment is, of course, a decision for the Senate to make.

Thanks Chris,

I've been reading on the CIC claim, and its a real push for the President, but its not been tested in court in this specfic instance yet. 

I'm also no expert, but the the Foreign Assistance Act also caught my eye. Again some latitude for a President to withold aid but again some say what he did was illegal.  But the long and short of it is no one has actually sued the administration over any of this, and at least as I see it, being illegal has yet to be determined.  Only opinon has been offered. It might well stand in a court case that what he did was in fact illegal, or not.  Aside from the impeachment, Congress has not tried to get a legal ruling yet.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 29, 2020, 07:37:54 pm
My favourite takeaway from today's deliberations:

"In answering questions, Mr. Trump’s lawyers offered their most expansive defense of the president to date, effectively arguing that a president cannot be removed from office for demanding political favors if he believes his re-election is in the national interest."


“If the president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,”


Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 29, 2020, 08:15:14 pm
Craig, you have to understand that Bernard resides in Japan. He's completely out of touch except for the "news" media and TV, both of which are oriented in one direction. He only gets one side of the story, so don't expect him to understand the situation.

The question you may want to ask yourself is what % of the US you are directly in touch with while living there? How diverse are your information sources?

As far as I am concerned, I access several US based media as well as media from 2 countries in Europe as well as Japan.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 29, 2020, 11:38:55 pm
My favourite takeaway from today's deliberations:

"In answering questions, Mr. Trump’s lawyers offered their most expansive defense of the president to date, effectively arguing that a president cannot be removed from office for demanding political favors if he believes his re-election is in the national interest."


“If the president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,”




Peter: Politicians do this all the time.  After all, we are a democracy and politicians are attuned and should be attuned to the public since that's who votes for their re-election.  When Obama pulled out of Iraq in 2011, against the advice of his military commanders who told him it would create a vacuum, he did it anyway.  He was setting the stage for his re-election.  He had promised his voters he would get us out.  He put his re-election ahead of national interest that disastrously led to ISIS.  But this is not impeachable.  It may be bad policy or good policy. But the voters determine its value through the election process.  We don't impeach a politician for instituting a policy because he's doing it to get re-elected.  Maybe they do this in a parliamentary system.  But in America, we let the president finish his four-year term. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 29, 2020, 11:47:42 pm
What would you expect the President's lawyer to say? Surely you didn't believe everything else they said in the preceding three days.

Frank, the point isn't what Trump's lawyers said. You don't have to believe them.  However, the main point is that the wavering Republicans have raised the main question about what Trump did.  They are reflecting what I;ve said for weeks.  That an act is legal as long as one of the reasons it was done was for public interest.  The fact it had a tangential personal value to the president does not make the act illegal or impeachable.  So the republican argument in the end will be Trump's act was legal for that reason regardless of any personal benefit he may have received.  That will be the justification for the Senate finding him not guilty. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 30, 2020, 12:15:55 am
This commentary appeared yesterday on this very topic, in which you might be interested https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/28/the-real-goal-of-trumps-middle-east-plan-108125 (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/28/the-real-goal-of-trumps-middle-east-plan-108125).

Many important Arab countries are supporting Trump's plan for the Middle East for Israel and Palestine. I'm not saying it's right or wrong.  This has been an unsolvable problem for 70 years,   Just that the politics have changed there.  The Palestinians should try to make the best deal they can.  The train is pulling out of the station.

"Arab Leaders’ Support for Mideast Peace Plan Marks a Regional Shift
Tentative backing of U.S. proposal reflects changing priorities, frustration with the Palestinians and more willingness to work with Israel"[/b][/i]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/arab-leaders-support-for-mideast-peace-plan-marks-a-regional-shift-11580325868
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: DP on January 30, 2020, 12:37:23 am
The Palestinians should try to make the best deal they can.  The train is pulling out of the station.

SS officer to a Jew : you can walk to a gas camera yourself or we can make a mincemeat out of your first and drag you in... make the best deal you can
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 30, 2020, 01:57:40 am
A fascinating of Republican logic was outlined by Trump's attorney Alan Dershowitz...

"Every public official that I know believes that his reelection is the public's interest... and if a President does something which he believes will get him reelected in the public interest that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment".

Which can be summed up in "you can do anything if you believe in yourself".

We live in a crazy world where this kind of utter crap is said with straight face in from of the Senate of the US... even in North Korea this would be considered as out of this world crazy.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 30, 2020, 02:05:13 am
A fascinating of Republican logic was outlined by Trump's attorney Alan Dershowitz...

"Every public official that I know believes that his reelection is the public's interest... and if a President does something which he believes will get him reelected in the public interest that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment".

Which can be summed up in "you can do anything if you believe in yourself".

We live in a crazy world where this kind of utter crap is said with straight face in from of the Senate of the US... even in North Korea this would be considered as out of this world crazy.

Cheers,
Bernard

I watched it too and found it not only bizarre, but also stupid.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 30, 2020, 02:16:39 am
I watched it too and found it not only bizarre, but also stupid.

Thanks, Les.

Dershowitz must have read my post in this thread from a month ago:

... 2. “Personal” gain!? Half of America wants him to remain president for their own gain...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 30, 2020, 03:46:50 am
Thanks, Les.

Dershowitz must have read my post in this thread from a month ago:

I don't know why the thanks, but it can't be disputed that half of America wanted Trump as a president. Although, I'm not sure if the percentage is still the same.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 30, 2020, 04:03:52 am
I don't know why the thanks, but it can't be disputed that half of America wanted Trump as a president. Although, I'm not sure if the percentage is still the same.

“Thanks” for calling me stupid, as I argued the same as Dershowitz, a month before him. 😉

As for the percentage, no, it didn’t stay the same. It went up.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 30, 2020, 04:23:31 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXZIZ2-Yn20

Such a relevant analysis... For the busy ones or those allergic to CNN, it's a factual description of the total change of behavior of Fox News against Bolton... who worked as a consultant for Fox News for 11 years. He has now become a big vilain.

Pathetic.

Watching these people without the least bit of ethics makes me sick.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 30, 2020, 04:24:02 am
SS officer to a Jew : you can walk to a gas camera yourself or we can make a mincemeat out of your first and drag you in... make the best deal you can

To compare today’s US and Israel with Nazi extermination camps is incredibly stupid and crass.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 30, 2020, 04:26:10 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXZIZ2-Yn20

Such a relevant analysis...

Bernard, please either remove your post or follow the forum rules and provide a sufficient explanation what the link is about.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 30, 2020, 04:33:50 am
Bernard, please either remove your post or follow the forum rules and provide a sufficient explanation what the link is about.

We already have a moderator.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 30, 2020, 04:35:30 am
“Thanks” for calling me stupid, as I argued the same as Dershowitz, a month before him. 😉

As for the percentage, no, it didn’t stay the same. It went up.

Slobodan,

I would never call you stupid, but Dershowitz's reasoning and official justification can't be described as brilliant.
If the percentage to reelect Trump went up, it's not because of astuteness of Trump, but because of the "progressive" Democrats veering too far to the left.
The overall sentiment may change when Mike Bloomberg steps into the ring.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 30, 2020, 04:51:48 am
We already have a moderator.

Apart from moderators or police, there are such things like citizen’s arrest, neighborhood watch, self-policing, and self-governance. Look it up.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 30, 2020, 06:19:51 am
To compare today’s US and Israel with Nazi extermination camps is incredibly stupid and crass.

That was not a comparison being made: it was an example to illustrate the Hobson's choice condition of the current game, the choice being offered the Palestinians.

Play fair; you are not a politician.

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 30, 2020, 07:05:13 am
That was not a comparison being made: it was an example to illustrate the Hobson's choice condition of the current game, the choice being offered the Palestinians.

Play fair; you are not a politician.

;-)

Rob, there is a Jewish radio host in the USA, Dennis Prager, that has a great saying on the situation, "if all the Jews in Israel put down their guns today, there would be no Jews tomorrow in Israel.  If all the Palestinians put down their guns today, there would be a free state of Palestine tomorrow."  It's that simple.

I use to be on your side, but after doing some more research, the idea that the Palestinians are getting a raw deal is crazy.  The fact is there has never been a peace deal Israel has not wanted to except, and there has never been a peace deal the Palestinians would except, no matter how lop sided that deal may be in favor of the Palestinians. 

The Palestinians' wish to kill all Jewish people in the Middle East and destroy the state of Israel is a great motivation then their wish to have a free state. 

Well, as Alan said earlier, the train is pulling out, and it really is.  This peace deal, for the first time, has united nearly the entirety of the Arab Middle East (with the exception of Iran) to not only recognize Israel's right to exist, but to also support them.  Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who previously went to war with Israel, have both agreed to recognize this peace deal.  Now you could argue that this is a strategic alliance against Iran, but the fact is they excepted it. 

With the exception of Iran, the Middle East is moving on in regards to the Palestinians.  It would do them best to see the writing on the wall, but it seems that they still never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 30, 2020, 07:39:50 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXZIZ2-Yn20

Such a relevant analysis... For the busy ones or those allergic to CNN, it's a factual description of the total change of behavior of Fox News against Bolton... who worked as a consultant for Fox News for 11 years. He has now become a big vilain.

Pathetic.

Watching these people without the least bit of ethics makes me sick.

Cheers,
Bernard

Yea and the Dems have hated him for years and now he’s their savior.   Sheesh....

Search YouTube for clips of Shiff talking about Bolton in the past.  In fact look for clips of Reps hating him too.  He’s a war monger, and there is plenty of bad all around this guy.  There are two sides to this coin, if you are willing to look.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 30, 2020, 08:23:44 am
As Richard Nixon said, "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal." 
Or as Trump said, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters".

Quote
In his defense of President Donald Trump, attorney and Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz added a third variant to Nixon and Louis XIV: If a President thinks his re-election is in the public interest, anything he does in pursuit of his re-election is legal.

The Dershowitz Doctrine would make presidents immune from every criminal act, so long as they could plausibly claim they did it to boost their re-election effort.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/opinions/begala-impeachment-trial-dershowitz-doctrine/index.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 30, 2020, 08:52:25 am
Yea and the Dems have hated him for years and now he’s their savior.   Sheesh....

Search YouTube for clips of Shiff talking about Bolton in the past.  In fact look for clips of Reps hating him too.  He’s a war monger, and there is plenty of bad all around this guy.  There are two sides to this coin, if you are willing to look.

That all does not make him a liar... as much as you can disagree with his political view.

and could not resist:

Trump's wall: High winds blow over section of US-Mexico border fence

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51307868

seems Trump has to build a new wall to keep the wind out.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 30, 2020, 09:18:38 am
That was not a comparison being made: it was an example to illustrate the Hobson's choice condition of the current game, the choice being offered the Palestinians....

Absolutely not. The comparison implies death to Palestinians. The offer is actually peace and prosperity, instead of perpetual war and poverty.

As a side note, Palestinians are generally disliked amongst the rest of the Arab world. They would get a much better deal working with Israelis than Arabs.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 30, 2020, 09:44:14 am
Absolutely not. The comparison implies death to Palestinians. The offer is actually peace and prosperity, instead of perpetual war and poverty.

Maybe. Maybe not. According to what I've read, the offer is good for the US and Israel. Maybe the Palestinians should decide if it's good for them.


Quote
As a side note, Palestinians are generally disliked amongst the rest of the Arab world. They would get a much better deal working with Israelis than Arabs.

I have no idea if the first of those is true, but being disliked by the likes of Assad or the Saudi princes doesn't seem like such a bad thing. Are they bad for business?

The second assertion seems like a bit of a stretch.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 30, 2020, 09:46:48 am
Absolutely not. The comparison implies death to Palestinians. The offer is actually peace and prosperity, instead of perpetual war and poverty.

As a side note, Palestinians are generally disliked amongst the rest of the Arab world. They would get a much better deal working with Israelis than Arabs.

Give it a rest. It was a hyperbolic comment to make a point. Much like the way you repeatedly engage in anti-Godwin comments by referring to policies you disagree with as Soviet.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 30, 2020, 09:56:09 am
That was not a comparison being made: it was an example to illustrate the Hobson's choice condition of the current game, the choice being offered the Palestinians.

Play fair; you are not a politician.

;-)
There have been many times the choices for both sides were much better.  I remember when  PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin all won the Nobel peace prize, much of it under the auspices of America.  What happened?  As Joe said above, it seems the Palestinians always miss their chance to get a good deal.  Well, as time goes on, those deals become less auspicious.  Now they have their traditional Arab allies losing patience with them because they have their own issues and need Israel as an ally against Iran.  Geopolitics changes.  I hope the best for the Palestinians., I feel bad that they have not made a deal.  I know they want a good life for their families just like the rest of us.  They deserve it.  I wish I had a pat answer, but I don't.  This is a thorny issue that has gone on for over 70 years.  If you have a solution, I'd be glad to hear it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_I_Accord#/media/File:Flickr_-_Government_Press_Office_(GPO)_-_THE_NOBEL_PEACE_PRIZE_LAUREATES_FOR_1994_IN_OSLO..jpg
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 30, 2020, 10:16:51 am
As Richard Nixon said, "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal." 
Or as Trump said, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters".

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/opinions/begala-impeachment-trial-dershowitz-doctrine/index.html

Not just Trump - his lawyers actually made the argument that not only could he not be prosecuted for such a shooting, but that he could not even be *investigated*.

So yes, Trump and his lawyers are *literally* arguing, twice now, that the President is above the law and without restraint.   I know a lot of hyperbole gets thrown around about how horrible Trump is, but it's terrifying that people aren't freaking out about that.  I can tell you - I guarantee - absolutely guarantee - if my preferred candidate dared to make that argument I'd be actively working against them, period.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 30, 2020, 10:25:57 am
Craig, you have to understand that Bernard resides in Japan. He's completely out of touch except for the "news" media and TV, both of which are oriented in one direction. He only gets one side of the story, so don't expect him to understand the situation.

Just saw this and don't understand. Where are you getting your info if not from "media and TV"?

Taxi drivers and barbers?  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 30, 2020, 10:28:59 am
That all does not make him a liar... as much as you can disagree with his political view.

and could not resist:

Trump's wall: High winds blow over section of US-Mexico border fence

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51307868

seems Trump has to build a new wall to keep the wind out.

Well since we dont actually know what he said in his book we dont know if he is lying or not.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 30, 2020, 10:34:20 am
Not just Trump - his lawyers actually made the argument that not only could he not be prosecuted for such a shooting, but that he could not even be *investigated*.

So yes, Trump and his lawyers are *literally* arguing, twice now, that the President is above the law and without restraint.   I know a lot of hyperbole gets thrown around about how horrible Trump is, but it's terrifying that people aren't freaking out about that.  I can tell you - I guarantee - absolutely guarantee - if my preferred candidate dared to make that argument I'd be actively working against them, period.

I watched a bunch of the questions andanswers yerterday but I guess I must have missed the part where it was said Trump could not even be imvestigated, let alone shoot somebody. Care to provide a link?

And gee, he has been under constant investigation for over 3 years now.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 30, 2020, 10:37:38 am
I watched a bunch of the questions andanswers yerterday but I guess I must have missed the part where it was said Trump could not even be imvestigated, let alone shoot somebody. Care to provide a link?


https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyers-say-cant-be-investigated-shooting-someone-5th-ave-2019-10 (https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyers-say-cant-be-investigated-shooting-someone-5th-ave-2019-10)

And gee, he has been under constant investigation for over 3 years now.

"But it's not FAIR," they whined, incessantly.  After a pause, they stood, chanting, "Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!"
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 30, 2020, 10:54:00 am

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyers-say-cant-be-investigated-shooting-someone-5th-ave-2019-10 (https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyers-say-cant-be-investigated-shooting-someone-5th-ave-2019-10)

"But it's not FAIR," they whined, incessantly.  After a pause, they stood, chanting, "Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!"

Ah, so you are going back to Oct. before the Senate trial began.  OK.   They have a point considering the ruling of the DOJ. This rule stands for ALL Presidents, not just Trump.  You don't like it, get someone voted in and your guy in place in the DOJ and change the ruling.   However do you think the next President is going to want that rule in place?  My guess is he or she will. 

So what about your "preferred candidate".  Where do they stand on this?  Oh wait we would have to see if they actrually changed in once in power. Bloivating about it while stumping won't cut it.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer/can-a-sitting-us-president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 30, 2020, 10:55:07 am
Frank, the point isn't what Trump's lawyers said. You don't have to believe them.  However, the main point is that the wavering Republicans have raised the main question about what Trump did.  They are reflecting what I;ve said for weeks.  That an act is legal as long as one of the reasons it was done was for public interest.  The fact it had a tangential personal value to the president does not make the act illegal or impeachable.  So the republican argument in the end will be Trump's act was legal for that reason regardless of any personal benefit he may have received.  That will be the justification for the Senate finding him not guilty.
Not really. It will be an up or down vote not tied to any theory of guilt or innocence. The real justification is they don’t want to cross Trump’s base and jeopardize their own re-election.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 30, 2020, 11:12:55 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXZIZ2-Yn20

Such a relevant analysis... For the busy ones or those allergic to CNN, it's a factual description of the total change of behavior of Fox News against Bolton... who worked as a consultant for Fox News for 11 years. He has now become a big vilain.

Pathetic.


After watching this piece it became quite clear that Bernard has not spent any time watching Fox.  I really liked when Ali quotes a Bongino text that says "no one cares" and Ali suggests wejust let Bolton talk.  Well Hannity offered an open ended invitation to Bolton to come on his show and say whatever he wanted.  Crickets from Bolton.  Linsey Graham suggested Bolton have a press conference and just say what he wanted to say.  Again Crickets.  Bolton could give his manuscript ( at least this section) to Congress if he choses.  Again Crickets.  So that leaves some unanswerd questions about Bolton. Maybe its better for his future book sales to lets this leak go unanswered. After all once he talks why buy the book?   
Watching these people without the least bit of ethics makes me sick.

Cheers,
Bernard


After watching this piece it became quite clear that Bernard has not spent any time watching Fox.  I really liked when Ali quotes a Bongino text that says "no one cares" and Ali suggests wejust let Bolton talk.  Well Hannity offered an open ended invitation to Bolton to come on his show and say whatever he wanted.  Crickets from Bolton.  Linsey Graham suggested Bolton have a press conference and just say what he wanted to say.  Again Crickets.  Bolton could give his manuscript ( at least this section) to Congress if he choses.  Again Crickets.  So that leaves some unanswerd questions about Bolton. Maybe its better for his future book sales to lets this leak go unanswered. After all once he talks why buy the book?   

And lets talk about the "ethics" of this CNN personality Don Lemon and Ali.   It was just this week thay got caught disparaging Trump voters.  Yea, what great ethics.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: RSL on January 30, 2020, 11:23:58 am
Just saw this and don't understand. Where are you getting your info if not from "media and TV"?

Taxi drivers and barbers?  :)

Hi Robert, Among others, the Wall Street Journal. You might want to try it. You'd be able to see some real news and some serious discussions about actual, rather than bogus, current events. Considering what I suspect you're viewing on TV, it would be a real revelation.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on January 30, 2020, 11:29:55 am
Rob, there is 1.  a Jewish radio host in the USA, Dennis Prager, that has a great saying on the situation, "if all the Jews in Israel put down their guns today, there would be no Jews tomorrow in Israel.  If all the Palestinians put down their guns today, there would be a free state of Palestine tomorrow."  It's that simple.

I use to be on your side, but after doing some more research, 2.  the idea that the Palestinians are getting a raw deal is crazy.  The fact is there has never been a peace deal Israel has not wanted to except, and there has never been a peace deal the Palestinians would except, no matter how lop sided that deal may be in favor of the Palestinians. 

The Palestinians' wish to kill all Jewish people in the Middle East and destroy the state of Israel is a great motivation then their wish to have a free state. 

Well, as Alan said earlier, the train is pulling out, and it really is. 3. This peace deal, for the first time, has united nearly the entirety of the Arab Middle East (with the exception of Iran) to not only recognize Israel's right to exist, but to also support them.  Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who previously went to war with Israel, have both agreed to recognize this peace deal.  Now you could argue that this is a strategic alliance against Iran, but the fact is they excepted it. 

With the exception of Iran, the Middle East is moving on in regards to the Palestinians.  It would do them best to see the writing on the wall, but it seems that they still never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

1.  Yes, simple, if you think the deal, any deal so far, has been fair, and that the Palestinian state on offer would be worth more than squat.

2. Israel is happy to accept any deal that gives it the advantage, as is the norm. I have never seen a deal that was "lopsidedly in favour of the Palestinians" and if you look at the map of the new, greatest deal (because it's his deal, Trump's deal), you will see the Palestinian lands near Jordan are isolated into tiny clustered isles in an Israeli sea. Some chance of a united homeland! But hey, it's the best deal, the greatest deal anyone has ever seen: divide and conquer.

As I wrote earlier, I wonder how the Floridians would react to such a deal. And how impartial they'd consider the architect.

3. Which is fine and dandy for Israel; not so for Palestinians. As with many communities where people live, even down to where I live, internal politics and groupings screw the concept of fair play. People form power bocks and voting blocks for all sorts of reasons, few having anything to do with the concept of fair play just as with the "rest" of the Middle East, which has all sorts of motives and alliances.

Were it not for oil and fear of Islamic expansion northwards and westwards, I don't think anyone would give a damn what they do to each other, but as it stands, we have to consider those things because like in NK, time she is a changin' and if Israel really has a nuke, it won't be long before Iran does - if it has not already got there in secret or been sold one from somewhere. Who knows? Using one is, fortunately, only for the suicidal: they are all too close together to survive intact.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 30, 2020, 11:51:53 am
Not really. It will be an up or down vote not tied to any theory of guilt or innocence. The real justification is they don’t want to cross Trump’s base and jeopardize their own re-election.
that's a fair analysis as well. But of course it goes both ways. The Democrats are voting based on political considerations as well. The whole thing has nothing to do with the Constitution.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 30, 2020, 11:55:09 am

After watching this piece it became quite clear that Bernard has not spent any time watching Fox.  I really liked when Ali quotes a Bongino text that says "no one cares" and Ali suggests wejust let Bolton talk.  Well Hannity offered an open ended invitation to Bolton to come on his show and say whatever he wanted.  Crickets from Bolton.  Linsey Graham suggested Bolton have a press conference and just say what he wanted to say.  Again Crickets.  Bolton could give his manuscript ( at least this section) to Congress if he choses.  Again Crickets.  So that leaves some unanswerd questions about Bolton. Maybe its better for his future book sales to lets this leak go unanswered. After all once he talks why buy the book?   

And lets talk about the "ethics" of this CNN personality Don Lemon and Ali.   It was just this week thay got caught disparaging Trump voters.  Yea, what great ethics.

I was wrong in my thinking about Bolton. Turns out to be just another disloyal political sleaze ball who's only interested in selling books and making money by stabbing people in the back.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 30, 2020, 12:02:39 pm
For those of us interested in accurate and thoughtful news sources (sorry, Trumplets), this is a great source I just discovered: Radio Free Europe. A very impressive organization of many reporters, stringers, etc. going out and actually collecting the news. I am fairly new to it, but on first look I am very impressed.

https://www.rferl.org

And, FWIW, this is the link to the story I mentioned earlier that shows Trump/Giuliani's story about the Ukrainian prosecutor is a bunch of hog spittle.

https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 30, 2020, 12:04:29 pm
1.  Yes, simple, if you think the deal, any deal so far, has been fair, and that the Palestinian state on offer would be worth more than squat.

2. Israel is happy to accept any deal that gives it the advantage, as is the norm. I have never seen a deal that was "lopsidedly in favour of the Palestinians" and if you look at the map of the new, greatest deal (because it's his deal, Trump's deal), you will see the Palestinian lands near Jordan are isolated into tiny clustered isles in an Israeli sea. Some chance of a united homeland! But hey, it's the best deal, the greatest deal anyone has ever seen: divide and conquer.

As I wrote earlier, I wonder how the Floridians would react to such a deal. And how impartial they'd consider the architect.

3. Which is fine and dandy for Israel; not so for Palestinians. As with many communities where people live, even down to where I live, internal politics and groupings screw the concept of fair play. People form power bocks and voting blocks for all sorts of reasons, few having anything to do with the concept of fair play just as with the "rest" of the Middle East, which has all sorts of motives and alliances.

Were it not for oil and fear of Islamic expansion northwards and westwards, I don't think anyone would give a damn what they do to each other, but as it stands, we have to consider those things because like in NK, time she is a changin' and if Israel really has a nuke, it won't be long before Iran does - if it has not already got there in secret or been sold one from somewhere. Who knows? Using one is, fortunately, only for the suicidal: they are all too close together to survive intact.

Rob

Like as been stated earlier, the Palestinians have had 60 years to come to the table to negotiate an agreement, but they have not.  They instead choose to shoot rockets and send in suicide bombers into Israel, and break every ceasefire agreed upon.

The world's patience has ran out. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on January 30, 2020, 12:20:08 pm
I was wrong in my thinking about Bolton. Turns out to be just another disloyal political sleaze ball who's only interested in selling books and making money by stabbing people in the back.
Funny, that's exactly what Giuliani said. Oh wait...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 30, 2020, 12:22:22 pm
Funny, that's exactly what Giuliani said. Oh wait...
Really? Hadn't heard Giuliani yet.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 30, 2020, 12:23:55 pm
CNN wil probably offer him a job.  Maybe MSNBC.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 30, 2020, 12:29:21 pm
I was wrong in my thinking about Bolton. Turns out to be just another disloyal political sleaze ball who's only interested in selling books and making money by stabbing people in the back.

Bolton wouldn't be a type of person I'd invite to my dinner party, but I doubt that his motivation in becoming National Security Advisor was to write books.
According to CNN, he was fired, because he wanted to cancel Trump's worldwide reality show and he didn't share Trump's infatuations with North Korea's Kim and Putin.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/11/politics/donald-trump-john-bolton-national-security/index.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 30, 2020, 12:40:45 pm
Like as been stated earlier, the Palestinians have had 60 years to come to the table to negotiate an agreement, but they have not.  They instead choose to shoot rockets and send in suicide bombers into Israel, and break every ceasefire agreed upon.

The world's patience has ran out.

Your sense of history is flawed.
+
Start counting the casualties on both sides and come again.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 30, 2020, 12:42:56 pm
Your sense of history is flawed.
+
Start counting the casualties on both sides and come again.

Well, go on.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 30, 2020, 01:00:00 pm
Not just Trump - his lawyers actually made the argument that not only could he not be prosecuted for such a shooting, but that he could not even be *investigated*.

So yes, Trump and his lawyers are *literally* arguing, twice now, that the President is above the law and without restraint....

Oh, come on, James! You know better than that.  That being a giant straw man. Put what was said, and what I said a month ago, in proper context. The context being “personal gain” accusation, against which was the public interest mentioned. Even then, the clear underlying assumption is no crime associated with it, and certainly not one that doesn’t rise to the level of high crimes, etc.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 30, 2020, 01:31:35 pm
Bolton wouldn't be a type of person I'd invite to my dinner party, but I doubt that his motivation in becoming National Security Advisor was to write books.
According to CNN, he was fired, because he wanted to cancel Trump's worldwide reality show and he didn't share Trump's infatuations with North Korea's Kim and Putin.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/11/politics/donald-trump-john-bolton-national-security/index.html

He's dropping little tidbits in order to sell a book and make money. That's Sleazy and it's hurtful to the president and to the country. If he has something important to say that reflects on the situation he should just say it. Right now it's just causing more turmoil in the whole country and hurting it. He's doing with his book publisher is telling him to do
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 30, 2020, 01:38:28 pm
Oh, come on, James! You know better than that.  That being a giant straw man. Put what was said, and what I said a month ago, in proper context. The context being “personal gain” accusation, against which was the public interest mentioned. Even then, the clear underlying assumption is no crime associated with it, and certainly not one that doesn’t rise to the level of high crimes, etc.

Dersh is now clarifying via Twitter.  I’m on my mobile so more in a bit..
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 30, 2020, 01:43:24 pm
Well, go on.
The most serious negotiations going towards a real peace were with the Olso accords.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords

Alas, Rabin was assassinated, a very effective assassination that also killed the peace process from the Israelian side.
Since then the building of more and more Israelian settlements in Palestine territory violated the accords.
Simon Peres started that and Nethanyahu who never wanted a peace process continued on an even larger scale.

about casualties
Here some info about the last 10 years...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/313220/fatalities-between-israel-and-palestina-after-operation-cast-lead/ 
about 3000 Palestinians and about 50 Israelians got killed.

Apartheid is a good term of how the Palestianans have to live under Israelian pressure.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 30, 2020, 02:07:47 pm
The most serious negotiations going towards a real peace were with the Olso accords.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords

Alas, Rabin was assassinated, a very effective assassination that also killed the peace process from the Israelian side.
Since then the building of more and more Israelian settlements in Palestine territory violated the accords.
Simon Peres started that and Nethanyahu who never wanted a peace process continued on an even larger scale.

about casualties
Here some info about the last 10 years...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/313220/fatalities-between-israel-and-palestina-after-operation-cast-lead/ 
about 3000 Palestinians and about 50 Israelians got killed.

Apartheid is a good term of how the Palestianans have to live under Israelian pressure.

Yes, I did read more on the Olso Accords after your post, and it is shame that Rabin was assassinated.  However, the accords did not completely fall apart at this time, and it seems like there were issues prior to the his death.  It appears that it was a very delicate process with faults on the both sides. 

Additionally, your comment about Netanyahu is a moot point now (regardless if it is true or not), since his liberal rival Benny Gantz also supports the peace deal.

Apartheid is not any where near an accurate description of the situation there.  Just because more Palestinians have been killed does not mean they are not he aggressor.  If you do a quite social media search, you will find that many on the Palestine have the belief they can go back to the historic boundaries, controlling the entirety of Israel and Palestine.  It's just not going to happen, just like we (the USA) is not going to given our entire country back to Native Americans.  This is especially true with now Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar all supporting it. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 30, 2020, 02:11:33 pm
The most serious negotiations going towards a real peace were with the Olso accords.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords

Alas, Rabin was assassinated, a very effective assassination that also killed the peace process from the Israelian side.
Since then the building of more and more Israelian settlements in Palestine territory violated the accords.
Simon Peres started that and Nethanyahu who never wanted a peace process continued on an even larger scale.

about casualties
Here some info about the last 10 years...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/313220/fatalities-between-israel-and-palestina-after-operation-cast-lead/ 
about 3000 Palestinians and about 50 Israelians got killed.

Apartheid is a good term of how the Palestianans have to live under Israelian pressure.

Exactly why the Palestinians should make a deal now before they lose even more. What do they think is going to happen? The Israelis are going to throw down their rifles, meltdown their tanks, and march into the Mediterranean and drown? They have to face the reality of the situation.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 30, 2020, 02:25:18 pm
In other news, it's really great watching people getting destroyed by the same radical movements they themselves help start. 

Buttigieg is now under intense fire for touting his "American Heartland" roots.  Apparently Heartland is now a micro-aggression, and actually means "a place where white people run things."

It's nonsense like this that will implode the Democratic party. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 30, 2020, 04:05:55 pm
... Buttigieg is now under intense fire for touting his "American Heartland" roots.  Apparently Heartland is now a micro-aggression, and actually means "a place where white people run things."...

Just when i thought no new PC idiotism can surprise me...  ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 30, 2020, 04:14:31 pm
Exactly why the Palestinians should make a deal now before they lose even more. What do they think is going to happen? The Israelis are going to throw down their rifles, meltdown their tanks, and march into the Mediterranean and drown? They have to face the reality of the situation.
Your word DEAL is the way Trump uses the word:  You do what i want you to...or else.
In this 'deal of the century' there is nothing to gain for the Palestinians... Although they have the same 'rights' on Jerusalem as the Jews...
They are treated like dirt by Israel that wants to make their life as miserable as possible in the hope they will eventually leave their country.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 30, 2020, 08:14:45 pm
Yea and the Dems have hated him for years and now he’s their savior.   Sheesh....

Search YouTube for clips of Shiff talking about Bolton in the past.  In fact look for clips of Reps hating him too.  He’s a war monger, and there is plenty of bad all around this guy.  There are two sides to this coin, if you are willing to look.

Oh yes, I am far from agreeing with Bolton's views and nor are the democrats.

I don't believe that any Democrat has changed his views about Bolton. They are just happy that he, for one, is behaving ethically here by doing the simplest thing, which is to tell the truth.

That obviously is a problem for the Republicans. Being part of the team involves telling whatever lie is required to support the party line. It may be how the game is being played in Washington, but I am not sure that a majority of Republican voters support these practices. They are far from being stupid though, if anything this should be a great eye opener.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trumpmor
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 30, 2020, 08:37:13 pm
Hi Robert, Among others, the Wall Street Journal. You might want to try it. You'd be able to see some real news and some serious discussions about actual, rather than bogus, current events. Considering what I suspect you're viewing on TV, it would be a real revelation.

You make a lot of assumptions. I haven't watched TV news in well over a decade and I've never watched US TV news. And you can't possibly believe you're the only person who has ever seen WSJ.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on January 30, 2020, 08:47:13 pm
Oh yes, I am far from agreeing with Bolton's views and nor are the democrats.

I don't believe that any Democrat has changed his views about Bolton. They are just happy that he, for one, is behaving ethically here by doing the simplest thing, which is to tell the truth.

That obviously is a problem for the Republicans. Being part of the team involves telling whatever lie is required to support the party line. It may be how the game is being played in Washington, but I am not sure that a majority of Republican voters support these practices. They are far from being stupid though, if anything this should be a great eye opener.

Cheers,
Bernard

You do know, don’t you, that Bolton has said he is quite willing to lie as part of his job, so what kind of a push is it for him to possibly lie to boost sales ?

https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/29/in-2010-fox-interview-john-bolton-confessed-he-would-absolutely-lie-about-national-security-matters/

I have to smile when I read what the NYT wrong about Bolton’s manuscript.  They stated Bolton says Trumps “preferred” to withhold aid waiting to see if Ukraine was going to investigate.   “Preferred” is a curious word to use.  A weasel work of sorts.   It makes me wonder what Bolton I’d trying to convey if this is true.  But of course unless Bolton can corroborate his claim, it will continue to be just that, a claim. 

As I have said all along,  let him talk.   He could do it tomorrow. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 30, 2020, 08:49:47 pm
I was wrong in my thinking about Bolton. Turns out to be just another disloyal political sleaze ball who's only interested in selling books and making money by stabbing people in the back.

So Bolton has bad things to say about Trump and you turn against Bolton.

Interesting your use of "disloyal". Disloyal to whom, Trump or to the country? I may be wrong but when these guys sign up, I believe they swear allegiance to the country, not to the guy who gave them the job. Which is the greater loyalty, would you say?

Bolton is just the latest in a long line of people who became disgusted with the clown in the big office, but you hold fast at every turn. I don't understand your hero worship, he's just another politician and a spectacularly sleazy one at that. Why the slavish adoration? He's not even a "conservative".
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 30, 2020, 08:50:39 pm
Oh yes, I am far from agreeing with Bolton's views and nor are the democrats.

I don't believe that any Democrat has changed his views about Bolton. They are just happy that he, for one, is behaving ethically here by doing the simplest thing, which is to tell the truth.

That obviously is a problem for the Republicans. Being part of the team involves telling whatever lie is required to support the party line. It may be how the game is being played in Washington, but I am not sure that a majority of Republican voters support these practices. They are far from being stupid though, if anything this should be a great eye opener.

Cheers,
Bernard

Ethically?  He's trying to sell his book.  First we have no idea what Trump told him.  Bolton hasn't said.  If he was ethical, he would have said it weeks ago.  But that would hurt book sales.  The NY Times did it again.  Another "October" surprise where the come up with some info to hurt a politicians they don;t like, or a supreme court nominee.  You think people would be on to their deviousness. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 30, 2020, 08:56:37 pm
So Bolton has bad things to say about Trump and you turn against Bolton.

Interesting your use of "disloyal". Disloyal to whom, Trump or to the country? I may be wrong but when these guys sign up, I believe they swear allegiance to the country, not to the guy who gave them the job. Which is the greater loyalty, would you say?

Bolton is just the latest in a long line of people who became disgusted with the clown in the big office, but you hold fast at every turn. I don't understand your hero worship, he's just another politician and a spectacularly sleazy one at that. Why the slavish adoration? He's not even a "conservative".

He's a sleaze and acting unpatriotically (correction) because he;s putting book sales in front of the country.  Creating this controversy to sell books when he could just come out and say now what the president told him and end speculation that's dividing the country and the senate.  The more he says nothing, the more people will buy his book and the more the country is going to be in an uproar as to what happened creating more political conflict.  That's not being patriotic.  That's being greedy.  And its hurting the country.  He's a greedy sleaze. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 30, 2020, 09:35:08 pm
He's a sleaze and acting unpatriotically (correction) because he;s putting book sales in front of the country.  Creating this controversy to sell books when he could just come out and say now what the president told him and end speculation that's dividing the country and the senate.  The more he says nothing, the more people will buy his book and the more the country is going to be in an uproar as to what happened creating more political conflict.  That's not being patriotic.  That's being greedy.  And its hurting the country.  He's a greedy sleaze.

Geez, that's going to a lot of trouble just to sell a book.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 30, 2020, 11:06:31 pm
Geez, that's going to a lot of trouble just to sell a book.
How many millions?  Just for saying nothing, well, just enough.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 30, 2020, 11:59:17 pm
The ballgame may be over Friday.

"Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said Thursday night he would not vote to hear witnesses in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, likely dooming a bid by Democrats and moderate Republicans and heralding the quick end of the trial.

A vote to call witnesses is expected Friday, and is now likely to be blocked by Republicans, who may move to acquit Trump as soon as Friday night."

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/lamar-alexander-opposes-witnesses-likely-sealing-quick-end-to-impeachment-trial-2020-01-30
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 31, 2020, 12:04:20 am
A vote to call witnesses is expected Friday, and is now likely to be blocked by Republicans, who may move to acquit Trump as soon as Friday night."[/i]
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/lamar-alexander-opposes-witnesses-likely-sealing-quick-end-to-impeachment-trial-2020-01-30

With the anticipated Friday rise of Amazon share price, that should bode for a good end of the week for the investors.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 31, 2020, 12:20:49 am
With the anticipated Friday rise of Amazon share price, that should bode for a good end of the week for the investors.

Bezos made about $14 billion in one day today.  I bet that impressed even Trump.  But the firm only made around $3 billion.  Yet it's a trillion dollar company.  What's the PE?  I don't get it.  Bezos is the only one making money from Amazon.  Well, his ex too. Apple on the other hand has something like a 39% margin on sales.  That's about an 80% markup on cost.   Now, they know how to make money. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 31, 2020, 12:24:41 am
With the anticipated Friday rise of Amazon share price, that should bode for a good end of the week for the investors.
Trump will probably take the credit for Amazon's increase in price just to stick it to Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 31, 2020, 12:29:17 am
Isn't it funny that Trump's administration is (rightfully) requesting more openness and collaboration from China about the coronavirus...

That is just 180 degrees away from their own policy on most matters.

I hope it means that they have finally understood that their isolationism is simply not relevant on a planet where all the key topics are of global nature. Like it or not.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 31, 2020, 12:41:20 am
Bezos made about $14 billion in one day today.  I bet that impressed even Trump.  But the firm only made around $3 billion.  Yet it's a trillion dollar company.  What's the PE?  I don't get it.  Bezos is the only one making money from Amazon.  Well, his ex too. Apple on the other hand has something like a 39% margin on sales.  That's about an 80% markup on cost.   Now, they know how to make money.

Between 4pm and 4:30pm AMZN price rose by about $250/share. Most likely due to a short squeeze. By the end of the After Hours time frame it dropped to about $2050.  It won't stay at that level too long. Their PE is indeed very high (over 80 as of Thursday, and it will be even higher tomorrow), but now some commentators and analysts are forecasting $2,300 share price by year end. That would be another 10% increase this year in stock value, never mind the PE.

AAPL, MSFT and GOOG delivered also great results this week. Especially TSLA which delivered not only a boatload of vehicles, but also a phenomenal increase in its share price.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 31, 2020, 03:24:29 am
...  Why the slavish adoration?...

There’s no adoration. We just like what he does, not necessarily what he says, and certainly not who he is (a jerk).

If his only legacy would be preventing another Jihadi Jane entering the States and Congress, that would be enough, for instance. Let alone stopping the barbarians at the gate (literally).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 31, 2020, 04:32:10 am
Another win for Trump:

US life expectancy rises for first time since 2014 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51316030
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 31, 2020, 05:41:33 am
Another win for Trump:

US life expectancy rises for first time since 2014 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51316030
That might be more the work of Michelle Obama, than Trump; If you think somebody who lived in the White house had to do with that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 31, 2020, 07:14:16 am
You suppose having jobs and an income and leading a more normal life might have something to do with it, Pieter?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 31, 2020, 07:44:49 am
You suppose having jobs and an income and leading a more normal life might have something to do with it, Pieter?

No, Russ, it must have been school lunches, Michelle’s legacy, that kids were throwing into trash and than going to the nearest  🍔 place.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 31, 2020, 09:28:10 am
That point crossed my mind as I wrote to Pieter, Slobodan. I'm sure it couldn't have been an improvement in the economy. Had to be Michelle and the trash barrels full of lunches.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 31, 2020, 10:04:51 am
That point crossed my mind as I wrote to Pieter, Slobodan. I'm sure it couldn't have been an improvement in the economy. Had to be Michelle and the trash barrels full of lunches.

Moving those trash barrels could have been a good work out for many in the food service industry.  Perhaps we should be giving Michelle some credit. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 31, 2020, 10:07:55 am
Okay Joe. Here's one thumb up for Michelle.  8)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 31, 2020, 10:50:23 am
You guys are just goofing right?  You don't actually think Trump has anything to do with this, do you?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 31, 2020, 11:03:51 am
No, James, I don't think so. I know so! All I have to do is look at the employment statistics to see the truth. Those with their heads out can see it. Those with their heads in never will.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on January 31, 2020, 11:12:20 am
No, James, I don't think so. I know so! All I have to do is look at the employment statistics to see the truth. Those with their heads out can see it. Those with their heads in never will.
I thought it was you that said correlations don't have to mean anything... amd don't you think the process of people living longer takes more than 3.5 years?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 31, 2020, 11:39:24 am
So, Pieter, let me see if I understand what you're saying. I guess you're saying that people getting more jobs and pay increases doesn't "correlate" with Trump's policies. That's not the kind of situation where correlations don't track with results. Climate is an example of the kind of guess based on computer models that depend on the validity of their premises and the validity of their data -- a situation where neither can be confirmed.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 31, 2020, 11:44:17 am
Oh yes, I am far from agreeing with Bolton's views and nor are the democrats.

I don't believe that any Democrat has changed his views about Bolton. They are just happy that he, for one, is behaving ethically here by doing the simplest thing, which is to tell the truth.

That obviously is a problem for the Republicans. Being part of the team involves telling whatever lie is required to support the party line. It may be how the game is being played in Washington, but I am not sure that a majority of Republican voters support these practices. They are far from being stupid though, if anything this should be a great eye opener.

Cheers,
Bernard

Well put, Bernard.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 31, 2020, 11:45:47 am
You guys are just goofing right?  You don't actually think Trump has anything to do with this, do you?

For the record, I think neither Trump nor Michelle has anything to do with this. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 31, 2020, 11:48:39 am
Isn't it funny that Trump's administration is (rightfully) requesting more openness and collaboration from China about the coronavirus...

That is just 180 degrees away from their own policy on most matters.

I hope it means that they have finally understood that their isolationism is simply not relevant on a planet where all the key topics are of global nature. Like it or not.

Cheers,
Bernard

There's a difference between isolationism and putting America first.  Trump actually is acting like many liberals before him.  He wants to keep America from getting involved with every situation going on in the world.  IT's none of m our business.  That's exactly what many of you have argued, and rightfully so.  So now that we have a president doing that, you argue for the opposite.  Make up your mind. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 31, 2020, 11:49:23 am
Between 4pm and 4:30pm AMZN price rose by about $250/share. Most likely due to a short squeeze. By the end of the After Hours time frame it dropped to about $2050.  It won't stay at that level too long. Their PE is indeed very high (over 80 as of Thursday, and it will be even higher tomorrow), but now some commentators and analysts are forecasting $2,300 share price by year end. That would be another 10% increase this year in stock value, never mind the PE.

AAPL, MSFT and GOOG delivered also great results this week. Especially TSLA which delivered not only a boatload of vehicles, but also a phenomenal increase in its share price.

All good for Trump's re-election.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 31, 2020, 11:51:13 am
Another win for Trump:

US life expectancy rises for first time since 2014 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51316030
Glad to hear that.  Tomorrow's my 75th birthday. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 31, 2020, 11:55:25 am
So, Pieter, let me see if I understand what you're saying. I guess you're saying that people getting more jobs and pay increases doesn't "correlate" with Trump's policies. That's not the kind of situation where correlations don't track with results. Climate is an example of the kind of guess based on computer models that depend on the validity of their premises and the validity of their data -- a situation where neither can be confirmed.
Better stock market means more money available for retirement when you're older.  Less worries, more money for doctors and vacation.  More money for photography.  G.A.S. problems goes away.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 31, 2020, 11:58:08 am
Another win for Trump:

US life expectancy rises for first time since 2014 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51316030

And it fell the previous two years. Want to accredit that to Trump? But anyway, it's a teeny tiny change, about one tenth of one percent, so big whoop. And anyway, Trump (or any president) had nothing to do with this. Any more than Trump had anything to do with the current economic boom.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 31, 2020, 12:00:10 pm
You guys are just goofing right?  You don't actually think Trump has anything to do with this, do you?

They goof, yes, but they are not aware that they are goofing.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 31, 2020, 12:03:47 pm
Any more than Trump had anything to do with the current economic boom.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Best laugh I've had in a while, though most of the postings on this thread are laughable.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 31, 2020, 12:04:25 pm
And it fell the previous two years. Want to accredit that to Trump? But anyway, it's a teeny tiny change, about one tenth of one percent, so big whoop. And anyway, Trump (or any president) had nothing to do with this. Any more than Trump had anything to do with the current economic boom.
Not true.  Lower taxes and less regulation has increased business and employment.  It's been over three years since he became president.  So you can;t keep crediting Obama for the increase.  You have to start giving the current president his due too.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 31, 2020, 12:04:45 pm
No, James, I don't think so. I know so! All I have to do is look at the employment statistics to see the truth. Those with their heads out can see it. Those with their heads in never will.

The improvement in employment started in 2010 when you-know-who was president. Trump had nothing to do with it, other than the faint praise that he hasn't screwed it up.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 31, 2020, 12:09:29 pm
What can I say about those with their heads in (or up), Peter? If there hadn't been a rise after the recession we'd still have called it a recession. If your head were out you'd be able to see that.Then there's understanding. Just seeing it doesn't mean you'll understand it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 31, 2020, 12:15:57 pm
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Best laugh I've had in a while, though most of the postings on this thread are laughable.

However, I do agree with this one.  It was truly a great laugh. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 31, 2020, 12:17:14 pm
That point crossed my mind as I wrote to Pieter, Slobodan. I'm sure it couldn't have been an improvement in the economy. Had to be Michelle and the trash barrels full of lunches.

As much as I respect Michelle Obama, she crossed the line when her program mandated whole wheat biscuits. The very idea makes my head crawl!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on January 31, 2020, 12:19:17 pm
But they're healthy, Peter. Don't you believe Michelle?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 31, 2020, 03:01:50 pm
Just when i thought no new PC idiotism can surprise me...  ;D

I have another winner from CNN for you. 

BTW, if you think it is a bad idea to eat bats, you may be racist! 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 31, 2020, 04:15:30 pm
What can I say about those with their heads in (or up), Peter? If there hadn't been a rise after the recession we'd still have called it a recession. If your head were out you'd be able to see that.Then there's understanding. Just seeing it doesn't mean you'll understand it.

To paraphrase a physicist at a Princeton seminar: That is so bad it does not even rise to the level of being wrong.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on January 31, 2020, 04:20:20 pm
But they're healthy, Peter. Don't you believe Michelle?
 


Healthy, yes. But not if they aren't eaten. That's what Michelle overlooked.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 31, 2020, 05:29:16 pm
Is Biden going down in the polls because of the impeachment?

Sanders surges, Biden plateaus in latest NBC/WSJ poll of 2020 Democratic primary voters
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/30/sanders-surges-biden-plateaus-in-2020-democratic-primary-nbc-wsj-poll.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 31, 2020, 06:42:52 pm
John Kasich says "more information is needed not less". That seems a common sense, and the most basic requirement in any court proceedings.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on January 31, 2020, 07:27:32 pm
John Kasich says "more information is needed not less". That seems a common sense, and the most basic requirement in any court proceedings.

The house can always reopen investigations if they like.  After all, they have the votes. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 31, 2020, 09:06:50 pm
The improvement in employment started in 2010 when you-know-who was president. Trump had nothing to do with it, other than the faint praise that he hasn't screwed it up.

Well, then again...

farm bankruptcies are through the silo roof (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-farms-bankruptcy-idUSKBN1ZT2YE?fbclid=IwAR2KQm97l7sWfbIQ8zHnj-6CdorR0ZU5zO6wLAYLb_vn9SWLAV8g5Zrx53k)

Now to be fair, the article claims that, "Nearly one-third of projected U.S. net farm income in 2019 came from government aid and taxpayer-subsidized commodity insurance payments, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture." And, "The court data indicates those supports did help prevent a more serious economic fallout, said John Newton, chief economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation. Some of the biggest bankruptcy rate increases were seen in regions, such as apple growers in the Pacific Northwest, that did not receive much or any of the latest round of trade aid from the Trump administration."

So credit where credit is due to Trump for using socialism (https://mises.org/power-market/trumps-road-socialism) to prop up failing industry.  Of course, that industry probably wouldn't be failing as much had Trump not gutted the farm industry with his stupid trade wars.  But hey, "Trade wars are good, and easy to win." (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/02/trump-trade-wars-are-good-and-easy-to-win.html)

Also, that one-month increase in life expectancy? Largely a result of better cancer and other treatments, the end result of basic research (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/03/trump-once-again-requests-deep-cuts-us-science-spending) that takes years to come to fruition. 

Oh yeah - that increase in cancer survivability?  It's offset by an increase in suicides in Trump country (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/mental-health/suicide-rates-are-rising-especially-rural-america-n1050806).  I wonder why that is?  Oh wait... it's because

Quote
A number of factors appear to be driving suicide rates up in rural America, including poverty, low income and underemployment, said lead study author Danielle Steelesmith, a postdoctoral fellow at Ohio State University’s Wexner Medical Center.
.

But there is hope!

Quote
Lack of access to health care in rural areas further compounds the problem. “Insurance can be a proxy for people’s access to mental health care,” Steelesmith said.

Quote
“Lack of health insurance kills people,” [Dr. Albert Wu, an internist and a professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health] said. “More insurance, including the expansion of Medicaid, could help.”

I wonder what program we have that could help with that? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 31, 2020, 10:11:21 pm
The official unemployment numbers are always lower than the real unemployment rates which include discouraged workers, laid-off older workers who are forced to take early retirement, some self-employed marginal occupations, and many part-time jobs.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 31, 2020, 10:39:44 pm
John Kasich says "more information is needed not less". That seems a common sense, and the most basic requirement in any court proceedings.
This isn't a court proceeding.  It's a political contest where the leading party in the House impeached the president and the leading party in the Senate will find him not guilty.  All along party affiliation in both instances.  It's now the final inning in a 3 1/2 year long attempt of a coup d'etat. 

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 31, 2020, 10:42:53 pm
The official unemployment numbers are always lower than the real unemployment rates which include discouraged workers, laid-off older workers who are forced to take early retirement, some self-employed marginal occupations, and many part-time jobs.
That's true but wasn't mentioned much when Obama claimed great unemployment figures.  Also, they lied about the true figures in the last quarter running up to his reelection to make them look even better for his campaign. 

A better view is the employment figures which have been steadily if slowly going up since the recession ten years ago under both administrations.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/employment-rate
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 31, 2020, 10:45:03 pm
This isn't a court proceeding.  It's a political contest where the leading party in the House impeached the president and the leading party in the Senate will find him not guilty.  All along party affiliation in both instances.  It's now the final inning in a 3 1/2 year long attempt of a coup d'etat.

You were all good until this silliness.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on January 31, 2020, 10:46:56 pm
That's true but wasn't mentioned much when Obama claimed great unemployment figures. 



Sure it was.  Just in the opposite places it’s mentioned now :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on January 31, 2020, 11:00:48 pm
You were all good until this silliness.
If it was only about Ukraine, I would agree with you.  But Biden was preceded by Russian collusion, obstruction of justice, paying off bimbos, taxes, emoluments, etc.  For 3 1/2 years the Democrats have tried to find things to impeach Trump because they weren't happy they lost the election.

It then became after Mueller a desperate and unhinged attempt to influence the 2020 election.  The fact that Trump was able to accomplish so much despite being under all this constant pressure and harassment is frankly pretty amazing.  Most other people would have folded long ago, a reflection on his stamina and toughness.  I wonder how many independents will see it in that light and give him a win in November.  Of course, his supporters and opposition won;t change their minds any more than anyone here has changed theirs in 183 pages.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 31, 2020, 11:27:21 pm
The refusal of the Senate to hear witnesses marks the end of the US as a democracy.

I feel incredibly sorry for all my American friends and also for myself because this is symptomatic of a terrible global slide towards the darkest hours of totalitarianism.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on January 31, 2020, 11:42:18 pm
The refusal of the Senate to hear witnesses marks the end of the US as a democracy.

I feel incredibly sorry for all my American friends and also for myself because this is symptomatic of a terrible global slide towards the darkest hours of totalitarianism.

Cheers,
Bernard

+1
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 01, 2020, 12:35:22 am
The refusal of the Senate to hear witnesses marks the end of the US as a democracy.

I feel incredibly sorry for all my American friends and also for myself because this is symptomatic of a terrible global slide towards the darkest hours of totalitarianism.

Cheers,
Bernard


Sheesh.  I'm waiting any minute to be taken away to a gulag. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 01, 2020, 01:52:51 am
The refusal of the Senate to hear witnesses marks the end of the US as a democracy.

I feel incredibly sorry for all my American friends and also for myself because this is symptomatic of a terrible global slide towards the darkest hours of totalitarianism....

 ;D ;D ;D

And just when one smart country escaped the clutches of a real totalitarianism.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: thierrylegros396 on February 01, 2020, 02:53:05 am
;D ;D ;D

And just when one smart country escaped the clutches of a real totalitarianism.

The real problem is worldwide money totalitarianism!

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on February 01, 2020, 04:37:26 am
;D ;D ;D

And just when one smart country escaped the clutches of a real totalitarianism.

If you mean Britain, you're mistaken: its heading right into it. I told you already in these pages, I was always a Tory voter when I had the right to vote; I could never vote for them again because they no longer exist: what there is today is a clutch of ogres without even a pretence towards honesty. Maybe you didn't have access or cared enough to watch the so-called Conservative benches during the long debates about Brexit; if you had, you would have seen the naked, undisguised arrogance of the super rich treating the rest like a pile of dog shit. Had you ever wanted to view the supercilious curl of the aristocratic lip, you had it there, every day. Equally, you could view the scheming, weak face of the neo-communist that knows its time has passed and can never return because its motherland has changed into something else and ruined the plot, leaving it no place to call home.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on February 01, 2020, 04:45:48 am
The real problem is worldwide money totalitarianism!

That's bullshit. Money is simply a means to the transfer and trading of value. Reduced to simple terms: if you want to have a cabbage, there is no use in trying to get one by exchanging it for a carrot if the guy with the cabbage you desire already has too many carrots of his own. You require a system of tokens that represents both cabbages and carrots: money.

The problems start to arise when one guy has too many carrots or cabbages, but won't let you have one of your own.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 09:16:26 am
The refusal of the Senate to hear witnesses marks the end of the US as a democracy.

I feel incredibly sorry for all my American friends and also for myself because this is symptomatic of a terrible global slide towards the darkest hours of totalitarianism.

Cheers,
Bernard

Uh, last I looked there were 17 ( plus one hidden) witnesses in this trial.  And also last time I looked, The House decided not to pursue Bolton’s testimony.   

Enjoy your memodrama.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 09:36:22 am
Well, then again...

farm bankruptcies are through the silo roof (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-farms-bankruptcy-idUSKBN1ZT2YE?fbclid=IwAR2KQm97l7sWfbIQ8zHnj-6CdorR0ZU5zO6wLAYLb_vn9SWLAV8g5Zrx53k)

Now to be fair, the article claims that, "Nearly one-third of projected U.S. net farm income in 2019 came from government aid and taxpayer-subsidized commodity insurance payments, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture." And, "The court data indicates those supports did help prevent a more serious economic fallout, said John Newton, chief economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation. Some of the biggest bankruptcy rate increases were seen in regions, such as apple growers in the Pacific Northwest, that did not receive much or any of the latest round of trade aid from the Trump administration."

So credit where credit is due to Trump for using socialism (https://mises.org/power-market/trumps-road-socialism) to prop up failing industry.  Of course, that industry probably wouldn't be failing as much had Trump not gutted the farm industry with his stupid trade wars.  But hey, "Trade wars are good, and easy to win." (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/02/trump-trade-wars-are-good-and-easy-to-win.html)

Also, that one-month increase in life expectancy? Largely a result of better cancer and other treatments, the end result of basic research (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/03/trump-once-again-requests-deep-cuts-us-science-spending) that takes years to come to fruition. 

Oh yeah - that increase in cancer survivability?  It's offset by an increase in suicides in Trump country (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/mental-health/suicide-rates-are-rising-especially-rural-america-n1050806).  I wonder why that is?  Oh wait... it's because
.

But there is hope!

I wonder what program we have that could help with that?

Just curious James, how much farming takes place where you live, just wondering if you observe it much personally?  Lots of it around here and I talk to small part time farmers often and spend a lot of time driving in  soy bean and corn country.   The guys I’ve spoken to are quite happy Trump took on China on trade.  And yes they took a short term hit.  But they also suffered because of a very wet spring and many did not even plant some field due to the wet.  Many who did got them in late and the yields  were down.  A double wammy.

Now, on ACA.  Again do you have any experience with the program?  I do.  I’ve been self employed for 20 years and my wife works with me.  We bought our health insurance from the individual marketplace.   Once ACA hit our costs rose, and deductibles went up. Then the company we had used for years stopped providing coverage and we were forced into the ACA marketplace.   Only one company was offering coverage that had our dr in the network.  Prices were crazy high.  And to make matters worse some specialists that were in network would not accept us as patients because of the bad payment practices of our carrier.   And the coverage cost us 25k a year with 6k per person out of pocket.

All in all it was a horrible situation.  We are now on Medicare and somewhat pricey part b supplements and part d coverages.  Better that the lousy ACA plan but let me tell you Medicare is not free.

My point here is that my personal experience with ACA was really bad.  And from what I’m seeing, those with lower incomes my have insurance but can’t really afford to use it due to high out of pocket costs.  From my cheap seats it is a really bad law.  YMMV.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 01, 2020, 09:56:48 am
ACA has become catastrophic care only due to the high deductibles.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chairman Bill on February 01, 2020, 10:11:16 am
Refusing to hear evidence because it might lead to a conclusion you don't want to hear, sounds an awful lot like conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

I don't care what your politics are, but if truth no longer matters to you, you should be ashamed.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on February 01, 2020, 10:16:49 am
Just curious James, how much farming takes place where you live, just wondering if you observe it much personally?  Lots of it around here and I talk to small part time farmers often and spend a lot of time driving in  soy bean and corn country.   The guys I’ve spoken to are quite happy Trump took on China on trade.  And yes they took a short term hit.  But they also suffered because of a very wet spring and many did not even plant some field due to the wet.  Many who did got them in late and the yields  were down.  A double wammy.

Very little direct experience with farming.  My point wasn't so much that Trump wrecked the farmers last year, it was more a commentary on how people want to assign nebulous goo things to the magnificence of Trump, when in fact there are also some negative happenings that can be more directly attributed if one is the sort to attribute presidential actions to such things.   My point about the bailouts stands though. 

Now, on ACA.  Again do you have any experience with the program?  I do.  I’ve been self employed for 20 years and my wife works with me.  We bought our health insurance from the individual marketplace.   Once ACA hit our costs rose, and deductibles went up. Then the company we had used for years stopped providing coverage and we were forced into the ACA marketplace.   Only one company was offering coverage that had our dr in the network.  Prices were crazy high.  And to make matters worse some specialists that were in network would not accept us as patients because of the bad payment practices of our carrier.   And the coverage cost us 25k a year with 6k per person out of pocket.

All in all it was a horrible situation.  We are now on Medicare and somewhat pricey part b supplements and part d coverages.  Better that the lousy ACA plan but let me tell you Medicare is not free.

My point here is that my personal experience with ACA was really bad.  And from what I’m seeing, those with lower incomes my have insurance but can’t really afford to use it due to high out of pocket costs.  From my cheap seats it is a really bad law.  YMMV.

I have a ton of direct experience with the ACA.  I owned and was de facto benefits manager for a 20-person media agency both before and after the ACA, with employees across CA, TX and NY.  Both my wife and I have direct experience with the insurance market as self-employeds AND, in my wife's case, the impact of the pre-existing coverages and lifetime cap provisions.   I can tell you a few things:

1) Yes, costs continued to increase user the ACA.
1a) But more slowly than the did prior to the ACA
1b) And that's even though Republicans keep trying as hard as possible to eliminate funding for, information about, and participation in the program.

2) The idea that the ACA caused people to lose their plans is a red herring.  Prior to the ACA, every year I had to re-asses and rebalance coverage for my employees as coverage plans changed, doctors went in and out of network (a real problem for someone like my wife with chronic illness or ongoing treatment for melanoma), etc.
2a) Insurance companies, doctors etc. are happy to blame "The ACA" whenever they have to make a decision that people don't like.  I've seen it happen, and the explanations have been largely bogus.


Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 01, 2020, 10:35:59 am
I think the problem with high medical costs are real.  Passing the cost to the government, which is effectively us, won't solve the problem because the government is broke too with a trillion dollar deficit this year. adding to the already 23+ trillion in debt.   Also, government services are never as good as private.  It's anticipated that our deficit will be a trillion a year for years going forward.  It's unsustainable.  No one wants to talk about cutting services, defense, and the myriad other programs the government underwrites.  At some point the whole thing is going to fall down. We're just kidding ourselves. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 10:36:16 am


I have a ton of direct experience with the ACA.  I owned and was de facto benefits manager for a 20-person media agency both before and after the ACA, with employees across CA, TX and NY.  Both my wife and I have direct experience with the insurance market as self-employeds AND, in my wife's case, the impact of the pre-existing coverages and lifetime cap provisions.   I can tell you a few things:

1) Yes, costs continued to increase user the ACA.
1a) But more slowly than the did prior to the ACA
1b) And that's even though Republicans keep trying as hard as possible to eliminate funding for, information about, and participation in the program.

2) The idea that the ACA caused people to lose their plans is a red herring.  Prior to the ACA, every year I had to re-asses and rebalance coverage for my employees as coverage plans changed, doctors went in and out of network (a real problem for someone like my wife with chronic illness or ongoing treatment for melanoma), etc.
2a) Insurance companies, doctors etc. are happy to blame "The ACA" whenever they have to make a decision that people don't like.  I've seen it happen, and the explanations have been largely bogus.

1a) My cost went up more rapidly under ACA.
1b) That works for me because my experience shows the program sucked.
2) Again its not a red herring in my situation and I'm sure its true for others.  I DID lose a plan that I had for many years and the only one I could find to replace it sucked.  I can't be an isolated situation.
2a)  Conjecture on your part James. I'm not saying the health insurance companies are saints.  But lets be honest, they got bribed into the ACA by Obama and his promise of boat loads of payments from the government.  Was ACA a noble idea?  Maybe.  Did it work in practice? Not very well.  How any low income people can muster 6k of out of pocket?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 10:38:51 am
Refusing to hear evidence because it might lead to a conclusion you don't want to hear, sounds an awful lot like conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

I don't care what your politics are, but if truth no longer matters to you, you should be ashamed.

What truth got hidden?  Is anyone really uncertain what they think Bolten wants to say?  And do you think it might magically change the minds of 20 Rep Senators?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on February 01, 2020, 10:47:57 am
Refusing to hear evidence because it might lead to a conclusion you don't want to hear, sounds an awful lot like conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

I don't care what your politics are, but if truth no longer matters to you, you should be ashamed.

Well said. Refusing witnesses with factual and first hand information is a suppression of truth. This sets a dangerous precedent for justice and politics in USA.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 10:54:04 am
Well said. Refusing witnesses with factual and first hand information is a suppression of truth. This sets a dangerous precedent for justice and politics in USA.

Yes, the HOUSE shoud be ashamed of themselves for failing to even TRY to get those first hand witnesses like Bolton.    It does indeed set a dangerous precedent.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 01, 2020, 10:54:20 am
What truth got hidden?  Is anyone really uncertain what they think Bolten wants to say?  And do you think it might magically change the minds of 20 Rep Senators?
If the Democrats cared about truth, they would have waited on impeachment and called all the witnesses after subpoenaing them and getting a court ruling that would force them to appear.  But they were too anxious to file the impeachment.  After all, they wanted to do that for three years and were running out of time to smear the President before the upcoming election.  Instead, they impeached him on weak charges and wanted the Republican senators to do their work to destroy the Republican president, the leader of their party.  That's not how politics works and it has nothing to do with the truth.  The Democrats short-circuited the impeachment process and the Republicans short-circuited the trial, both for political reasons.  Now let's move on. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on February 01, 2020, 10:55:06 am
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Best laugh I've had in a while, though most of the postings on this thread are laughable.

Laughing at a post is a pretty sure sign that you do not understand it and/or have no valid counter-arguments.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 01, 2020, 10:58:52 am
Yes, the HOUSE shoud be ashamed of themselves for failing to even TRY to get those first hand witnesses like Bolton.    It does indeed set a dangerous precedent.
It's set up future impeachments for run-of-the-mill violations of executive power so the opposing party can smear the president.  It takes away from good government making it hyper-political, something we have enough of already.  It's going to hurt the country.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 11:06:39 am
A great opinion article about Trump and the deep state.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/impeachment_is_a_badge_of_honor_for_donald_trump.html

'So when President Trump's enemies seek to manipulate us into acquiescing and consenting to his removal from office, their strategy is all backwards.  The Left long ago learned to use our virtue against us by appealing to our moral leanings and our sense of shame.  They cry out at us: "Look at this man.  He betrays all of the customs and traditions of the American government.  He lies to us and threatens us and dares to question the absolute truth of the press.  He is uncouth and ill mannered and actively seeks to find our pressure points and pour salt in our wounds.  He is no true Republican.  He is no true conservative.  He countermands everything we've stood for, everything we've worked for, everything we've promised to the rest of the world.  He finds nothing sacred in what we do."  Nothing could make us happier.  The more they protest and accuse him of terrible things, the more we see him as a great and dangerous club with which to pound the Deep State and post-constitutional order into the ground"
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on February 01, 2020, 11:08:20 am
Laughing at a post is a pretty sure sign that you do not understand it and/or have no valid counter-arguments.

This was your post, Peter: "Any more than Trump had anything to do with the current economic boom."

Anyone who wouldn't laugh at that simply doesn't understand how the world works. As far as counter-arguments are concerned, considering the economic improvements since Trump "stole" the election from Hillary, anyone who says what you said in that quote is the one who doesn't have valid counter-arguments -- doesn't have any arguments at all.  8) 8) :-*
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on February 01, 2020, 11:13:14 am
Yes, the HOUSE shoud be ashamed of themselves for failing to even TRY to get those first hand witnesses like Bolton.    It does indeed set a dangerous precedent.

It's a sorry situation. One party is incompetent and the other deceptive. As Alan says, it's bad for the country.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 11:16:35 am
I think the problem with high medical costs are real.  Passing the cost to the government, which is effectively us, won't solve the problem because the government is broke too with a trillion dollar deficit this year. adding to the already 23+ trillion in debt.   Also, government services are never as good as private.  It's anticipated that our deficit will be a trillion a year for years going forward.  It's unsustainable.  No one wants to talk about cutting services, defense, and the myriad other programs the government underwrites.  At some point the whole thing is going to fall down. We're just kidding ourselves.

Medical costs are crazy and the payment schemce are just as crazy.  One rate fro insurance companies, one - higher - rate for cash payments and a super low rate for Medicare. 

When I get my summary statement from Medicare and my suppliment plan it bends my mind.  Lets say the hospital charge for a test is $4000.  And a Dr to interpret the test charges $150.   Medicare will only pay a small portion of the costs.  Like $300 for the test and $35 for the Dr.  These are hypotheticals but you get the idea.  I can't imagine the Hospital can even break even on that payment.  Perhaps thats why they charge the insurance companies so much more to recoup. 

Now can you imagine if Bernie gets his way and forces everyone into medicare like payments to providers?  I cnat imagine that the Hospital/DR/provider system we have now can stand.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 11:17:42 am
It's a sorry situation. One party is incompetent and the other deceptive. As Alan says, it's bad for the country.

This is nothing new.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on February 01, 2020, 11:30:40 am
Anyone who thinks the current situation is unusual doesn't know anything about history.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on February 01, 2020, 12:15:00 pm
Medical costs are crazy and the payment schemce are just as crazy.  One rate fro insurance companies, one - higher - rate for cash payments and a super low rate for Medicare. 

When I get my summary statement from Medicare and my suppliment plan it bends my mind.  Lets say the hospital charge for a test is $4000.  And a Dr to interpret the test charges $150.   Medicare will only pay a small portion of the costs.  Like $300 for the test and $35 for the Dr.  These are hypotheticals but you get the idea.  I can't imagine the Hospital can even break even on that payment.  Perhaps thats why they charge the insurance companies so much more to recoup. 

Now can you imagine if Bernie gets his way and forces everyone into medicare like payments to providers?  I cnat imagine that the Hospital/DR/provider system we have now can stand.


What it  might do, is stop the nation being screwed by the medical profession. They have nowhere to go: that's the catch when you are already the best paid of your kind in the world; the only other way is downwards to something reasonable. No other western country will (or could) offer them anything near what they make in the US.

Could be the best thing in the world for you.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 12:24:06 pm

What it  might do, is stop the nation being screwed by the medical profession. They have nowhere to go: that's the catch when you are already the best paid of your kind in the world; the only other way is downwards to something reasonable. No other western country will (or could) offer them anything near what they make in the US.

Could be the best thing in the world for you.

Or the worst. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on February 01, 2020, 12:36:40 pm
Or the worst.


Why? Unless they have already bought the bank, they still need to work; you should not forget that many other jobs are also essential, which should not be an automatic passport to milking everyone.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on February 01, 2020, 12:39:11 pm
I suspect retiring Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander spoke for many and perhaps most of his fellow Republicans in the chamber when he said that while the impeachment managers from the House of Representatives proved that President Trump improperly manipulated government policy regarding Ukraine for his own political advantage, his behavior was not sufficiently egregious to meet the high threshold for removal from office—and that, especially with a national election ten months away, the decision about the next president should be left to the voters.

Ironically, Alexander's perspective wasn't that different from that expressed by Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, until her fellow Democrats forced her hand to proceed with impeachment following the revelations about Trump's attempt to pressure the new Ukrainian president.

While the opinion polls suggest the impeachment has increased the public's concern about Trump's behavior, it probably will be a while before there are enough survey data to indicate whether it has had any significant effect on state-by-state support for his re-election.  However, I think one thing that is clear is that Pelosi and the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell—two of the shrewdest strategists to lead their respective chambers in many years—both played the political cards they were dealt very well.

Although Pelosi no doubt hopes the impeachment has weakened Trump and thus will increase the likelihood that the eventual Democratic candidate for president will be elected next November, her primary objective has clearly been to maintain her majority in the House of Representatives.  It was no secret to anyone that absent a seismic change in public opinion, there was no possibility the Senate would vote to remove Trump from office.  However I suspect Pelosi calculated that the very failure to do so would energize Democratic Party activists to make the effort in November to get their less-committed voters to turn out.  When turnout is high, both nationally and in many of the states, the Democrats tend to do well, but they face demographic and structural obstacles to getting out their vote: young people and members of minority groups who historically have not been highly motivated voters, hourly workers who must sacrifice wages to stand in line at the polls, and rules in some states that create bureaucratic obstacles to demonstrating eligibility to vote.

McConnell no doubt hopes to see a Republican continue to occupy the White House (although I suspect he would prefer it to be someone other than Trump), but like Pelosi in the House, his primary objective is to hold onto his majority in the Senate.  For that—and, indeed, for his own re-election in Kentucky—he simply couldn't afford to take any action during the impeachment proceedings that might antagonize what might be called the "Trump wing" of the Republican party, a critical core of enthusiastic voters who themselves typically aren't sufficient to swing an election but whose support is necessary for a Republican to be elected in many states.  McConnell had to deliver for Trump in the Senate trial and he did: by avoiding testimony from potentially embarrassing witnesses and scheduling a final vote as quickly as the Senate rules would allow.  Presumably he can now count on Trump to reciprocate by doing everything he can to help the Republican senators who face difficult re-election campaigns.  While Trump's national approval rating has never gone above 50 percent, his support among voters who identify as Republicans remains very high—and there is currently little reason to think that will change before the November election.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 12:46:39 pm

Why? Unless they have already bought the bank, they still need to work; you should not forget that many other jobs are also essential, which should not be an automatic passport to milking everyone.

Do you have any idea how much time a Dr spends just getting to the point of being a Dr?  And the  money?  So now they are just  going to be told by the goverment how much they can earn?

Best of luck with that one in America.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on February 01, 2020, 12:46:56 pm
Laughing at a post is a pretty sure sign that you do not understand it and/or have no valid counter-arguments.

Or that it's funny, of course.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on February 01, 2020, 12:50:08 pm
A great opinion article about Trump and the deep state.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/impeachment_is_a_badge_of_honor_for_donald_trump.html

'So when President Trump's enemies seek to manipulate us into acquiescing and consenting to his removal from office, their strategy is all backwards.  The Left long ago learned to use our virtue against us by appealing to our moral leanings and our sense of shame.  They cry out at us: "Look at this man.  He betrays all of the customs and traditions of the American government.  He lies to us and threatens us and dares to question the absolute truth of the press.  He is uncouth and ill mannered and actively seeks to find our pressure points and pour salt in our wounds.  He is no true Republican.  He is no true conservative.  He countermands everything we've stood for, everything we've worked for, everything we've promised to the rest of the world.  He finds nothing sacred in what we do."  Nothing could make us happier.  The more they protest and accuse him of terrible things, the more we see him as a great and dangerous club with which to pound the Deep State and post-constitutional order into the ground"

This is what happens when meth runs amok in middle America.   Seriously - what a contemptible piece of writing.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 12:50:22 pm
I suspect retiring Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander spoke for many and perhaps most of his fellow Republicans in the chamber when he said that while the impeachment managers from the House of Representatives proved that President Trump improperly manipulated government policy regarding Ukraine for his own political advantage, his behavior was not sufficiently egregious to meet the high threshold for removal from office—and that, especially with a national election ten months away, the decision about the next president should be left to the voters.

Ironically, Alexander's perspective wasn't that different from that expressed by Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, until her fellow Democrats forced her hand to proceed with impeachment following the revelations about Trump's attempt to pressure the new Ukrainian president.

While the opinion polls suggest the impeachment has increased the public's concern about Trump's behavior, it probably will be a while before there are enough survey data to indicate whether it has had any significant effect on state-by-state support for his re-election.  However, I think one thing that is clear is that Pelosi and the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell—two of the shrewdest strategists to lead their respective chambers in many years—both played the political cards they were dealt very well.

Although Pelosi no doubt hopes the impeachment has weakened Trump and thus will increase the likelihood that the eventual Democratic candidate for president will be elected next November, her primary objective has clearly been to maintain her majority in the House of Representatives.  It was no secret to anyone that absent a seismic change in public opinion, there was no possibility the Senate would vote to remove Trump from office.  However I suspect Pelosi calculated that the very failure to do so would energize Democratic Party activists to make the effort in November to get their less-committed voters to turn out.  When turnout is high, both nationally and in many of the states, the Democrats tend to do well, but they face demographic and structural obstacles to getting out their vote: young people and members of minority groups who historically have not been highly motivated voters, hourly workers who must sacrifice wages to stand in line at the polls, and rules in some states that create bureaucratic obstacles to demonstrating eligibility to vote.

McConnell no doubt hopes to see a Republican continue to occupy the White House (although I suspect he would prefer it to be someone other than Trump), but like Pelosi in the House, his primary objective is to hold onto his majority in the Senate.  For that—and, indeed, for his own re-election in Kentucky—he simply couldn't afford to take any action during the impeachment proceedings that might antagonize the what might be called the "Trump wing" of the Republican party, a critical core of enthusiastic voters who themselves typically aren't sufficient to swing an election but whose support is necessary for a Republican to be elected in many states.  McConnell had to deliver for Trump in the Senate trial and he did: by avoiding testimony from potentially embarrassing witnesses and scheduling a final vote as quickly as the Senate rules would allow.  Presumably he can now count on Trump to reciprocate by doing everything he can to help the Republican senators who face difficult re-election campaigns.  While Trump's national approval rating has never gone above 50 percent, his support among voters who identify as Republicans remains very high—and there is currently little reason to think that will change before the November election.

This has been political impeachment and was played that way by both sides.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 12:51:25 pm
This is what happens when meth runs amok in middle America.   Seriously - what a contemptible piece of writing.

And statements like yours are what is going to get Trump re-elected once again.  Please, keep it up.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on February 01, 2020, 12:58:23 pm
And statements like yours are what is going to get Trump re-elected once again.  Please, keep it up.

Hey man, I'm just tired of "being PC."  Just "telling how it is."  And that author's rant was straight up deplorable.  I mean, I'm just saying it like Trump would, except with bigger words.  You don't like it? You must not be a real American.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 01:03:23 pm
Hey man, I'm just tired of "being PC."  Just "telling how it is."  And that author's rant was straight up deplorable.  I mean, I'm just saying it like Trump would, except with bigger words.  You don't like it? You must not be a real American.

By all means tell it like you feel it, and tell it loud.  Nothing like calling people deplorable, I mean it worked so well for Hillary.  Please keep it up!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on February 01, 2020, 01:06:22 pm
By all means tell it like you feel it, and tell it loud.  Nothing like calling people deplorable, I mean it worked so well for Hillary.  Please keep it up!

A fair point.  Apparently being a jerk only works when Trump does it, then y'all LOVE it.  Weird.  (Seriously, that author is unhinged.)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on February 01, 2020, 01:24:53 pm
By all means tell it like you feel it, and tell it loud.  Nothing like calling people deplorable, I mean it worked so well for Hillary.  Please keep it up!
Yep, nothing riles up deplorable people more than calling them out. Then they all join together and do something deplorable.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 01:26:05 pm
A fair point.  Apparently being a jerk only works when Trump does it, then y'all LOVE it.  Weird.  (Seriously, that author is unhinged.)

What are going to do when its Bernie V Trump.  Bernie bots sound even worse.  So will you vote to destroy capitalism or vote for Trump?  :) ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 01:27:31 pm
Yep, nothing riles up deplorable people more than calling them out. Then they all join together and do something deplorable.

Calling folks deplorable is not a winning play. But I suggest you plesse keep it up.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on February 01, 2020, 01:53:15 pm
Do you have any idea how much time a Dr spends just getting to the point of being a Dr?  And the  money?  So now they are just  going to be told by the goverment how much they can earn?

Best of luck with that one in America.

One of my granddaughters is a doctor; yes I do have some idea of the study, the hard work, the crazy hours and the exploitation (my take) of junior doctors. All that said, the job is a vocation and they all have a pretty shrewd idea of what it is. If not a vocation, like photography, you should not be in it.

It strikes me that telling them what they can earn is a perfectly reasonable concept. After all, every damned gig that I undertook came with its budget. Most people who work for their keep work to a price; why not docs too? If they need more than a reasonably good salary, then form a company and get your percentage of what your employees make; the point is that the service they perform be reasonably priced at a level the average guy can afford, or his insurance company can afford without screwing him into the gutter. Do you know that any travel insurance policy that I ever needed to buy automatically excluded the US? One had to take out a much more expensive policy. That tells me something is a bit fishy across the Atlantic. And it ain't the vanishing cod.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on February 01, 2020, 02:04:50 pm
What are going to do when its Bernie V Trump. 

Weep for humanity.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on February 01, 2020, 02:15:51 pm
Do you know that any travel insurance policy that I ever needed to buy automatically excluded the US? One had to take out a much more expensive policy. That tells me something is a bit fishy across the Atlantic.

Isn't that because you can use a European Health Insurance Card* for emergency medical services anywhere in the EU, but not in America?  However, many private European medical insurance policies do cover services in the United States.  (Just as many private U.S. medical insurance policies cover emergency services in other countries.)

―――
*At least until Dec. 31, or whenever the U.K. and the EU complete the transition.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on February 01, 2020, 02:20:56 pm
Calling folks deplorable is not a winning play. But I suggest you plesse keep it up.

You're avoiding the fundamental question of why y'all think it's so groovy when Trump calls people names all day, every day.   I mean, answering that was basically the thrust of that garbage pile you linked to above, but it was so frothy that I'd like to hear your more rational, sensible take on it and see if it makes any more sense.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on February 01, 2020, 02:22:11 pm
Do you know that any travel insurance policy that I ever needed to buy automatically excluded the US? One had to take out a much more expensive policy. That tells me something is a bit fishy across the Atlantic. And it ain't the vanishing cod.

Same when travelling from Canada. Travel insurance which covers emergency medical procedures in USA is now very expensive, especially for seniors.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on February 01, 2020, 02:43:38 pm
Same when travelling from Canada. Travel insurance which covers emergency medical procedures in USA is now very expensive, especially for seniors.

It's only one anecdotal story but a lady I know flew to a weekend business conference in Vegas from Toronto. She arrived a day early and collapsed in her hotel room shortly after check-in. They took her to emergency and they determined that she'd had a minor stroke. She stayed in the hospital for one night, had some blood work, ate two meals, saw one doctor for a few minutes who explained what happened and left her with some instructions for her GP when she got back home. The silly woman had not bought travel insurance for some incomprehensible reason. The hospital bill was about $23,000 USD. She made a stupid choice about travel insurance, but it's hard to view that invoice as anything other than a racket.

I guess she should have researched various emergency options before leaving home and left a note for the paramedics. Made me wonder if there are web sites where you can study the medical options in various US locales before your trip, much the way you shop online for the best Nikon deal.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on February 01, 2020, 03:41:43 pm
It's only one anecdotal story but a lady I know flew to a weekend business conference in Vegas from Toronto. She arrived a day early and collapsed in her hotel room shortly after check-in. They took her to emergency and they determined that she'd had a minor stroke. She stayed in the hospital for one night, had some blood work, ate two meals, saw one doctor for a few minutes who explained what happened and left her with some instructions for her GP when she got back home. The silly woman had not bought travel insurance for some incomprehensible reason. The hospital bill was about $23,000 USD.

The U.S. Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1395dd) is a federal statute that requires hospitals with emergency departments that accept government Medicare payments (essentially all hospitals in the United States) to treat and stabilize anyone who requires emergency medical care.  If the patient has medical insurance, the hospital may file an insurance claim on the patient's behalf.  If the patient is not insured, the hospital can request payment, but may not condition treatment on the patient's consent to pay.  There are substantial financial penalties for hospitals and physicians that do not comply with the provisions of the law and no institution is likely to risk loss of Medicare eligibility over failure to treat an emergency patient.  (Incidentally, the charge you cite seems bizarrely high, even if it included sophisticated imaging services such as an MRI.)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on February 01, 2020, 03:48:23 pm
(Incidentally, the charge you cite seems bizarrely high, even if it included sophisticated imaging services such as an MRI.)
The charges don't surprise me in the least. Been treated in the ER and spent a couple of nights in the hospital recently?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 03:48:40 pm
You're avoiding the fundamental question of why y'all think it's so groovy when Trump calls people names all day, every day.   I mean, answering that was basically the thrust of that garbage pile you linked to above, but it was so frothy that I'd like to hear your more rational, sensible take on it and see if it makes any more sense.

Actually I dont think its all that groovy when Trump calls people names.  In fact there is a lot I don't like about Trump. I have heard this expressed by other Trump voters as well.  I wish he would curtail his tweets but sadly its his outlet to talk to the world.  But it's who Trump is and I'll take him warts and all over Hillary or the rest.  We never get the perfect candidate, so you need to make a choice or sit on the sidelines.  We singular citizens have very little power to shape our country except for our vote.  So I'll continue to make a choice, and deal with that it brings.

My take on the article is simple.  Many people are really tired of the same old Washington.  They want something differenet and they want someone to take on the old guard.  Watch A Trump rally.  These folks  are telling the country something.  They don't want what 'normal" politicians are selling. Even those on the far left are saying the same thing.  The problem for those who oppose Trump is that its now the squishy middle that is moving his way.  Data collected at his rally show a very large percentage of ticket requests come from self described Democrats and another decent percentage who did not vote last election.  Chris Mathews reported hte other night that a source in Pennsylvania that republician voter registrations are going through the roof.  Polls are showing a big increase in support for Trump from African Americans.  You have to ask why?  Something he is saying or doing is moving them.   

These same people are pretty much sick of the media as well, no doubt egged on by Trump.  But IMO they have good reason.  The media sucks when it comes to Trump...and Trump voters too.  I don't know the current stats and I'm simply too lazy to look them up now but the negative story number is in the 90% range.  Now I don't care how much you dont Like Trump, 90 percent of what he has done as President is not negative.   

I may be from the Midwest but I'm not doing Meth, or any other drug including booze, so my opinion is befing fueled by either.  And I'm reasonably sure its not true for the vast majority of Trump voters either.

So now the question I'll put to you, James, is what do you find so deplorable about that opinion piece?



Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on February 01, 2020, 03:57:05 pm
Trump calls people names because it gets the Democrats stirred up and teed off, and they start making big mistakes like the impeachment extravaganza they just put on. That idiotic show was worth more to Trump's coming campaign than the Republicans have money to buy. He's gonna keep it up, and the Dems are gonna stay upset and keep making mistakes. It's all politics.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 03:59:54 pm
One of my granddaughters is a doctor; yes I do have some idea of the study, the hard work, the crazy hours and the exploitation (my take) of junior doctors. All that said, the job is a vocation and they all have a pretty shrewd idea of what it is. If not a vocation, like photography, you should not be in it.

It strikes me that telling them what they can earn is a perfectly reasonable concept. After all, every damned gig that I undertook came with its budget. Most people who work for their keep work to a price; why not docs too? If they need more than a reasonably good salary, then form a company and get your percentage of what your employees make; the point is that the service they perform be reasonably priced at a level the average guy can afford, or his insurance company can afford without screwing him into the gutter. Do you know that any travel insurance policy that I ever needed to buy automatically excluded the US? One had to take out a much more expensive policy. That tells me something is a bit fishy across the Atlantic. And it ain't the vanishing cod.

When you took a gig, or me for that matter, did the government tell you what you had to charge to take the job?  Thats my problem with the issue. Its a supposed to be a somewhat of a free market.  If you don't like the offer you move on and hopefully find someone who will pay what you think you are worth or you accept the offer and do the work.  To use photography for an example, I'm sure there are many a wedding photographer who charge way more that what the average joe can afford to spend. But they still find a market.  Then there is average joes uncle who just got a new Nikon and who will shoot the dang thing for a sixpack.  Mandating wages for Doctors just might give us the wedding photo model, with the really good guys working for those with the bucks, and not the average joe. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 04:05:12 pm
The charges don't surprise me in the least. Been treated in the ER and spent a couple of nights in the hospital recently?

I had a kidney stone last year.  Happened on a weekend and while they found a DR to blast the stone they could not get some other person neededfor the procedure.  So I had an infection, spent a few nights in the hospital, waited for a week and then went in for out patient stone blasting.  Total cost $50K.  Medicare and my supliment paid 12.5K.  Did the hospital/Dr break even?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on February 01, 2020, 04:08:34 pm
I had a kidney stone last year.  Happened on a weekend and while they found a DR to blast the stone they could not get some other person neededfor the procedure.  So I had an infection, spent a few nights in the hospital, waited for a week and then went in for out patient stone blasting.  Total cost $50K.  Medicare and my supliment paid 12.5K.  Did the hospital/Dr break even?
With that experience, I am not sure why you were surprised by the $23,000 charge.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on February 01, 2020, 04:15:37 pm
Isn't that because you can use a European Health Insurance Card* for emergency medical services anywhere in the EU, but not in America?  However, many private European medical insurance policies do cover services in the United States.  (Just as many private U.S. medical insurance policies cover emergency services in other countries.)

―――
*At least until Dec. 31, or whenever the U.K. and the EU complete the transition.


No, nothing to do with it when I travelled for work; in the current situation, travellers within the EEC have a card issued by their state that covers them within the EEC countries for medical, but private travel insurance is still recommended for personal effects, against theft or loss, etc. If one is going to countries outwith Europe medical insurance is and always was essential if you had any sense, but I am not sure if it was simply a matter of common sense or actually of law. I had to go outwith Europe now and then, but insurance was always more costly if I was going to go into America even for a very brief period. It's all a reflection of the uniquely extortionate medical costs if you have a misadventure in the US.

So yes, of course, private insurance for folks going to the States was and is still sure to be available to travellers from elsewhere, including Britain.

It has also been announced that drivers taking their cars from Europe into Britain, and vice versa, will again have to get their insurance company to issue a green card, and if you plan on going into both France and Spain, you need two different International Driving Permits, not one. Complications, complications, more red tape back again.

A new problem facing Brit expats in Spain is that if they want to travel in other European countries, they will now need private medical insurance for the trip because the agreement only covers you for the country in which you reside, it's no longer pan-European as before this debacle. That poses an interesting problem for me if I manage to sell up here and want to keep my car and drive to Britain in it; will I be able to find an insurance company that will cover me for the trip considering my age and heart record? I may have no option but to sell a very low mileage car and take a big hit on that, also creating the interesting question of whether, if I therefore have to allow my present car insurance to lapse, owning no car, will anyone offer me a policy when I want to buy another set of wheels in Britain? Thank you, Boris and Nigel, I hope your monster bites your heads off one day.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on February 01, 2020, 04:17:29 pm
Those US hospital bills are terrifying. Almost in the same league as the Martin Shkreli drugs.
Better to fly to Cuba.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on February 01, 2020, 04:25:30 pm
When you took a gig, or me for that matter, did the government tell you what you had to charge to take the job?  Thats my problem with the issue. Its a supposed to be a somewhat of a free market.  If you don't like the offer you move on and hopefully find someone who will pay what you think you are worth or you accept the offer and do the work.  To use photography for an example, I'm sure there are many a wedding photographer who charge way more that what the average joe can afford to spend. But they still find a market.  Then there is average joes uncle who just got a new Nikon and who will shoot the dang thing for a sixpack.  Mandating wages for Doctors just might give us the wedding photo model, with the really good guys working for those with the bucks, and not the average joe.


But you miss the point: they would be prohibited from charging above an agreed level that permits access for Joe or makes his policy impossible. There would be no chance of docs playing the preferences game favouring the very wealthy. Medicine is not the same as any other service: it is the difference between life and death; no gig is in that league, no toy that important. With the job must, surely, come more than greed? For some, apparently not.

Actually, docs are just one example of the problems that come with paying yourself too much money: prices are driven upwards across the entire board because prices depend on how much people think they can get you to pay, and in the end, the new high figures you gloat over are pretty shallow because your own living expenses have also risen. It's the penalty I note from the modern idea of women in careers rather than bringing up kids and running the home: the earning power of working couples rises, and so this is instantly latched upon by the merchandising fraternity and you pay more simply because there is more to be spent, which makes life even tougher for the single person who has to buy much the same stuff, and I can promise you, living alone does not half the living cost of what was once a couple: quite the opposite!

I do not, of course, suggest women should not seek outside employment; I am simply making an observation of the effect that double incomes have on asking prices in the shops. All the women in my family had good educations and high prospects. Those are different matters.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 04:29:15 pm

But you miss the point: they would be prohibited from charging above an agreed level that permits access for Joe or makes his policy impossible. There would be no chance of docs playing the preferences game favouring the very wealthy. Medicine is not the same as any other service: it is the difference between life and death; no gig is in that league, no toy that important. With the job must, surely, come more than greed? For some, apparently not.

Thats even worse.  They have a skill, they should be allowed to sell it for whatever they choose.  Sounds like John Galt is needed.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 04:34:06 pm
With that experience, I am not sure why you were surprised by the $23,000 charge.

It was 50K from the Dr/Hospital.  My insurance ( in the form of the US government and a private insurace that made up the 20% the goverment does not cover) only paid 12.5K.  My point was the DR/Hospital did not get paid enough.  I believe its partly the reason they charge so much if you are coverd by private insurance.  They have to recoup the money they lost dealing with the government somewhere (not to mention the costs they lose from prople they are required to treat but that dont pay).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on February 01, 2020, 04:36:21 pm
The U.S. Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1395dd) is a federal statute that requires hospitals with emergency departments that accept government Medicare payments (essentially all hospitals in the United States) to treat and stabilize anyone who requires emergency medical care.  If the patient has medical insurance, the hospital may file an insurance claim on the patient's behalf.  If the patient is not insured, the hospital can request payment, but may not condition treatment on the patient's consent to pay.  There are substantial financial penalties for hospitals and physicians that do not comply with the provisions of the law and no institution is likely to risk loss of Medicare eligibility over failure to treat an emergency patient.  (Incidentally, the charge you cite seems bizarrely high, even if it included sophisticated imaging services such as an MRI.)

As you say, hospitals in the US cannot deny emergency treatment because of inability to pay. But they can send you an outrageous bill and when you cannot pay get a collection agency after you and your credit rating is ruined and your pay is garnished and so on.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on February 01, 2020, 04:55:43 pm
Thats even worse.  They have a skill, they should be allowed to sell it for whatever they choose.  Sounds like John Galt is needed.

He was just a cardboard character to suit a political slant. Did enjoy the book, though.

And nope, I don't believe that all skills are equally suited to the free market concept. Vital services strike me as an obviouse exception to the screw you for what I can model. In the same way, I would preclude police, medics, firemen, transport personnel from any right to strike action: they are simply too vital to the good of the society they serve; understanding and accepting this responsibility should come as part of the job description. Anything else, and it's the perfect extortion setup.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on February 01, 2020, 06:44:54 pm
Actually I dont think its all that groovy when Trump calls people names.  In fact there is a lot I don't like about Trump. I have heard this expressed by other Trump voters as well.  I wish he would curtail his tweets but sadly its his outlet to talk to the world.  But it's who Trump is and I'll take him warts and all over Hillary or the rest.  We never get the perfect candidate, so you need to make a choice or sit on the sidelines.  We singular citizens have very little power to shape our country except for our vote.  So I'll continue to make a choice, and deal with that it brings.

My take on the article is simple.  Many people are really tired of the same old Washington.  They want something differenet and they want someone to take on the old guard.  Watch A Trump rally.  These folks  are telling the country something.  They don't want what 'normal" politicians are selling. Even those on the far left are saying the same thing.  The problem for those who oppose Trump is that its now the squishy middle that is moving his way.  Data collected at his rally show a very large percentage of ticket requests come from self described Democrats and another decent percentage who did not vote last election.  Chris Mathews reported hte other night that a source in Pennsylvania that republician voter registrations are going through the roof.  Polls are showing a big increase in support for Trump from African Americans.  You have to ask why?  Something he is saying or doing is moving them.   

These same people are pretty much sick of the media as well, no doubt egged on by Trump.  But IMO they have good reason.  The media sucks when it comes to Trump...and Trump voters too.  I don't know the current stats and I'm simply too lazy to look them up now but the negative story number is in the 90% range.  Now I don't care how much you dont Like Trump, 90 percent of what he has done as President is not negative.   

I may be from the Midwest but I'm not doing Meth, or any other drug including booze, so my opinion is befing fueled by either.  And I'm reasonably sure its not true for the vast majority of Trump voters either.

So now the question I'll put to you, James, is what do you find so deplorable about that opinion piece?

In short, its nothing but unfocused populist rage that doesn't care who, or what, it breaks.  I understand that there's a swell of people that are fed up with politicians and you're absolutely correct - I see it in Trump folks AND the hardcore Bernie people, and honestly, it's both frustrating and scary.

Frustrating because these people by and large don't take the time to educate themselves on what they actually want (Slobodan posted an NPR article awhile back that quoted some idiot talking about how she "doesn't like" whomever "decided" that a certain cleaning agent was bad for the environment, so she thinks they should be ignored or voted out or something) and it's a proven fact that evidence contrary to imbedded opinion actually makes people dig in harder.  Scary because they're being worked up, deliberately IMHO by Trump, probably Bernie as well, to the point where they just want to break stuff.  And that's BS.  I do care to an extent about disaffection and the legitimate issues people have.  I have nothing for contempt for people that just want to break the world because they've been stirred up for political purposes. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 01, 2020, 07:30:09 pm
Uh, last I looked there were 17 ( plus one hidden) witnesses in this trial.  And also last time I looked, The House decided not to pursue Bolton’s testimony.   

Enjoy your memodrama.

We are talking about the Senate where an overwhelming 75% of the population in the US expected additional witnesses to be called.

And you know full well the the white house refused tesstimomies during the congress hearings that led to impeachment. This refusal to collaborate was even one of the two articles part of the impeachment in case you needed a reminder.

When the opinion of 75% of the population is ignored by the ruling party on such an essential matter that involved the core of the democratic process, why on earth do you think that the willingness of Americans would he taken into account in the future?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on February 01, 2020, 07:49:05 pm
Where do you get this stuff, Bernard? Evidently Japanese TV is at least as disfunctional as US TV. From what you're posting here I have to conclude it may even be worse.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 07:50:47 pm
We are talking about the Senate where an overwhelming 75% of the population in the US expected additional witnesses to be called.

And you know full well the the white house refused tesstimomies during the congress hearings that led to impeachment. This refusal to collaborate was even one of the two articles part of the impeachment in case you needed a reminder.

When the opinion of 75% of the population is ignored by the ruling party on such an essential matter that involved the core of the democratic process, why on earth do you think that the willingness of Americans would he taken into account in the future?

Cheers,
Bernard

I’ve yet to see the questions as posed to the public that resulted in that 75%.  Were the questions asking about “additional” witnesses? Or just witnesses?   It’s real easy to get the results you want epwith a carefully worded question.

The House has legal remedies available but in their rush they decided not to pursue those options.  Trump had every right to challenge.  And he did.  If you have an issue here it’s with the House, not the Senate.

That second article is pure bunk for the reason I stated above.   Clearly you are smarter than this Bernard.

Added on edit.  The first link at the top of a quick google.  Notive the article states “witnesses” not additional witnesses.  I guess they think is an episode of Law and Order.  I’m going to dig a bit further, so who know.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/480336-support-for-witnesses-in-senate-trial-at-75-percent-poll

Added again on edit.  As I figured I had it correct, at least on this poll.  It was “witnesses, not a
“Additional witnesses”




20. Do you think witnesses should be allowed to testify in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, or not?
                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Yes    No
 
Yes/Be allowed       75%    49%    95%    75%    70%    79%    73%    68%
No                   20     43      3     18     26     15     22     26
DK/NA                 5      8      2      7      5      6      5      6
 
                     AGE IN YRS..............    WHITE.....
                     18-34  35-49  50-64  65+    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Yes/Be allowed       86%    81%    69%    67%    66%    75%    71%    89%    81%
No                   10     16     27     25     29     19     24      7     16
DK/NA                 4      3      4      7      5      6      6      4      4

Added on edit again

A CNN poll found 69% in favor of witnesses that did not testify in the House but it was limited to 15 battleground states.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3654

Other polls I found put the question in the 50% range.


Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on February 01, 2020, 08:31:29 pm
Added on edit.  The first link at the top of a quick google.  Notive the article states “witnesses” not additional witnesses.

Additional witnesses?

The Senate has not called any witnesses. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

This by itself seems like a derelict of duty ...

So, because Congress has not called any witnesses that were instructed by 'The White House' to not cooperate, the Senate feels no need to get to the bottom of the issue?

Obviously, getting a court order to have the witnesses testify would have taken many months, by which time the scheduled Presidential elections (that were being tampered with) will already be taling place, duh.

So you seem to support rigged/unchallenged elections. Banana republic style?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 08:56:39 pm
Additional witnesses?

The Senate has not called any witnesses. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

This by itself seems like a derelict of duty ...

So, because Congress has not called any witnesses that were instructed by 'The White House' to not cooperate, the Senate feels no need to get to the bottom of the issue?

Obviously, getting a court order to have the witnesses testify would have taken many months, by which time the scheduled Presidential elections (that were being tampered with) will already be taling place, duh.

So you seem to support rigged/unchallenged elections. Banana republic style?

Like in the Clinton impeachment no witness were called to testify.  They played taped depositions.   In this impeachment trial they played taped testimony.

If you want to call a witness who disputes your subpoena you go to court.  People and administrations have  right to dispute.  That’s the rules.  So you want to throw the rules out?

Basically it seems the feeling by Republicans is a Trump asked for the investigations and tried to use the aid as a club, but it does no rise to a level of removal from office.  The new testimony would not change that. 

What rigged elections? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on February 01, 2020, 09:37:01 pm
Like in the Clinton impeachment no witness were called to testify.  They played taped depositions.   In this impeachment trial they played taped testimony.

If you want to call a witness who disputes your subpoena you go to court.  People and administrations have  right to dispute.  That’s the rules.  So you want to throw the rules out?

Prepostutual assumption, and an unhelpful misrepresentation, although it's a telling M.O. ...

Quote
Basically it seems the feeling by Republicans is a Trump asked for the investigations and tried to use the aid as a club, but it does not rise to a level of removal from office.

There is a possible case for making that ('does it rise to a level') argument if it weren't as seriously damaging to the constitution of the USA. It does rise to that level.

Quote
The new testimony would not change that.

Clairvoyancy doesn't come into determining that, wouldn't you agree?

Quote
What rigged elections?

Wow! Doesn't it strike you as rigged when a foreign power has to be asked (under the pressure of (not) alleviating a war effort that kills people every week) to cast doubt on a potential political opponent's credibility? An immorally odd course of action (that's assumed to be illegal in civilized countries), to say the least.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on February 01, 2020, 09:49:35 pm
On the additional witnesses (FYI, witnesses were called in the house and admitted into evidence into the trial, so yes, I do mean additional), I listened to a Podcast today with Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham that made some very good points on why the vote went the way it did. 

The main point was that regardless if what Bolton said was true, the president is still allowed to investigate perceived corruption.  So there was nothing Bolton could have testified to that would have changed this, especially considering Bolton alluded to 2016 interference being the cause for the requested investigation, not for a 2020 advantage. 

Second was that the Dems, especially Warren, made it impossible for either Lamar Alexander or Murkowski to vote for witnesses, creating a 50/50 split.  Alexander, who is an institutionalist, was pretty much a no vote early Thursday for the pure reason that he did not want to put the Senate into a position to make judgements on the law for the first time ever, instead of the courts.  He wanted to preserve the institution as much as possible.  However, Murkowski at this point was still up in the air. 

Then Warren sent in her question asking if Justice Roberts, along with the Supreme Court, should be embarrassed by the proceeding, and it became obvious that if a 50/50 vote happened, regardless if Roberts declined to vote himself or voted for no additional witnesses, the Dems would use this as a way to delegitimize the Supreme Court.  This enraged republicans much more then what the Dems anticipated and it was at this point that both Alexander and Murkowski decided it would be best to have a 51/49 vote so the Dems would not be given the opportunity to destroy the legitimacy of the Supreme Courts (along with everything other institution they have demolished since 2016). 

Essentially the Dems, especially Warren, helped push the Republicans towards this 51/49 vote. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 09:50:59 pm
Prepostutual assumption, and an unhelpful misrepresentation, although it's a telling M.O. ...

That’s the rules, dude, deal with it.  Clearly this is beyond your ken


Quote
There is a possible case for making that ('does it rise to a level') argument if it weren't as seriously damaging to the constitution of the USA. It does rise to that level.

But that’s not the opinion of those who matter, the Republicans, and I suspect a few Democrats in the Senate.

Quote
doesn't come into determining that, wouldn't you agree?

Just listen to the statements of the Republicans.  Then get back to me, perhaps a bit more informed.

Quote
Wow! Doesn't it strike you as rigged when a foreign power has to be asked (under the pressure of (not) alleviating a war effort that kills people everyr week) to cast doubt on a potential political opponent's credibility? An immorally odd course of action (that's assumed to be illegal in civilized countries), to say the least.

They were asked to investigate. If Biden is clean, how can they cast doubt.  Of course no investigation happened and the aid was given.   Now how is the election rigged again?  Or maybe you were thinking about how Trump, was targeted by the FBI, and intel community, fake documents were produced by a British person using Russian sources, and used to try and take him down?  You mean THAT attempt to rig an election?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on February 01, 2020, 10:00:25 pm
That’s the rules, dude, deal with it.  Clearly this is beyond your ken

Okay, so you do not want to debate. Sad, but telling.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 01, 2020, 10:06:31 pm
When you took a gig, or me for that matter, did the government tell you what you had to charge to take the job?  Thats my problem with the issue. Its a supposed to be a somewhat of a free market.  If you don't like the offer you move on and hopefully find someone who will pay what you think you are worth or you accept the offer and do the work.  To use photography for an example, I'm sure there are many a wedding photographer who charge way more that what the average joe can afford to spend. But they still find a market.  Then there is average joes uncle who just got a new Nikon and who will shoot the dang thing for a sixpack.  Mandating wages for Doctors just might give us the wedding photo model, with the really good guys working for those with the bucks, and not the average joe

It's already happening.  I'm on Medicare.  There are doctors, the better ones, who I want to go to who have opted out of Medicare.  That means I have to pay all their charges personally out of my own pocket.  Medicare will not give me anything back.  So I'm stuck going to the lesser qualified doctors who have not opted out.

If there becomes a Medicare for all, the pools of better doctors will shrink.  Either they'll opt out and only the rich will be able to pay for their services.  Or if the government mandates no opting out, then many fine doctors will just retire and new doctors will decide to go into other fields.  Medical care will not be as good as it was.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 01, 2020, 10:08:46 pm
Okay, so you do not want to debate. Sad, but telling.

So I other words you have nothing.   You were told how the process works yet you want to break the rules.  That’s what is sad and really telling.  Btw, I’m here, what makes you think I don’t want to “debate”?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 01, 2020, 11:17:18 pm
On the additional witnesses (FYI, witnesses were called in the house and admitted into evidence into the trial, so yes, I do mean additional), I listened to a Podcast today with Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham that made some very good points on why the vote went the way it did. 

The main point was that regardless if what Bolton said was true, the president is still allowed to investigate perceived corruption.  So there was nothing Bolton could have testified to that would have changed this, especially considering Bolton alluded to 2016 interference being the cause for the requested investigation, not for a 2020 advantage. 

Second was that the Dems, especially Warren, made it impossible for either Lamar Alexander or Murkowski to vote for witnesses, creating a 50/50 split.  Alexander, who is an institutionalist, was pretty much a no vote early Thursday for the pure reason that he did not want to put the Senate into a position to make judgements on the law for the first time ever, instead of the courts.  He wanted to preserve the institution as much as possible.  However, Murkowski at this point was still up in the air. 

Then Warren sent in her question asking if Justice Roberts, along with the Supreme Court, should be embarrassed by the proceeding, and it became obvious that if a 50/50 vote happened, regardless if Roberts declined to vote himself or voted for no additional witnesses, the Dems would use this as a way to delegitimize the Supreme Court.  This enraged republicans much more then what the Dems anticipated and it was at this point that both Alexander and Murkowski decided it would be best to have a 51/49 vote so the Dems would not be given the opportunity to destroy the legitimacy of the Supreme Courts (along with everything other institution they have demolished since 2016). 

Essentially the Dems, especially Warren, helped push the Republicans towards this 51/49 vote. 
Joe, I think it's simpler than that.  Why would a defense attorney help the prosecutor make their case.  It would be like them giving the rope to the prosecutor to hang their client.

The House Democrats failed to do their job.  They didn't get the evidence they needed during the House impeachment phase.  Democrats rushed to judgement for political reasons producing a weak case.  Then they expected the Republicans to roll over and help them make their case.  This from former trial lawyers who understand the adversarial relationship.  The Democrats should be voted out of office for incompetency rather than for anything else. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 02, 2020, 02:39:52 am
... Frustrating because these people by and large don't take the time to educate themselves on what they actually want...

There you go again, the tired old trope that if one is a Trump supporter, they must be uneducated.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 02, 2020, 03:56:58 am
The main point was that regardless if what Bolton said was true, the president is still allowed to investigate perceived corruption.  So there was nothing Bolton could have testified to that would have changed this, especially considering Bolton alluded to 2016 interference being the cause for the requested investigation, not for a 2020 advantage. 

Beautiful thinking... we will not hear witnesses because... the President is innocent.  ;D ;D ;D

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 02, 2020, 04:00:09 am
20. Do you think witnesses should be allowed to testify in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, or not?
                                                               WHITE......
                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                     Tot   
 
Yes/Be allowed       75%   

Indeed.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on February 02, 2020, 04:27:59 am
There you go again, the tired old trope that if one is a Trump supporter, they must be uneducated.


Many of our British Conservative head honchos are well educated; many from the Oxbridge circuit. Do you, therefore, assume that that education has also made them intelligent? Education and intelligence are very different attributes, one earned by rote and the other naturally given - or not - at birth. I have seen little display of education or intelligence from them recently, but plenty of animal cunning and shameless deceit, not to mention downright lying. Regarding the populace: when you vote to spit in the face of, insult your biggest, most important client, what can anyone say? It's not the client's state of mind that is suspect.

I would rather take the advice of someone I consider wise than of one who simply went to the "right" schools and university, usually the measure of deep, parental pockets, though that is certainly not to confine the fool to the top end of the pole. In Britain, it has often meant such crème de la crème people turn to showbiz, areas such as tv comedy and satire. Of the others without the sterling silver in their mouth, many have made the step to entrepreneur and created fortunes, the only time they have set foot in a university being when invited to speak, when not barred by silly students and their unions clubs from so doing.

Slobodan, it's been many years since I abandoned the innocently inane belief that education equates with intelligence.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 02, 2020, 07:14:35 am
In short, its nothing but unfocused populist rage that doesn't care who, or what, it breaks.  I understand that there's a swell of people that are fed up with politicians and you're absolutely correct - I see it in Trump folks AND the hardcore Bernie people, and honestly, it's both frustrating and scary.

Frustrating because these people by and large don't take the time to educate themselves on what they actually want (Slobodan posted an NPR article awhile back that quoted some idiot talking about how she "doesn't like" whomever "decided" that a certain cleaning agent was bad for the environment, so she thinks they should be ignored or voted out or something) and it's a proven fact that evidence contrary to imbedded opinion actually makes people dig in harder.  Scary because they're being worked up, deliberately IMHO by Trump, probably Bernie as well, to the point where they just want to break stuff.  And that's BS.  I do care to an extent about disaffection and the legitimate issues people have.  I have nothing for contempt for people that just want to break the world because they've been stirred up for political purposes. 
You may be describing Bernie supporters but not Trump supporters.

Trump's supporters mainly want to go back (MAGA) to an America that was stable and powerful militarily and economically.  A time where we seem to know our place in the world and with ourselves.  They don't want to break things but do want to eliminate the "elite" part of the government. 

Bernie's supporters on the other hand want to redo America into a socialist state where they control wealth, thought and action.  People won't be free to live their own lives.  A kind of 1984. It's the people on the left who are stopping discussions in colleges putting a halt to free speech through violent action, not Trump's supporters.  It's Bernie's armies that want to start a new Marxist Utopia.  Trump's just want to be left alone to build golf courses or buy SUV's.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on February 02, 2020, 07:31:05 am
Joe, I think it's simpler than that.  Why would a defense attorney help the prosecutor make their case.  It would be like them giving the rope to the prosecutor to hang their client.

The House Democrats failed to do their job.  They didn't get the evidence they needed during the House impeachment phase.  Democrats rushed to judgement for political reasons producing a weak case.  Then they expected the Republicans to roll over and help them make their case.  This from former trial lawyers who understand the adversarial relationship.  The Democrats should be voted out of office for incompetency rather than for anything else.

That is true, but the devil is in the details.  Some people need a little extra push every now and then. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on February 02, 2020, 07:39:28 am
Beautiful thinking... we will not hear witnesses because... the President is innocent.  ;D ;D ;D

Cheers,
Bernard

Well certainly innocent of any crime.  He was not even charged with one.  Insofar as the actual two articles, they just do not rise to the level of impeachment regardless, IMO.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 02, 2020, 08:26:15 am
Indeed.

Cheers,
Bernard

"witnesses" not "Additional wittnesses"
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 02, 2020, 08:46:48 am
The Democrat party is setting the stage for a brokered convention to get someone who could beat Trump.  Socialists need not apply. Well, if the Republicans can have a billionaire president, so can the Democrats!

Michael Moore: DNC Changing Rules To Allow "Billionaire Republican Mayor Of NYC" Mike Bloomberg On Debate Stage
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/02/01/michael_moore_dnc_changing_rules_to_allow_bloomberg_on_debate_stage_because_he_has_a_billion_fcking_dollars.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on February 02, 2020, 09:35:05 am
Additional witnesses?

The Senate has not called any witnesses. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

This by itself seems like a derelict of duty ...

The House was the outfit that should have called the witnesses they wanted to hear from. Sure, they wanted to call close Trump advisers, and the administration declined to send them, naturally. The President has every right to confidentiality when it comes to his advisers. If the House didn't like the result they could have taken the situation to the courts. But that wasn't part of their playbook. For one thing, the Democrats want their people to be able to get out there and campaign (ridiculous as their campaigns have been). In addition, the House refused to call witnesses the Republicans wanted to hear from, and refused to allow Republicans to cross-examine the Democrat fabricators. There was plenty of dereliction of duty, Bart, but it wasn't the Senate that was derelict.

But I love it. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! These guys are using crew-served machine guns. The election will be payback.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on February 02, 2020, 09:51:51 am
Actually, Alex Dershowitz's incredibly stupid statement that president can do anything to help his re-election will destroy any credibility the Republicans had.
"If a President thinks his re-election is in the public interest, anything he does in pursuit of his re-election is legal".

That would include arresting your opponent, suppressing evidence, and spreading out daily new lies.
 
Quote
"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest," Dershowitz said. "And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest. And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on February 02, 2020, 09:53:13 am
The Democrat party is setting the stage for a brokered convention to get someone who could beat Trump.  Socialists need not apply. Well, if the Republicans can have a billionaire president, so can the Democrats!

Michael Moore: DNC Changing Rules To Allow "Billionaire Republican Mayor Of NYC" Mike Bloomberg On Debate Stage
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/02/01/michael_moore_dnc_changing_rules_to_allow_bloomberg_on_debate_stage_because_he_has_a_billion_fcking_dollars.html

I read last night DNC leaders are mulling a rule change to allow super delegates to vote in the first round.  Talk about a socialism panic.

Well, if they do, there goes the neighborhood ... of downtown Milwaukee that is.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 02, 2020, 10:05:30 am
Actually, Alex Dershowitz's incredibly stupid statement that president can do anything to help his re-election will destroy any credibility the Republicans had.
"If a President thinks his re-election is in the public interest, anything he does in pursuit of his re-election is legal".

That would include arresting your opponent, suppressing evidence, and spreading out daily new lies.
 
Les, He made his point inarticulately and expanded it afterwards.  What he meant and as I stated myself, was that a president often makes public policy with one eye on an election.  He'll ignore what's good for the country by deciding what's good for his re-election. Not only is that legal.  It's what they should do in many cases.  In a democracy, leaders are elected.  They respond to their voters.  When Obama pulled troops out of Iraq in 2011 against his military advisors advice that he would create a vacuum for ISIS, he did it anyway.  Why?  Because he was soon to run for re-election and wanted his voters to know he keeps his word.  So public policy is often decided by what leaders think their voters want from them.  That's the point Dershowitz was making.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 02, 2020, 10:09:39 am
I read last night DNC leaders are mulling a rule change to allow super delegates to vote in the first round.  Talk about a socialism panic.

Well, if they do, there goes the neighborhood ... of downtown Milwaukee that is.   
I hadn't read that.  So they'll go back to what happened with Hillary and Sanders, when Clinton had all the superdelegates locked up even before the first vote. That should make the Sander's voters happy.  If they pull that again, none of them will show up to vote at all making it really easy for Trump to win.  This is what happens when you don't trust your own voters.  This is what inside politics is all about - the Deep State, that both Sanders and Trump complain about.  The Brexit folks too.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on February 02, 2020, 10:13:23 am
Les, He made his point inarticulately and expanded it afterwards.  What he meant and as I stated myself, was that a president often makes public policy with one eye on an election.  He'll ignore what's good for the country by deciding what's good for his re-election. Not only is that legal.  It's what they should do in many cases.  In a democracy, leaders are elected.  They respond to their voters.  When Obama pulled troops out of Iraq in 2011 against his military advisors advice that he would create a vacuum for ISIS, he did it anyway.  Why?  Because he was soon to run for re-election and wanted his voters to know he keeps his word.  So public policy is often decided by what leaders think their voters want from them.  That's the point Dershowitz was making.

The point he was making was extremely lame. Trying to justify equally stupid action by Trump, but that doesn't make it right. If anything, actions like this will hurt the Republicans in the long run.

From SNL sketch:
Quote
"What I've learned from this trial is nothing I do or say has any consequence," he says. "The call to Ukraine wasn't perfect, it was illegal.
"I cheat all the time at golf, taxes, wives, elections," he continues. "I cut the funding to the CDC, so this Wang Chung virus is really going to be bad."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on February 02, 2020, 10:21:04 am
There you go again, the tired old trope that if one is a Trump supporter, they must be uneducated.

Not "Trump supporters."  Populists.  Both ends of the spectrum have them and I promise you, if someone wants to post a screed from some rabid Bernie Bro along the same lines, I'll be equally as scornful.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on February 02, 2020, 10:41:26 am
I hadn't read that.  So they'll go back to what happened with Hillary and Sanders, when Clinton had all the superdelegates locked up even before the first vote. That should make the Sander's voters happy.  If they pull that again, none of them will show up to vote at all making it really easy for Trump to win.  This is what happens when you don't trust your own voters.  This is what inside politics is all about - the Deep State, that both Sanders and Trump complain about.  The Brexit folks too.   

Pretty much what they are thinking about. 

DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-110083?fbclid=IwAR3J3VH47bGStqzBo4EMY_6rMqip2FDr4O0sNQg0rmGw4TjXpsiXFDK3wr4)

Along with not showing up to vote, I also think Milwaukee will be burned to the ground by Antifa and Bernie Bros.  The national guard will need to be called in just like with the DNC Chicago convention in 1968. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 02, 2020, 10:43:35 am
Not "Trump supporters."  Populists.  Both ends of the spectrum have them and I promise you, if someone wants to post a screed from some rabid Bernie Bro along the same lines, I'll be equally as scornful.
Actually the founders had very little faith in the public.  Hence, they wrote the COnstitution to have had electors electing the president and state legislatures electing senators before amending it in the 20th century to let the people select their senators.    They feared the public would bankrupt the nation in their ever increasing desire for free things.  When the government ran out of money to pay for those "free" things, government created the Federal Reserve to print money.  The whole thing  all made Bernie Madoff look like a piker. 

Frankly, if education was the standard and guide, why does the Supreme Court have 5 to 4 decisions?  I don;t think anyone here is stupid.  Yet we have very divergent views on things.  These are usually pressed by personality.  Some people are more traditional in their thinking and others more willing to change.  That falls into line with conservative and liberal thinking.  It has little to do with logic.  That's why each side can;t believe the other side thinks that way it does and can be so stupid and illogical.  What's wrong with them? 

We're up to page 188.  How many people here have changed their minds from page 1?  Actually I think there are only three independents left in the entire country.  One is in South Dakota, the other Indiana, and the last is hidden somewhere in Appalachia, state unknown.  He's hiding out from the pollsters who are dying to find out how he's going to vote in November. He may be the key to the election.  I for one hope he stays hidden so there's a point to this thread although I doubt if he's secretly reading it.    :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 02, 2020, 10:55:18 am
Pretty much what they are thinking about. 

DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-110083?fbclid=IwAR3J3VH47bGStqzBo4EMY_6rMqip2FDr4O0sNQg0rmGw4TjXpsiXFDK3wr4)

Along with not showing up to vote, I also think Milwaukee will be burned to the ground by Antifa and Bernie Bros.  The national guard will need to be called in just like with the DNC Chicago convention in 1968. 

This is the Deep State working, Joe, trying to protect their power, influence, and wealth.  It's what both Trump and Sanders wailed against. Power know no philosophy.  It's all about greed. It's why I oppose government.  It offers good tidings while it has it's hand in your back pocket.  Yet people still fall for its smiles and good wishes ignoring that somewhere down the line, they'll be a payback. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on February 02, 2020, 11:27:52 am
Actually, Alex Dershowitz's incredibly stupid statement that president can do anything to help his re-election will destroy any credibility the Republicans had.
"If a President thinks his re-election is in the public interest, anything he does in pursuit of his re-election is legal".

That would include arresting your opponent, suppressing evidence, and spreading out daily new lies.
 

How about shooting your opponent on 5th Avenue?

Dershowitz is a slimy, vile character so naturally he is drawn to Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on February 02, 2020, 11:39:35 am
The Democrat party is setting the stage for a brokered convention to get someone who could beat Trump.  Socialists need not apply. Well, if the Republicans can have a billionaire president, so can the Democrats!

Michael Moore: DNC Changing Rules To Allow "Billionaire Republican Mayor Of NYC" Mike Bloomberg On Debate Stage
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/02/01/michael_moore_dnc_changing_rules_to_allow_bloomberg_on_debate_stage_because_he_has_a_billion_fcking_dollars.html

Michael Moore has been a bête noire of the right for ages and now Alan is citing him?

But even if it's true, I am OK with it. The debate admission rules were created to keep the debates from being cluttered up with minor candidates with little support. Bloomberg has a lot of support but, because he is paying for the campaign himself, no donors to meet the debate rules. I have no particular liking for Bloomberg but I think he needs to be heard. And if he's the one to beat the Orange Menace, I am all for it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 02, 2020, 12:02:47 pm
I hope you don't shoot film.  Nanny Bloomberg's against plastic straws and will take your film away.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 02, 2020, 12:15:10 pm
Actually, Alex Dershowitz's incredibly stupid statement that president can do anything to help his re-election will destroy any credibility the Republicans had.
"If a President thinks his re-election is in the public interest, anything he does in pursuit of his re-election is legal".

That would include arresting your opponent, suppressing evidence, and spreading out daily new lies. 

No, Les, just no. The quote is deliberately taken out of context.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on February 02, 2020, 12:24:55 pm
Slobodan,
I listened to the original Dershowitz's statement, then to him again next day trying to twist that statement, and then again to Cuomo&Dershowitz interview.
His original statement was incredibly ridiculous. The only unclear thing is whether he is really so stupid or just desperate? Professor! No wonder, the university students get radicalized listening to such BS.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/01/31/chris-cuomo-alan-dershowitz-quid-pro-quo-trump-national-interest-cpt-intv-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/trump-ukraine/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on February 02, 2020, 12:35:48 pm

 but plenty of animal cunning and shameless deceit, not to mention downright lying.

Rob was referring to British politicians, but I think the same description applies nearly everywhere.

If there's one thing I think we call all agree on, it's that politics is an ugly, shameless, corrupt and nasty business.

Anyone disagree?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 02, 2020, 12:57:00 pm
... If there's one thing I think we call all agree on, it's that politics is an ugly, shameless, corrupt and nasty business.

Anyone disagree?

I do not disagree.

That's why we elected the ugliest, most shameless, and nastiest guy to win that game ;)

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on February 02, 2020, 01:37:11 pm
 :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on February 02, 2020, 01:53:19 pm
Slobodan,
I listened to the original Dershowitz's statement, then to him again next day trying to twist that statement, and then again to Cuomo&Dershowitz interview. His original statement was incredibly ridiculous. The only unclear thing is whether he is really so stupid or just desperate? Professor! No wonder, the university students get radicalized listening to such BS.
Douchewitz has for decades taken to most provocative positions to support his clients. There is nothing he won't say A large part of this is just drawing attention to himself. It's me, me, me. I am on TV. Just interrupt him and ask him about his massage at Jeffrey Epstein's place.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on February 02, 2020, 02:40:42 pm
I do not disagree.
That's why we elected the ugliest, most shameless, and nastiest guy to win that game ;)

Well, you can keep both of them. I'm glad we don't have to put up with them.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on February 02, 2020, 05:23:33 pm
No, Les, just no. The quote is deliberately taken out of context.

Please provide the context.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 02, 2020, 06:51:45 pm
Fear of 78 year-old Sanders winning the nomination and then losing to Trump awakens another old Democrat fart from his nap.  John Kerry, who at 77, is thinking about running again.  Hey I just turned 75 and rarin' to go too.  Maybe I should run.  The Dems need some young blood in there.  Russ, you up to it?  We can run together.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/481116-john-kerry-overheard-discussing-potential-2020-bid-amid-concerns-over


 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on February 02, 2020, 07:34:34 pm
Even if you don't run you have a better chance than Sanders of becoming President.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 02, 2020, 07:57:40 pm
Well certainly innocent of any crime.  He was not even charged with one.  Insofar as the actual two articles, they just do not rise to the level of impeachment regardless, IMO.

And it has been demonstrated again and again that there is no need to have committed a penal crime to be impeached.

Here is Dershowitz himself explaining it clearly in 1998: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpXr-sfwaDk  ;D ;D ;D

Linking the need for a crime to impeachment is performing a clear an unacceptable modification of the spirit of the constitution.

If that were not the case the Republicans would not have wasted a huge amount of energy during 2 months to demonstrate to the world that there was no quid pro quo.

Once they realized that the quid pro quo had obviously happened and that there was going to be first hand testimonies to proof it, they changed their story completely, claiming that the quid pro quo was not an issue.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 02, 2020, 07:59:17 pm
"witnesses" not "Additional wittnesses"

Which is only relevant for you in your attempt to desguise the reality that the Senate violated the will of the people they are supposed to be representing.

The reality is that the people who answered this question were hoping to see the Senate have witnesses testify, regardless of whether there were already witnesses heard from the congress.

So "witnesses" always meant "additional witnesses". That's the default understanding of the meaning of the word in the context and what common sense dictates.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 02, 2020, 08:14:39 pm
Les, He made his point inarticulately and expanded it afterwards.  What he meant and as I stated myself, was that a president often makes public policy with one eye on an election.  He'll ignore what's good for the country by deciding what's good for his re-election. Not only is that legal.  It's what they should do in many cases.  In a democracy, leaders are elected.  They respond to their voters.  When Obama pulled troops out of Iraq in 2011 against his military advisors advice that he would create a vacuum for ISIS, he did it anyway.  Why?  Because he was soon to run for re-election and wanted his voters to know he keeps his word.  So public policy is often decided by what leaders think their voters want from them.  That's the point Dershowitz was making.

Taking a decision that is against the interest of the country but in favor of a re-election is fine as long as the decision is legal.

The fact that such an incompatibility of interest isn't in itself illegal is totally irrelevant to the point being discussed.

The nature of the decison has to be measured against the law and the constitution, and in the case of Trump most legal experts assess the usage of a quid pro quo with a foreign leader as being unconstitutional.

But again, we see that the Republican camp is abusing the usage of twisted logic to manipulate the opinion.

Fortunately, the people aren't stupid and every additional layer of manipulation is simply reducing the credibility of the Republican camp.

Everybody understands that there is no need to twist logic when you have a clear and sound case.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on February 02, 2020, 09:31:06 pm
He just abused his presidential power to try to falsely and illegally influence the outcome of the next election.
Just but different as he did before with his previous election. (Cambrige Analytica & more)
Thats all.

But who cares if it is one of yours... The good guys
Constitution? what constitution? spirit of...

a fair election system is the base of all
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on February 02, 2020, 10:47:54 pm
Headline in today's German Spiegel:

Quote
Der Impeachment-Prozess gegen Donald Trump ist faktisch am Ende. Die republikanische Partei ist es auch.

Translation: The impeachment process against Donald Trump is effectively finished. The Republican Party, too.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on February 02, 2020, 10:53:06 pm
Headline in today's German Spiegel:

Translation: The impeachment process against Donald Trump is effectively finished. The Republican Party, too.

 ;D ;D ;D

Foreign press, they are always the barameter of USA sentiment. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 02, 2020, 11:11:41 pm
;D ;D ;D

Foreign press, they are always the barameter of USA sentiment.

They are probably much closer than Fox at least.

Is the North Korean official TV channel objective about what is happening in North Korea? Isn’t the Spiegel more objective in their analysis?

I don’t see more criticism on Fox about Trump than I see in North Korean official media. It’s exactly the same level of total support whatever.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on February 02, 2020, 11:24:30 pm
Foreign press, they are always the barameter of USA sentiment.

Sometimes, the cracks can be detected earlier from the outside.

However, Germany's governing party is not immune to the loss of popularity. Merkel's CDU/CSU party lost the majority in their last election, while the fringe parties on both ends of spectrum picked up new voters.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 03, 2020, 01:40:00 am
Bernard, you are (almost) endearingLy cute in your unwavering belief that you are right, not the 63 million Americans, and that your opinion, gathered by reading information from half the world across, is the truth. It is like claiming to be a neurosurgeon after reading a few textbooks.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on February 03, 2020, 04:53:51 am
Bernard, you are (almost) endearingLy cute in your unwavering belief that you are right, not the 63 million Americans, and that your opinion, gathered by reading information from half the world across, is the truth. It is like claiming to be a neurosurgeon after reading a few textbooks.


But at least he can read the textbooks, and probably without moving his lips or shooting anyone...

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 03, 2020, 05:31:54 am

... read the textbooks, and probably without moving his lips...

Hmmm... when did you have a chance to observe me!?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on February 03, 2020, 07:35:08 am
Panic is really starting to set in. 

POLITICO Playbook: What Democrats won’t say out loud (https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2020/02/03/what-democrats-wont-say-out-loud-488223)

"... the possibility of Bernie Sanders taking down the Democratic Party — down whole."  John Kerry was overheard saying this weekend. 

But don't worry, Der Spiegel already has it figured out. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on February 03, 2020, 10:27:52 am
Taking a decision that is against the interest of the country but in favor of a re-election is fine as long as the decision is legal.

The fact that such an incompatibility of interest isn't in itself illegal is totally irrelevant to the point being discussed.


You are exactly right. Presidents are *supposed* to do things that benefit the country, and that *should* improve their reelection chances. But Trump's actions were solely for his own personal benefit and not for the country's. The Ukrainian prosecutor was fired because he *was not* investigating corruption, not because he was looking into Burisma. And this guy's ouster had been requested by several international organizations as well as anti-corruption activists within Ukraine. This is all well-established but those who live in their tidy little Fox-Limbaugh-Hannity-Breitbart bubble are impervious to such information.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on February 03, 2020, 10:29:20 am
Even if you don't run you have a better chance than Sanders of becoming President.

I am surprised that you and Alan have not been appointed to Trump's cabinet.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 03, 2020, 11:11:15 am
Yesterday was Groundhog Day:
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on February 03, 2020, 11:14:32 am
The House was the outfit that should have called the witnesses they wanted to hear from. Sure, they wanted to call close Trump advisers, and the administration declined to send them, naturally. The President has every right to confidentiality when it comes to his advisers. If the House didn't like the result they could have taken the situation to the courts. But that wasn't part of their playbook. For one thing, the Democrats want their people to be able to get out there and campaign (ridiculous as their campaigns have been). In addition, the House refused to call witnesses the Republicans wanted to hear from, and refused to allow Republicans to cross-examine the Democrat fabricators. There was plenty of dereliction of duty, Bart, but it wasn't the Senate that was derelict.


Absolutely and completely wrong. Witnesses are called DURING THE TRIAL--i.e., the Senate proceedings, so the jury (the senators) can hear the evidence and make up their minds. But the GOP senators (all but two) fell into their goose-stepping line behind Trump and McConnell and said "no." We all knew from day 1 that the Senate would not remove Trump, so the goal is to get all the evidence out there for the public to evaluate. And the GOP has been saying all along that we should let the people decide at the election, but then they do their best to keep information from the voters. Gee, why do you think?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 03, 2020, 11:20:10 am
You are exactly right. Presidents are *supposed* to do things that benefit the country, and that *should* improve their reelection chances. But Trump's actions were solely for his own personal benefit and not for the country's. The Ukrainian prosecutor was fired because he *was not* investigating corruption, not because he was looking into Burisma. And this guy's ouster had been requested by several international organizations as well as anti-corruption activists within Ukraine. This is all well-established but those who live in their tidy little Fox-Limbaugh-Hannity-Breitbart bubble are impervious to such information.

Let's assume you;re right.  That the prosecutor was not of any threat to Burisma and VP Biden's son.  However, VP Biden was warned by others in the Obama administration at the highest levels to recuse himself because his son was involved with Burisma and Ukraine.  HIs son got paid exorbitant fees for doing nothing.  That the optics would look terrible if VP Biden was involved.  Yet, Biden ignored all the warnings and optics, and got the prosecutor fired anyway.  So you want as our president a guy so oblivious to politics, so enamored in hubris, so lacking in common sense, that he doesn;t see the threat to himself and the policy he pressed.  Or others and you are wrong about the prosecutors intent and the VP got him fired for nefarious purposes. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 03, 2020, 11:28:35 am
Absolutely and completely wrong. Witnesses are called DURING THE TRIAL--i.e., the Senate proceedings, so the jury (the senators) can hear the evidence and make up their minds. But the GOP senators (all but two) fell into their goose-stepping line behind Trump and McConnell and said "no." We all knew from day 1 that the Senate would not remove Trump, so the goal is to get all the evidence out there for the public to evaluate. And the GOP has been saying all along that we should let the people decide at the election, but then they do their best to keep information from the voters. Gee, why do you think?
Impeachment has only been done a few times in the 225 years history of the USA.  WE just don;t go there for petty political games.
Until now.  There better be some real proof of High Crimes.  It was up to the House to provide that proof as strongly as possible.  They were derelict in their duty and rushed to judgment and made it all political.  So the republican Senate responded politically and refused to do the House Democrats work to prove their case. 

And you are wrong about getting the evidence out their for the public to evaluate.  That's what elections are for.  But the impeachment process is for Congress to decide to get rid of a president before an election.  USing impeachment to influence future elections is wrong.  It was not the founders intent although that's exactly why the Democrats impeached him not caring about the evidence.  It was a smear job. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on February 03, 2020, 11:36:30 am
Absolutely and completely wrong. Witnesses are called DURING THE TRIAL--i.e., the Senate proceedings, so the jury (the senators) can hear the evidence and make up their minds. But the GOP senators (all but two) fell into their goose-stepping line behind Trump and McConnell and said "no." We all knew from day 1 that the Senate would not remove Trump, so the goal is to get all the evidence out there for the public to evaluate. And the GOP has been saying all along that we should let the people decide at the election, but then they do their best to keep information from the voters. Gee, why do you think?

This whole post completely ignores the fact that at any time from now until the election the House can (and has the votes to) call more witnesses and challenge any subpoenas in court.  As a matter of fact, they had this option during the inquiry, but were so hell bent to get this done by Christmas that they did nothing and refused to go to the courts. 

And dont give me the it would have taken too long excuse.  Nixon's official impeachment began on May 9th, 1974 and the Supreme Court ruled on the White House tapes on July 24th of that same year, two and half months later. 

If the Dems are so concerned, then can do so on their own. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on February 03, 2020, 11:43:09 am
Absolutely and completely wrong. Witnesses are called DURING THE TRIAL--i.e., the Senate proceedings, so the jury (the senators) can hear the evidence and make up their minds. But the GOP senators (all but two) fell into their goose-stepping line behind Trump and McConnell and said "no." We all knew from day 1 that the Senate would not remove Trump, so the goal is to get all the evidence out there for the public to evaluate. And the GOP has been saying all along that we should let the people decide at the election, but then they do their best to keep information from the voters. Gee, why do you think?

You should get a job writing for fake news, Peter. Oh. . . maybe you already have a job like that. On the other hand, maybe you're just parroting what you're seeing on TV.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on February 03, 2020, 12:00:42 pm
So, Russ, what isn't "fake news" ?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on February 03, 2020, 12:06:51 pm
Try the Wall Street Journal, Peter. If you watch TV for your news you're almost always getting fake news.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on February 03, 2020, 04:48:42 pm

And you are wrong about getting the evidence out their for the public to evaluate.  That's what elections are for. 
 

Well duh, Alan. How can the election work properly if the evidence is *not* out there? It has been known from day 1 that the Senate would never vote to remove Trump, that's not the Dem's goal. Their goal is to get the facts about Trump's malfeasance out in the open so the voters can make an informed choice.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 03, 2020, 04:49:06 pm
Try the Wall Street Journal, Peter. If you watch TV for your news you're almost always getting fake news.

Does that apply to Fox News also?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on February 03, 2020, 05:02:31 pm
Does that apply to Fox News also?

Cheers,
Bernard

A recent report from an independent, non-partisan scientific organization said that in reporting about climate change, Fox had the facts wrong 70% of the time.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 03, 2020, 05:13:22 pm
Bernard, you are (almost) endearingLy cute in your unwavering belief that you are right, not the 63 million Americans, and that your opinion, gathered by reading information from half the world across, is the truth. It is like claiming to be a neurosurgeon after reading a few textbooks.

I am not sure what we are talking about here?

I am certainly right that most of the media except Fox News, be them US based or non US based, have an opinion about Trump and the impeachment that is totally different from yours and those of the few vocal Trump supporters in this thread. This isn’t my opinion, it’s a fact.

Your analogy is fatally flawed. This isn’t me claiming that I am a neuro surgeon, it’s me claiming I understood what 95% of magazines about neuro-surgery call a brain. Only one magazine (yes, the analogy to Fox News) is saying that a brain is something completely different... ;)

I understand that you lived in the US for a long time and think you know better, but frankly, have you not surrounded yourself by people sharing your views? How representative is the sample of the population you are in touch with? What news outlet do you collect information from?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 03, 2020, 05:29:51 pm
Which is only relevant for you in your attempt to desguise the reality that the Senate violated the will of the people they are supposed to be representing.

No Bernard, it is relevant to everyone , well except you. Its a classic example of you getting duped by a poll designed to fool people.  The question was quite clear..."witnesses" and not "additional witneses", and was asked in such a way to elicit the most favorable responses even though the trial DID have witness testimony presented.  As for "violating" the will of the people, if you look at the polls, they tell you that the people are pretty much evenly divided for and against impeachment.  Given the fact that Republican respondants are almost in complete ageement against Impeachment and the Senators who are against ADDITIONAL witnesses are Rebublicans, it appears they are being faithful to their constituents.

Quote
The reality is that the people who answered this question were hoping to see the Senate have witnesses testify, regardless of whether there were already witnesses heard from the congress.

The reality is, IMO and that of others is the vast majority of American had no idea how this trial would work.  Its not like they happen very often or that the average American is actually paying attention to the trial.  Most are tuning it out.  If you were to ask Americans what a witness at a trial looks like I suspect the overwhelming answer would be someone sitting in the dock, being sworn in and being questioned DIRECTLY with in front of the jury.  Like they see on Law and Order.  Of course, your original stated position was "additional witnesses"  Now you are simply trying to do the backstroke.


Quote
So "witnesses" always meant "additional witnesses". That's the default understanding of the meaning of the word in the context and what common sense dictates.

Which is of course complete and utter bullcrap.  The words were PLAINLY written.  Words have meaning.  It this case the meaning was QUITE clear.  You, like Shiff are simply making things up
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 03, 2020, 05:34:41 pm
Taking a decision that is against the interest of the country but in favor of a re-election is fine as long as the decision is legal.

The fact that such an incompatibility of interest isn't in itself illegal is totally irrelevant to the point being discussed.

The nature of the decison has to be measured against the law and the constitution, and in the case of Trump most legal experts assess the usage of a quid pro quo with a foreign leader as being unconstitutional.

But again, we see that the Republican camp is abusing the usage of twisted logic to manipulate the opinion.

Fortunately, the people aren't stupid and every additional layer of manipulation is simply reducing the credibility of the Republican camp.

Everybody understands that there is no need to twist logic when you have a clear and sound case.

Cheers,
Bernard

The arbitrators of the issue of Trumps actions being against the law and the consitiution rests completely on the Senate.  No other body can decide, be it the House of Represenatives, the Courts or the people.  This power is of course vested to the Senate by the Constitution.  Their verdict is legal and binding.  Deal with it Bernard.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 03, 2020, 05:38:08 pm
Does that apply to Fox News also?

Cheers,
Bernard

How much Fox news do you actually watch Bernard?  What hard news shows, what opinion shows?  Based on your viewing which hard news shows take a soft approach towards Trump, and which ones are fair in respect to the days headlinesw?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on February 03, 2020, 05:52:45 pm
How much Fox news do you actually watch Bernard?  What hard news shows, what opinion shows?  Based on your viewing which hard news shows take a soft approach towards Trump, and which ones are fair in respect to the days headlinesw?
Unless you are retired and sit around watching news during the day, you are pretty much limited to the opinion shows on all the channels.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 03, 2020, 06:41:01 pm
Not "Trump supporters."  Populists.  Both ends of the spectrum have them and I promise you, if someone wants to post a screed from some rabid Bernie Bro along the same lines, I'll be equally as scornful.

James, I've give this post and the one where we discussed the same issues quite a bit of thought..  Don't you think the very attitude you seem to be espousing is a contributor to the feelings of the so called "populists". Perhaps too uninformed to know whats good for them, leave it to those who know better?  Let the so called "elite" take care of it.  Don't break the system even though its not working for you because its been in place for a long time.

Its not like the normal politicians really care, once the votes have been counted and they are in office.  Oh yea, some platitudes every two to four years to keep the votes coming, but real change?  Not so much. Thats why, IMO Trump broke the mold and brought people along from both sides and the middle.  We can argue if he has actually performed for them, but thats another story.  Bernie brings the same dynamic but just to a different group.

I can understand the fear these candidates represent for the status quo.  But its a vaild viewpoint even if you or I don't espouse the same views.  But to  demean these folks on anything other than ideology is wrong IMO.  I don't have to like what Sanders and his supporters stand for, but that does not mean I should disrespect them as people.  Thats the way we American used to behave.  It's a shame we don't now.   We used to be able to have honest political differences without hating each other. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 03, 2020, 06:47:34 pm
Shiff reduced to begging for a single Republican vote...

He laid it on thick today in his closing argument, even suggesting Trump shoud be impeached for what he MIGHT do in the future. and then he begs for a single Republican vote.

"Every single vote, even a single vote by a single member can change the course of history. It is said that a single man or woman of courage makes a majority. Is there one among you who will say ‘enough!’?" Schiff asked.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on February 03, 2020, 07:42:55 pm
Regrettably, there was no one. They should have sent into that room some hot Oriental who would cough and sneeze.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 03, 2020, 07:43:37 pm
Shiff reduced to begging for a single Republican vote...

He laid it on thick today in his closing argument, even suggesting Trump shoud be impeached for what he MIGHT do in the future. and then he begs for a single Republican vote.

"Every single vote, even a single vote by a single member can change the course of history. It is said that a single man or woman of courage makes a majority. Is there one among you who will say ‘enough!’?" Schiff asked.

Schiff is asking the Republicans to do the job he and the Democrats didn't do.  Provide the actual evidence that Trump committed a high crime before sending it to the Senate. That's what the Constitution requires.  Instead, they turned the whole thing into a political coup which is what it has been for 3 years. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on February 03, 2020, 07:45:50 pm
Does that apply to Fox News also?

Cheers,
Bernard

Sometimes, Bernard, but they tend to be a lot more accurate than the rest of the TV crocks.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on February 03, 2020, 07:54:59 pm
Regrettably, there was no one. They should have sent into that room some hot Oriental who would cough and sneeze.

I don't believe Oriental is the Prefered Nomenclature! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYOzUHnPJvU)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 03, 2020, 08:04:05 pm
The arbitrators of the issue of Trumps actions being against the law and the consitiution rests completely on the Senate.  No other body can decide, be it the House of Represenatives, the Courts or the people.  This power is of course vested to the Senate by the Constitution.  Their verdict is legal and binding.  Deal with it Bernard.

Which means that, according to your interpretation, the impeachment process clearly outlined in the constitution with clear guidelines about applicability, is an empty shell since it will always be at the mercy of partisanship in the Senate. In other words, a President would - again according to your interpretation - only be impeachable if the Senate is in the hands of the opposition. This is obviously not what the great founders had in mind when they embedded in the constitution the possibility of a president to be impeached.

Note that this is only the case because Republicans are not playing their role in applying the constitution they made an oath to protect.

Were they to follow the spirit of the constitution, they would look at facts, hear what the legal experts have to say in terms of the cases that can be impeached and hear the required witnesses to establish the truth in terms of were the facts lie relative to the cases outlined by the experts.

This has not happened the way it should have and this tells us how unethical the Republican Senate is relative to their duty.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 03, 2020, 08:07:10 pm
Which is of course complete and utter bullcrap.  The words were PLAINLY written.  Words have meaning.  It this case the meaning was QUITE clear.  You, like Shiff are simply making things up

Yes, words have a meaning that is impacted by a context at a given point in time.

The word "President" means Trump today but it meant "Obama" 4 years ago.

When a poll asks Americans, "should the President be impeached"? Nobody understands this to mean "should President Obama be impeached".

That's because the word President as a meaning that is impacted by a context at a given point in time.

The same apply to "witness".

The poll we are discussing here was made after the Senate hearings started and it's 100% obvious that the only possible interpretation of the question was "should the Senate hear additional witnesses".

But you know this full well. You are just unwilling to admit the fact that 75% of Americans disapproved of the way the Republican Senate managed the impeachment process because it doesn't support your agenda.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 03, 2020, 08:08:27 pm
Sometimes, Bernard, but they tend to be a lot more accurate than the rest of the TV crocks.

And how do you know when they are accurate and when they are not?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 03, 2020, 08:11:37 pm
Yes, words have a meaning that is impacted by a context at a given point in time.

The poll we are discussing here was made after the Senate hearings started and it's 100% obvious that the only possible interpretation of the question was "should the Senate hear additional witnesses".

Cheers,
Bernard

What part of this is impossible for you to understand?   The only possible interpretation is exactly what it said,
...witnesses.  Just admit you screwed up Bernard. If they had wanted to ask about additional witnesses, they would have worded the question that way like in other polls did.

You got scammed.  Learn to live with your shortcomings.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 03, 2020, 08:15:58 pm
What part of this is impossible for you to understand?   The only possible interpretation is exactly what it said,
...witnesses.  Just admit you screwed up Bernard. If they had wanted to ask about additional witnesses, they would have worded the question that way like in other polls did.

You got scammed.  Learn to live with your shortcomings.

Craig,

It looks like you quoted me partially, probably a context and timing issue...

With all due respect, I seriously doubt that any objective person reading our conversation would conclude that you are making sense here.

But I was not expecting you to change your position.  ;D

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 03, 2020, 08:28:37 pm
Which means that, according to your interpretation, the impeachment process clearly outlined in the constitution with clear guidelines about applicability, is an empty shell since it will always be at the mercy of partisanship in the Senate.

It surely can be a partisan process.  Nothing in the constitution presents that.   Not always but clearly possible.  Kind of like what the House did, right?

Quote
In other words, a President would - again according to your interpretation - only be impeachable if the Senate is in the hands of the opposition. This is obviously not what the great founders had in mind when they embedded in the constitution the possibility of a president to be impeached.

It really depends on the actual makeup of the Senate.  In the case of the current Senate, to impeach Trump would require a a good number of Republicans and Democrats to join together to create the 67 vote super majority to convict.  Senators vote as they choose. 

Quote
Note that this is only the case because Republicans are not playing their role in applying the constitution they made an oath to protect.

They apply the constitution in this instance based on what THEY feel is correct.  They are playing their role exactly as the constitution requires.

Quote
Were they to follow the spirit of the constitution, they would look at facts, hear what the legal experts have to say in terms of the cases that can be impeached and hear the required witnesses to establish the truth in terms of were the facts lie relative to the cases outlined by the experts.

And that is exactly what they have done.  Sadly, for you, the outcome appears not to be the one you want.  Too bad.  This is how our Representative Republic works. 

Quote
This has not happened the way it should have and this tells us how unethical the Republican Senate is relative to their duty.

But they have lived up to their duty, the problem is you don’t like the outcome.  So cry me a river. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 03, 2020, 08:31:39 pm
Craig,

It looks like you quoted me partially, probably a context and timing issue...

With all due respect, I seriously doubt that any objective person reading our conversation would conclude that you are making sense here.

But I was not expecting you to change your position.  ;D

Cheers,
Bernard

Well Bernard it appears you changed you post as I was creating mine.  Not my problem.

Objective people can read the exact wording of the question and find no need to invent context to try and make it fit a failed position like you are attempting. 

And I hold no illusions that you will admit you screwed up. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 03, 2020, 08:33:33 pm
They apply the constitution in this instance based on what THEY feel is correct.  They are playing their role exactly as the constitution requires.

And that is exactly what they have done.  Sadly, for you, the outcome appears not to be the one you want.  Too bad.  This is how our Representative Republic works. 

But they have lived up to their duty, the problem is you don’t like the outcome.  So cry me a river.

As I am sure you have understood, my comment isn't about the outcome, it's about the process that was - not - followed to gather the facts and listen to witnesses.

The issue here is that Republican senators have taken an a priori stance - a purely partisan and political one - that Trump was innocent and as a result have prevented the provision of objective facts through additional testimonies that could have impacted their "feeling" (used in the context of your previous sentence).

So their feeling is based on nothing but partisanship instead of being based on facts, and this is clearly what not the great founders were expecting from Senators when they wrote the constitution.

As a result, it seems fair an objective to call the behaviour of Republican Senators unethical, and I would dare to say, unlawful.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 03, 2020, 08:37:33 pm
Well Bernard it appears you changed you post as I was creating mine.  Not my problem.

Objective people can read the exact wording of the question and find no need to invent context to try and make it fit a failed position like you are attempting. 

And I hold no illusions that you will admit you screwed up.

The fact that the meaning of a word is contextual is just that, a fact that's at the core of every communication between humans. It is thanks to context that we don't need to define every single word we use in every single sentence we write.

That you deny something this basic and obvious renders any conversation with you meaningless.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 03, 2020, 08:41:30 pm
Which means that, according to your interpretation, the impeachment process clearly outlined in the constitution with clear guidelines about applicability, is an empty shell since it will always be at the mercy of partisanship in the Senate. In other words, a President would - again according to your interpretation - only be impeachable if the Senate is in the hands of the opposition. This is obviously not what the great founders had in mind when they embedded in the constitution the possibility of a president to be impeached.

Note that this is only the case because Republicans are not playing their role in applying the constitution they made an oath to protect.

Were they to follow the spirit of the constitution, they would look at facts, hear what the legal experts have to say in terms of the cases that can be impeached and hear the required witnesses to establish the truth in terms of were the facts lie relative to the cases outlined by the experts.

This has not happened the way it should have and this tells us how unethical the Republican Senate is relative to their duty.

Cheers,
Bernard


You're wrong Bernard. If a president committed a real high crime, as Republican President Nixon did, both parties will enforce the constitution.  Nixon resigned when his fellow party Republicans told him privately in the Oval OFfice he went too far and that they, the Republicans from his own party, would vote to impeach him along with Democrats making acquittal in the Senate not something he could expect.  Nixon resigned rather than having to face his own party's guilty verdict before they even voted. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 03, 2020, 08:44:10 pm
You're wrong Bernard. If a president committed a real high crime, as Republican President Nixon did, both parties will enforce the constitution.  Nixon resigned when his fellow party Republicans told him privately in the Oval OFfice he went too far and that they, the Republicans from his own party, would vote to impeach him along with Democrats making acquittal in the Senate not something he could expect.  Nixon resigned rather than having to face his own party's guilty verdict before they even voted.

The part in bold is correct, I see no relationship between that and me being wrong.

You are again justifying the innocence of Trump by the behviour of Republican Senators who based their actions on a a priori stance that Trump was innocent. As a result, you are saying nothing but "The proof of Trump's innocence is that he was considered innocent by partisan Senators".

You cannot not see the logical fallacy here.

Which means that you are not being honest in this conversation. You are just trying to be right at the cost of logic and truth.

Keep in mind that, as a free man, you have the liberty at any point in time to adhere back to your Republican principal of rightness and truth. You don't need to continue lying to yourself.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 03, 2020, 08:49:36 pm
As I am sure you have understood, my comment isn't about the outcome, it's about the process that was - not - followed to gather the facts and listen to witnesses.

The issue here is that Republican senators have taken a priori stance - a purely partisan and political one - that Trump was innocent and as a result have prevented the provision of objective facts through additional testimonies that could have impacted their feeling.

So their feeling is based on nothing but partisanship, and this is clearly what not the great founders were expecting from Senators when they wrote the constitution.

As a result, it seems fair an objective to call the behaviour of Republican Senators unethical, and I would date to say, unlawful.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard, the entire Senate has spend days hearing arguments and have the written account of 17 witnesses.  Regardless of their feelings about the situation prior to the trial, they have done their constitutional duty. Then they decided to not hear additional witnesses or add additional documents, all according to the rules voted upon to hold the trial.  They acted exactly as the constitution demands.  It is neither unethical or un lawful.  For you to claim otherwise is beyond silly.

 I’m sure the founders would have preferred that the impeachment as delivered by the House would not have been totally partisan, but that’s the path the Democrats chose to travel.  The founders even warned against it.  But the Dems persisted and even failed to secure the witnesses you claim are so important.   Too bad for you.  This is our Representative Republic is action.  Legal and constitutional.   Your side simply lost it appears.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 03, 2020, 09:00:45 pm
The fact that the meaning of a word is contextual is just that, a fact that's at the core of every communication between humans. It is thanks to context that we don't need to define every single word we use in every single sentence we write.

That you deny something this basic and obvious renders any conversation with you meaningless.

Cheers,
Bernard

So let’s review.  Bernard wants to ask a question to Americans to see if they want “additional” witnesses to the impeachment trial.  So he writes the question ;  “ Do you want witnesses in the impeachment trial?” 

He must depend upon the reader to determine his intention is to ask about additional witnesses beyond the witnesses already part of the trial., many of which have no idea there are already witnesses in the trial. 

Instead, other polls asked; “Do you want ADDITIONAL witnesses to the impeachment trial? ”.  No need for convoluted distortions to get the reader to infer context that is obscure.  Just a clearly worded question that requires no implication. 

You need to be mentally challenged to find Bernards contorted position even remotely plausible.

He simply screwed up and is looking to save face.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on February 03, 2020, 09:10:17 pm
As someone with degrees in Mathematics and who has studied statistics fairly intensely, not including the word "additional" would, at best, make it a flawed question in a survey.  At worse, it could be seen as personal bias on part of the pollster. 

Creating a bias free poll is extremely difficult and the fact is that flaws and biases on the part of the pollsters happen all of the time.  A lot of the time, if the pollster only ever interacts with people of his own opinion, he will never even be able to spot any biases in his poll since his counterparts have the same biases as himself and would just as easily looked over it. 

Just something to keep in mind when looking at any set of statistics. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 03, 2020, 09:16:00 pm
The part in bold is correct, I see no relationship between that and me being wrong.

You are again justifying the innocence of Trump by the behviour of Republican Senators who based their actions on a a priori stance that Trump was innocent. As a result, you are saying nothing but "The proof of Trump's innocence is that he was considered innocent by partisan Senators".

You cannot not see the logical fallacy here.

Which means that you are not being honest in this conversation. You are just trying to be right at the cost of logic and truth.

Keep in mind that, as a free man, you have the liberty at any point in time to adhere back to your Republican principal of rightness and truth. You don't need to continue lying to yourself.

Cheers,
Bernard


My post said nothing about Trump's innoence.  I responded to your point that a president couldn't get impeached by his party.  Nixon proved your statement wrong.  If there's enough evidence of a real High Crime, both parties will impeach and convict.  The problem is the Democrat House used political charges to impeach, rather than real High Crimes.  So the president's party dismissed them for political reasons.  GIGO_Garbage In Garbage Out. 

Your side seems to have a problem with the American Constitution.  You also don;t like the way our electoral system works constantly complaining that Trump didn't really win the presidency because Clinton got more popular votes.  So now you're doing it again complaining that the Senate didn't do it's constitutional job.  You seem to have problems handling losing. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on February 03, 2020, 09:21:21 pm
As someone with degrees in Mathematics and who has studied statistics fairly intensely, not including the word "additional" would, at best, make it a flawed question in a survey.  At worse, it could be seen as personal bias on part of the pollster. 

Creating a bias free poll is extremely difficult and the fact is that flaws and biases on the part of the pollsters happen all of the time.  A lot of the time, if the pollster only ever interacts with people of his own opinion, he will never even be able to spot any biases in his poll since his counterparts have the same biases as himself and would just as easily looked over it. 

Just something to keep in mind when looking at any set of statistics.

I agree (as a former Marketing Analyst, coming from a background with a fair level of statistical analysis), and would like to add that picking an aselect sample to interview is really hard, especially in the case where (like in the USA) the political views are very polarized (due to a mainly 2-party system).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 03, 2020, 09:27:22 pm
I agree (as a former Marketing Analyst, coming from a background with a fair level of statistical analysis), and would like to add that picking an aselect sample to interview is really hard, especially in the case where (like in the USA) the political views are very polarized (due to a mainly 2-party system).
There's a lot of shaming going on as well.  People don't want to acknowledge their beliefs because they'll be made fun of being called Nazis, bigots, and racists,  accusations that you would never hear in this forum.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on February 03, 2020, 09:41:05 pm
Which means that, according to your interpretation, the impeachment process clearly outlined in the constitution with clear guidelines about applicability, is an empty shell since it will always be at the mercy of partisanship in the Senate. In other words, a President would - again according to your interpretation - only be impeachable if the Senate is in the hands of the opposition. This is obviously not what the great founders had in mind when they embedded in the constitution the possibility of a president to be impeached.

+1

Quote
Note that this is only the case because Republicans are not playing their role in applying the constitution they made an oath to protect.

Sadly true, but somewhat to be expected (not justified, but expected) in such a partisan divided environment.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 03, 2020, 10:30:14 pm
So the first voting appears to be in from Iowa Democrats nomination.  I don;t know if this is the final. But Biden didn't do too well.  Buttgieg won. The Democrats must be getting nervous.  Time to impeach Trump again. 


Buttigieg   27.6%   
Sanders   26.3   
Warren   20.5
Biden   13.8   
Klobuchar   11.5   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on February 03, 2020, 11:14:23 pm
I'm glad Pete did so well. From now on, he'll surge like a Tesla.
Until the other mayor steps in.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 03, 2020, 11:19:28 pm
So the first voting appears to be in from Iowa Democrats nomination.  I don;t know if this is the final. But Biden didn't do too well.  Buttgieg won. The Democrats must be getting nervous.  Time to impeach Trump again. 


Buttigieg   27.6%   
Sanders   26.3   
Warren   20.5
Biden   13.8   
Klobuchar   11.5   

Voting is a mess in Iowa.  Still no official results.  Some precincts are reporting that the APP has crashed and they are reduced to calling the results in, and being on hold for an hour.   Gonna be cry’s of foul come tomorrow.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 04, 2020, 12:33:26 am
So let’s review.  Bernard wants to ask a question to Americans to see if they want “additional” witnesses to the impeachment trial.  So he writes the question ;  “ Do you want witnesses in the impeachment trial?” 

He must depend upon the reader to determine his intention is to ask about additional witnesses beyond the witnesses already part of the trial., many of which have no idea there are already witnesses in the trial. 

Instead, other polls asked; “Do you want ADDITIONAL witnesses to the impeachment trial? ”.  No need for convoluted distortions to get the reader to infer context that is obscure.  Just a clearly worded question that requires no implication. 

You need to be mentally challenged to find Bernards contorted position even remotely plausible.

He simply screwed up and is looking to save face.

The question isn't whether it would have been better to add "additional" to the question or not. A more accurate wording is obviously always better.

The question is whether a majority of people living in the US (and I have been told insistently by several of you here that living in the US is enough to have a much better understand of the stakes than mine) could misunderstand the context in which the question "Do you want witnesses in the impeachment trial?" is being asked by not understanding that this is about the upcoming/on-going second phase Senate hearings.

When a trial takes place in 2 phases and when the first phase is already over, when there is a brewing public debate about the need to have additional witnesses during the second phase (the Senate trials), it seems fair to think that a large majority of people taking the time to answer the survey are reasonnably well informed and will correctly interpret the question as being related to the addition of witnesses during second phase of the trial (the Senate part).

Otherwise, the question would have been phrased "was it right to have witnesses during the Congress trial?". Note the past tense here.

But would it appear that we have a different perception of common sense.  ;D

And I find it fascinating that you try this hard to be right about this question. It tells me you understand that having 75% of people unhappy about the way the Senate trials were conducted doesn't mean good things for your camp.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 04, 2020, 12:44:44 am
My post said nothing about Trump's innoence.  I responded to your point that a president couldn't get impeached by his party.  Nixon proved your statement wrong.  If there's enough evidence of a real High Crime, both parties will impeach and convict.  The problem is the Democrat House used political charges to impeach, rather than real High Crimes.  So the president's party dismissed them for political reasons.  GIGO_Garbage In Garbage Out. 

I agree with you that Senators had higher ethical standards in the past. It's sad to see how Trump's influence has lowered the standards of the Republican Senators.

But this isn't about Democrats. They just did their job when they identified a clearly impeachable offence.

Your side seems to have a problem with the American Constitution.  You also don;t like the way our electoral system works constantly complaining that Trump didn't really win the presidency because Clinton got more popular votes.  So now you're doing it again complaining that the Senate didn't do it's constitutional job.  You seem to have problems handling losing.

This is a very interesting example of manipulative technique. Let me spell it out for those who wouldn't be familiar with it.

You group 2 statements:
- one correct: I am indeed convinced that the impeachement senate hearings were not conducted ethically/legally,
- one not correct: I am absolutely not of the opinion that the US electoral system isn't proper or was not applied the way it should have during Trump's election.

-> You derive something from the incorrect statement and make it a generality by implying it would apply to the correct statement.

In this case, you make it look like my "side" (I am only on the side of the truth) is having a problem with the constitution.

While in fact, I am the one defending your constitution against the way it was not respected by Republicans.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 04, 2020, 01:56:55 am
And how do you know when they are accurate and when they are not?..l

It helps to live here.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 04, 2020, 02:06:51 am
So the first voting appears to be in from Iowa Democrats nomination.  I don;t know if this is the final. But Biden didn't do too well.  Buttgieg won. The Democrats must be getting nervous.  Time to impeach Trump again. 


Buttigieg   27.6%   
Sanders   26.3   
Warren   20.5
Biden   13.8   
Klobuchar   11.5   

He is a top, then?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 04, 2020, 02:46:08 am
It helps to live here.

You mean there right?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on February 04, 2020, 04:49:53 am
No Bernard, it is relevant to everyone , well except you. Its a classic example of you getting duped by a poll designed to fool people.  The question was quite clear..."witnesses" and not "additional witneses", and was asked in such a way to elicit the most favorable responses even though the trial DID have witness testimony presented.  As for "violating" the will of the people, if you look at the polls, they tell you that the people are pretty much evenly divided for and against impeachment.  Given the fact that Republican respondants are almost in complete ageement against Impeachment and the Senators who are against ADDITIONAL witnesses are Rebublicans, it appears they are being faithful to their constituents.

The reality is, IMO and that of others is the vast majority of American had no idea how this trial would work.  Its not like they happen very often or that the average American is actually paying attention to the trial.  Most are tuning it out.  If you were to ask Americans what a witness at a trial looks like I suspect the overwhelming answer would be someone sitting in the dock, being sworn in and being questioned DIRECTLY with in front of the jury.  Like they see on Law and Order.  Of course, your original stated position was "additional witnesses"  Now you are simply trying to do the backstroke.


Which is of course complete and utter bullcrap.  The words were PLAINLY written.  Words have meaning.  It this case the meaning was QUITE clear.  You, like Shiff are simply making things up

I'm reassured to realise that you view the majority of your compatriots with the same enthusiasm as I do mine; for me, that has always explained Brexit and the lack of thinking behind it that swung the vote. But hey, some would think that's a soupçon of elitism on our part.

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 04, 2020, 07:47:08 am
Voting is a mess in Iowa.  Still no official results.  Some precincts are reporting that the APP has crashed and they are reduced to calling the results in, and being on hold for an hour.   Gonna be cry’s of foul come tomorrow.
Wouldn't it be something if my numbers are right?  Interesting that Buttgieg claimed victory in his speech last night "stronger" than the others.  Biden acted like he came in fourth which would be awful for him.  He even sent a letter to the Iowa Democratic committee warning them not to release the final vote count until they review them with him.  That tells me he's really scared he did poorly there. That would confirm my prediction that the Democrats aimed their guns at Trump when they impeached him but will wound up shooting Biden instead.

In any case, it seems their APP works as good as some of mine.  But it's very embarrassing for the Democrats.  Their inability to handle a simple nomination vote in a small state shows how they might make a mess of the economy if they were elected and put in charge.  Captain of Industry Bloomberg must be smiling because this will give him more credibility to be successful President. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 04, 2020, 07:50:26 am
I agree with you that Senators had higher ethical standards in the past. It's sad to see how Trump's influence has lowered the standards of the Republican Senators.

But this isn't about Democrats. They just did their job when they identified a clearly impeachable offence.

This is a very interesting example of manipulative technique. Let me spell it out for those who wouldn't be familiar with it.

You group 2 statements:
- one correct: I am indeed convinced that the impeachement senate hearings were not conducted ethically/legally,
- one not correct: I am absolutely not of the opinion that the US electoral system isn't proper or was not applied the way it should have during Trump's election.

-> You derive something from the incorrect statement and make it a generality by implying it would apply to the correct statement.

In this case, you make it look like my "side" (I am only on the side of the truth) is having a problem with the constitution.

While in fact, I am the one defending your constitution against the way it was not respected by Republicans.

Cheers,
Bernard

I guess we'll just have to disagree.  That's what makes a horse race. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on February 04, 2020, 10:35:35 am
We have reached the point of complete absurdity! 

"If abuse of power is not impeachable ... Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election or decide to move to Mar-a-Lago permanently and let Jared Kushner run the country, delegating to him the decision whether to go to war," Schiff said.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 04, 2020, 10:45:11 am
We have reached the point of complete absurdity! 

"If abuse of power is not impeachable ... Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election or decide to move to Mar-a-Lago permanently and let Jared Kushner run the country, delegating to him the decision whether to go to war," Schiff said.
Frankly, the fact presidents have so much power, any president, is the Congress's fault.  Over the decades, they have turned their constitutional power  over to them rather than making the important decisions about war and peace themselves.  They have no one to blame but themselves. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on February 04, 2020, 11:17:52 am
Frankly, the fact presidents have so much power, any president, is the Congress's fault.  Over the decades, they have turned their constitutional power  over to them rather than making the important decisions about war and peace themselves.  They have no one to blame but themselves.

I agree. 

I would even want us to return to Senators being picked by state legislators. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 04, 2020, 11:49:45 am
I agree. 

I would even want us to return to Senators being picked by state legislators. 
Well, there's no push for that and I doubt if it would fly.  With getting rid of the electoral system for president, and going to a national popular vote, you will have small states opposed.  But with Senators, I don;t see America going back to legislator's selection. 

First off, that would make senators from the same party as the state legislature.  At least now, there's a possibility senators and legislature can be from separate parties.  PLus in NY where I was from and even here in NJ where I now live, both are among the most corrupt legislators in the country.  Members are always getting caught taking bribes and going to jail.   Who wants them to pick my senators?  Of course Sen Menendez from NJ is among the most corrupt anyway.  You can;t win.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on February 04, 2020, 12:45:18 pm
He is a top, then?

Evermore despicable.  Is the well of despicability not yet empty?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 04, 2020, 12:57:48 pm
Evermore despicable.  Is the well of despicability not yet empty?

Well, if you ever elect such a President, you’d want him to be on top of things, wouldn’t you?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on February 04, 2020, 12:58:02 pm
Well, there's no push for that and I doubt if it would fly.  With getting rid of the electoral system for president, and going to a national popular vote, you will have small states opposed.  But with Senators, I don;t see America going back to legislator's selection. 

First off, that would make senators from the same party as the state legislature.  At least now, there's a possibility senators and legislature can be from separate parties.  PLus in NY where I was from and even here in NJ where I now live, both are among the most corrupt legislators in the country.  Members are always getting caught taking bribes and going to jail.   Who wants them to pick my senators?  Of course Sen Menendez from NJ is among the most corrupt anyway.  You can;t win.

I'm a small federal government guy and would rather see most issues being handled by the states.  If the Senators were picked by the state legislature, they would be less likely to ceed any power of the state to the federal government since doing so may end up getting them removed from office. 

Allowing the people to decided the Senators weakens this significantly, hence one reason why the federal government has gotten so big. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on February 04, 2020, 01:21:04 pm
Well, if you ever elect such a President, you’d want him to be on top of things, wouldn’t you?

The thought of a person like Trump being on top of things really makes me cringe.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on February 04, 2020, 01:37:39 pm
The thought of a person like Trump being on top of things really makes me cringe.

even in middle of things
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 04, 2020, 02:16:13 pm
https://babylonbee.com/news/cnn-to-give-isis-equal-time-to-respond-to-trumps-state-of-the-union?fbclid=IwAR0GifSu0ocJmSYJw9tLMdeNP2qA-wWoDAav6VV3iyfKhu0Ln1lxD7ihBEc

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 04, 2020, 02:29:40 pm
(Bold mine)

Quote
New polling by Gallup reveals that President Trump's approval rating is at an all-time high, as he prepares to deliver his third State of the Union address Tuesday night and the Senate is expected to acquit him in his impeachment trial on Wednesday.

Trump's job approval rating now sits at 49 percent, with a 94 percent approval rating among Republicans and a 42 percent rating with independents, both numbers being highs for Trump's presidency. The GOP itself is also seeing a significant boost...

...In addition to Trump seeing a rise in approval, the Republican party as a whole is now viewed more favorably than it has since 2005, according to Gallup's data. Their report states that 51 percent of Americans now have a positive view of the GOP, compared to just 43 percent in September 2019.

So much for the "end of GOP."

Bernard, are you there?  ;)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-job-approval-rating-rises-to-49-percent-amid-impeachment-highest-since-taking-office-gallup-says
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 04, 2020, 02:30:29 pm
I'm a small federal government guy and would rather see most issues being handled by the states.  If the Senators were picked by the state legislature, they would be less likely to ceed any power of the state to the federal government since doing so may end up getting them removed from office. 

Allowing the people to decided the Senators weakens this significantly, hence one reason why the federal government has gotten so big. 
I'm a small federal government guy and would rather see most issues being handled by the states.  If the Senators were picked by the state legislature, they would be less likely to ceed any power of the state to the federal government since doing so may end up getting them removed from office. 

Allowing the people to decided the Senators weakens this significantly, hence one reason why the federal government has gotten so big. 

Good point.  There would be less desire to push through a lot of free Federal programs to buy votes. . So we have less taxes and less stupid programs. More freedom. Hadn't thought of that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on February 04, 2020, 02:33:40 pm
The thought of a person like Trump being on top of things really makes me cringe.

Might make you cringe, Bart, but your compatriots might like having your economy bloom and your unemployment drop to historic lows. You could go ahead and cringe through all of that. Those who benefited might see you cringing and laugh.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on February 04, 2020, 02:39:25 pm
Add to that, although the results from yesterday are still any one's guess, turn out was significantly lower then expected. 

Just maybe, just maybe, those in the media and the Beltway are grossly over estimating just how much middle American dislikes the president.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 04, 2020, 03:33:51 pm
Add to that, although the results from yesterday are still any one's guess, turn out was significantly lower then expected

Just maybe, just maybe, those in the media and the Beltway are grossly over estimating just how much middle American dislikes the president.
Also, if things are going pretty well for people, they're not too interested in politics.  They have other things to do.  Terrorism is at a real low, we're not in a major conflict with Turkey or the Kurds, the economy is good.  I don;t think we're going to hear much from Iran after the last drone strike.   CHina's got it's own problems.  NK isn;t saying much.  The EU has to deal with Brexit and trying to hold the rest of the EU together. What's America to complain about?  Trump is Trump.  Sure, the Democrats are making an issue out of him.  But they've been doing that for 3 1/2 years.  People get tired of the old same-o' same-o'.  They're going to continue to talk about him through the election.  They've got nothing else to run on. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 04, 2020, 08:50:40 pm
Trump approval rating hits new high in Gallup poll, despite impeachment trial
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/04/trump-approval-hits-new-high-in-gallup-poll-despite-impeachment.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on February 04, 2020, 09:03:57 pm
Trump approval rating hits new high in Gallup poll, despite impeachment trial
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/04/trump-approval-hits-new-high-in-gallup-poll-despite-impeachment.html

There was a great article I read recently by Victor Davis Hanson, a historian with the Hoover Institute and professor at  one of the CA schools, who said most of Trump's policies are privately support even though they are publicly condemned. 

I have a feeling it only going to go up, and if it stays this high or gets higher, he is a shoo-in to win.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on February 04, 2020, 11:54:46 pm
I don’t even know where to put this, but first Trump refuses to shake Pelosi’s hand, then she rips up a copy of his speech.   What a bunch of a holes.  ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 05, 2020, 12:17:25 am
Trump didn't shake VP's hand either.  Was it truly a swipe at Pelosi, or did he miss it with both of them?  On the other hand, I suppose he did take a swipe at the person who impeached him.  He's still under the impeachment.  I suppose he could have shot her.  On the other hand she could have shot him.  So maybe ripping up his speech was a kind thing to do. 

I actually think that her ripping up the speech will lessen the strength of his speech as that scene will be replayed over and over on TV.  So maybe it was more than antics or anger on her part; just her politicking.

Someone once said politics ain't tiddlywinks. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on February 05, 2020, 12:42:48 am
Watched part of the Trump's speech. The weather report, showing the European floods and the local snow flurries was more interesting, and devoid from the silly clapping.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 05, 2020, 12:46:38 am
The clapping is always funny with all State of the Union speeches.  Nothing new.  The president's party congressmen and senators are cheering incessantly.  And the opposition party sits there stoneface like someone made them eat porridge before the speech. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on February 05, 2020, 01:19:25 am
Most of the speeches by Reagan, Clinton and Obama were quite uplifting, making you feel better.
Trump's State of Union 2020 speech was not only boring and annoying, but a total waste of time. His rally performances are much more entertaining.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 05, 2020, 01:33:01 am
His speech was calm and not hostile.  Strong but not too much bravuro.  He put on a performance with all the extras, a master of ceremonies, a taste of what's to come. He's changing his style for the election.  Becoming statesmanlike. That's the most important part.  No one is going to remember the details.  This is not by accident.  This is all planned.  Before he was the bad cop.  Now he's the good cop saving the community, doing his job.

The opposition will continue with the "Trump is bad.   Blah. Blah. Blah." With nothing else to say at their peril.  He's stating things he did while they'll be just complaining about him, being personal, just attacking him like they have for three years.  Voters want more than that.  If all the Democrats are going to do is rip up a transcript of his speech, if that's all they have to say, if they don;t have a plan to run the country, showing more of their anger, he's a shoe-in.  People who think Trump is a clown who doesn;t know what he's doing are making a big mistake.  He didn't get where he is because he's no dope. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 05, 2020, 01:55:09 am
Pelosi's anger by ripping up the speech weakens her argument for the impeachment. It just looks like a temper tantrum in both cases. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on February 05, 2020, 04:20:08 am
I agree. It was not a classy act. Différence entre un homme et une femme. I don't think a man would react that way, but no doubt, she'll say that he drove her to do it.
Did she do it because of the handshake snub, was it a reaction to the actual speech or did she plan it already before the event? 
Being an outsider, I wonder if the official handshake before the commencement of the speech is a standard procedure or is it something like a friendly and polite pat.

Pelosi said "It was the courteous thing to do considering the alternatives, It was such a dirty speech."
In a statement she doubled down, calling it a "manifesto of mistruths".
Personally, I didn't think that the address was an exemplary literary piece. To put it mildly, it was quite irritating self-gratulatory speech.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 05, 2020, 04:35:07 am
Pelosi's anger by ripping up the speech weakens her argument for the impeachment. It just looks like a temper tantrum in both cases.

It was almost as bad as Trump refusing to shake her hand.

I agree she shouldn’t have done it. It’s the first time she lowers herself to the level of Trump.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 05, 2020, 04:45:29 am
Trump approval rating hits new high in Gallup poll, despite impeachment trial
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/04/trump-approval-hits-new-high-in-gallup-poll-despite-impeachment.html

Alan, I am deeply hurt... you don’t read even my posts anymore!? I posted that on the previous page.... with quotes  ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on February 05, 2020, 06:04:36 am
Alan, I am deeply hurt... you don’t read even my posts anymore!? I posted that on the previous page.... with quotes  ;)

Slobodan, give up hope all ye who enter therein.

That little bubble is so tightly sealed that not even the warmth of noon sunshine gets in to disturb the cobwebs with a delicate little ripple of motion. As for the absorption of anything an inch to either side of the catechism... the perfect, unquestioning disciple, in other words.

You'd be better off interacting with the menu of a Fuji or a Sony.

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on February 05, 2020, 07:13:51 am
Never get in a fight with a pig.  You'll both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it! 

This pretty much sums up how Trump deals with his adversaries.  Trump is Trump and him snubbing a handshake from the lady who is trying to remove him from office through impeachment, although puerile, is part of his brand.  People expect it and when he does it, it does not move anyone. 

However, Pelosi lowering herself and ripping up the speech, showing he true self, looks real bad for her.  In the last 6 or 7 months, Trump has goaded Pelosi into destroying her respectable reputation.  He has done this with everyone too. 

Add to that, this only gins up enthusiasm amongst his supporters, and, judging by the posts here, does nothing to help out Pelosi or the Dems. 

Maybe she should get on the Trump re-election pay roll. 

PS, I have to agree with my liberal friends here, Trump is no great orator, or even a mediocre orator.  For someone who can captivate giant audiences at his rallies, he gives one boring as hell speech. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on February 05, 2020, 07:36:09 am
Trump approval rating hits new high in Gallup poll, despite impeachment trial

It's not "despite." It's more like "with help from."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on February 05, 2020, 07:37:51 am
It’s the first time she lowers herself to the level of Trump.
Cheers,
Bernard

 ;D ;D :o

Evidently Japanese TV leaves a lot out of its coverage.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 05, 2020, 08:27:30 am
... Trump is Trump and him snubbing a handshake...

It surely looks that way from the photograph Pelosi posted. However, if you watch the video of the "incident," it leaves room for a different explanation. He was giving copies of his speech to the VP and her. The VP didn't extend his hand after receiving his copy, which sets the stage for not expecting Pelosi to extend her. From the video, it is clear that Trump was already turning around when she extended her hand, leaving the possibility that he simply did not see her. Poor peripheral vision?

I am not claiming that he didn't do it intentionally, just that there is a possibility he didn't see it.

Having said that, he is not a stranger to jerkish, non-gentlemanly behavior, I remember him visiting the White House after the election, with Obama and Michelle waiting outside, shoulder to (non-naked) shoulder, when Trump exited his side of the limousine, didn't hold the door for Melania, didn't wait for her to join him in approaching the Obamas, but continue walking toward the entrance, leaving poor Melania several steps behind. Just plain piggish.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 05, 2020, 08:59:19 am
Alan, I am deeply hurt... you don’t read even my posts anymore!? I posted that on the previous page.... with quotes  ;)
Sorry about that.  I probably read it independently in the paper before reading your thread comment about it and posted it.  All the credit is yours.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 05, 2020, 09:09:22 am
I agree. It was not a classy act. Différence entre un homme et une femme. I don't think a man would react that way, but no doubt, she'll say that he drove her to do it.
Did she do it because of the handshake snub, was it a reaction to the actual speech or did she plan it already before the event? 
Being an outsider, I wonder if the official handshake before the commencement of the speech is a standard procedure or is it something like a friendly and polite pat.

Pelosi said "It was the courteous thing to do considering the alternatives, It was such a dirty speech."
In a statement she doubled down, calling it a "manifesto of mistruths".
Personally, I didn't think that the address was an exemplary literary piece. To put it mildly, it was quite irritating self-gratulatory speech.
I think it's a metaphor for what Democrats are doing in the election.  They don't have ideas for America, or counter-arguments to his policies.  They just attack Trump personally.  The temper tantrum has been going on for 3 1/2 years.  All the name calling and demeaning vituperation that extends to his supporters as well.  But few intellectual arguments against his policies.  Ripping up his speech is thusly a symbol of all they've got. 

It won;t win the election. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 05, 2020, 09:11:02 am
Maybe she did it because having lost the impeachment, that's all she has left.  He really got to her. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 05, 2020, 09:15:51 am
Slobodan, give up hope all ye who enter therein.

That little bubble is so tightly sealed that not even the warmth of noon sunshine gets in to disturb the cobwebs with a delicate little ripple of motion. As for the absorption of anything an inch to either side of the catechism... the perfect, unquestioning disciple, in other words.

You'd be better off interacting with the menu of a Fuji or a Sony.

;-)

Apparently you don't have the guts to address your comments to me directly.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on February 05, 2020, 09:18:15 am
You've gotta give Trump credit for one thing -- consistent falsehoods. In this speech, here's his score for nine of his major brags:

True: 2
Misleading/partly true: 2
False: 5

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/state-union-fact-check-what-s-true-what-s-false-n1130311
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 05, 2020, 09:22:33 am
Never get in a fight with a pig.  You'll both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it! 

This pretty much sums up how Trump deals with his adversaries.  Trump is Trump and him snubbing a handshake from the lady who is trying to remove him from office through impeachment, although puerile, is part of his brand.  People expect it and when he does it, it does not move anyone. 

However, Pelosi lowering herself and ripping up the speech, showing he true self, looks real bad for her.  In the last 6 or 7 months, Trump has goaded Pelosi into destroying her respectable reputation.  He has done this with everyone too. 

Add to that, this only gins up enthusiasm amongst his supporters, and, judging by the posts here, does nothing to help out Pelosi or the Dems. 

Maybe she should get on the Trump re-election pay roll. 

PS, I have to agree with my liberal friends here, Trump is no great orator, or even a mediocre orator.  For someone who can captivate giant audiences at his rallies, he gives one boring as hell speech. 
I think she went ahead with the impeachment because of his insults.  It's how Florida Senator Rubio lost the Republican nomination in 2016 when he tried to respond similarly to Trump's insults of him by insulting back.  It didn't work because Rubio isn't like that.  Rubio failed and everyone wrote him off.  He wasn't true to himself. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 05, 2020, 09:23:54 am
You've gotta give Trump credit for one thing -- consistent falsehoods. In this speech, here's his score for nine of his major brags:

True: 2
Misleading/partly true: 2
False: 5

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/state-union-fact-check-what-s-true-what-s-false-n1130311
No one cares.  All they're going to remember is Pelosi ripping up his speech. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on February 05, 2020, 09:28:43 am
You've gotta give Trump credit for one thing -- consistent falsehoods. In this speech, here's his score for nine of his major brags:

True: 2
Misleading/partly true: 2
False: 5

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/state-union-fact-check-what-s-true-what-s-false-n1130311

Ah yes. NBC. Dependably fake news.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 05, 2020, 09:30:15 am
The question isn't whether it would have been better to add "additional" to the question or not. A more accurate wording is obviously always better.

The question is whether a majority of people living in the US (and I have been told insistently by several of you here that living in the US is enough to have a much better understand of the stakes than mine) could misunderstand the context in which the question "Do you want witnesses in the impeachment trial?" is being asked by not understanding that this is about the upcoming/on-going second phase Senate hearings.

When a trial takes place in 2 phases and when the first phase is already over, when there is a brewing public debate about the need to have additional witnesses during the second phase (the Senate trials), it seems fair to think that a large majority of people taking the time to answer the survey are reasonnably well informed and will correctly interpret the question as being related to the addition of witnesses during second phase of the trial (the Senate part).

Otherwise, the question would have been phrased "was it right to have witnesses during the Congress trial?". Note the past tense here.

But would it appear that we have a different perception of common sense.  ;D

And I find it fascinating that you try this hard to be right about this question. It tells me you understand that having 75% of people unhappy about the way the Senate trials were conducted doesn't mean good things for your camp.

Cheers,
Bernard

Boy it sure is comical watching you shuck and jive to try and find a way to work your way out of the mess you created.   Perhaps it might be educational for you to research the rule of holes.

In any case the question that was asked was written for an express purpose, to garner a large number that could be used for a headline.  And it worked. It was the headline for most of the articles written in support of the poll.  Opinion polls are not really designed to gauge opinion but to rather shape it.  This one tossed out the bait and you took it hook line and sinker, without even knowing you got caught...or why.

Poll questions are carefully worded.  They are written by professionals.  The word "additional" was not omitted by mistake.  They don't write questions that require those who respond to try and figure out some obscure meaning not asked about directly in the question.  Asking about additional witnesses was not the goal.  Creating a public perception was.  In other words...FAKE NEWS.   Don't you feel just a little bit silly for being duped?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Craig Lamson on February 05, 2020, 09:37:18 am
There is some conversation now that Nancy broke the law when she destroyed a Govenment document.  The copy of the speach was the official HOUSE copy.  The law calls for a 2k fine and or up to three years in prison.  How does Nancy look in orange?

18 U.S. Code 2071.
Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on February 05, 2020, 09:43:31 am
There is some conversation now that Nancy broke the law when she destroyed a Govenment document.  The copy of the speach was the official HOUSE copy.  The law calls for a 2k fine and or up to three years in prison.  How does Nancy look in orange?
Still less orange than Donald without an orange suit.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on February 05, 2020, 10:06:07 am
Still less orange than Donald without an orange suit.

We can all laugh at that!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 05, 2020, 10:10:05 am
It surely looks that way from the photograph Pelosi posted. However, if you watch the video of the "incident," it leaves room for a different explanation. He was giving copies of his speech to the VP and her. The VP didn't extend his hand after receiving his copy, which sets the stage for not expecting Pelosi to extend her. From the video, it is clear that Trump was already turning around when she extended her hand, leaving the possibility that he simply did not see her. Poor peripheral vision?

I am not claiming that he didn't do it intentionally, just that there is a possibility he didn't see it.

Having said that, he is not a stranger to jerkish, non-gentlemanly behavior, I remember him visiting the White House after the election, with Obama and Michelle waiting outside, shoulder to (non-naked) shoulder, when Trump exited his side of the limousine, didn't hold the door for Melania, didn't wait for her to join him in approaching the Obamas, but continue walking toward the entrance, leaving poor Melania several steps behind. Just plain piggish.
I agree with that.  He didn't shake the VP's hand so why would he shake her hand?  Also, he looked very nervous when he first entered the House chamber.  Talking to the entire Congress and all the American people can;t be an easy thing for a non-politician. 

But Pelosi ripping up the state of the union speech was deliberate.  But that anger towards him is all democrats have shown for 3 1/2 years.  They better come up with a better response for the election.  He maintained his cool, if boring demeanor.  He never mentioned the impeachment.  He never mentioned the Democrat screw-up in Iowa.  He even gave Democrats a few appreciative remarks for helping with some legislation. 

He's turned a new leaf for the election.  Democrats will continue to fight the old war the same way at their peril.  He's going to be magnanimous and presidential through the election.  I doubt if Democrats will pick up on it and adjust they're so set in their hateful reaction to him.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on February 05, 2020, 10:13:08 am
It surely looks that way from the photograph Pelosi posted. However, if you watch the video of the "incident," it leaves room for a different explanation. He was giving copies of his speech to the VP and her. The VP didn't extend his hand after receiving his copy, which sets the stage for not expecting Pelosi to extend her. From the video, it is clear that Trump was already turning around when she extended her hand, leaving the possibility that he simply did not see her. Poor peripheral vision?

I am not claiming that he didn't do it intentionally, just that there is a possibility he didn't see it.

Having said that, he is not a stranger to jerkish, non-gentlemanly behavior, I remember him visiting the White House after the election, with Obama and Michelle waiting outside, shoulder to (non-naked) shoulder, when Trump exited his side of the limousine, didn't hold the door for Melania, didn't wait for her to join him in approaching the Obamas, but continue walking toward the entrance, leaving poor Melania several steps behind. Just plain piggish.

What else can you expect from a guy with his background, steeped as it is in egotism?

Guess they both got what they bargained for, I suppose.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 05, 2020, 10:56:14 am
Most of the speeches by Reagan, Clinton and Obama were quite uplifting, making you feel better.
Trump's State of Union 2020 speech was not only boring and annoying, but a total waste of time. His rally performances are much more entertaining.
Trump is a doer not a speaker. His State of the Union report was a financial statement to the board of directors, asking for another four years as CEO. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on February 05, 2020, 11:32:42 am
I did not watch the speech, just because he is a boring speech giver.  Yet I have been reading snippets, and it was not partisan at all.  It was not a braggadocio speech.  It was not a one-side speech. 

It was genuinely a pro-America speech and many of positives that everyone on both sides could have appreciated. 

Pelosi ripping the speech up not only will get people to actually read it but destroy much of her case with independents. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 05, 2020, 11:39:20 am
I did not watch the speech, just because he is a boring speech giver.  Yet I have been reading snippets, and it was not partisan at all.  It was not a braggadocio speech.  It was not a one-side speech. 

It was genuinely a pro-America speech and many of positives that everyone on both sides could have appreciated. 

Pelosi ripping the speech up not only will get people to actually read it but destroy much of her case with independents. 
I agree.  Trump's speech will appeal to independents because of the balance in his presentation.  It lacked braggadocio other than the pride of doing a good job.  No anger like Pelosi's and other Democrats who failed to acknowledge when he did things right.  Voters will be comparing his eventual competitor against a new Trump, not the old Trump.   Voters will forget his bull in the China shop approach to politics over the next few months.  They won;t buy democrat charges that he's crazy and vile.  He's smart enough to become a different guy.  I think he's planned it all along.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 05, 2020, 04:57:48 pm
"Senate acquits Trump on abuse of power, obstruction of Congress charges"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-acquits-president-trump-impeachment-vote

Please don't cry! There is plenty of time for a few more coup attempts until November  ;)

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

P.S. Now, recall Romney!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on February 05, 2020, 05:01:09 pm
"Senate acquits Trump on abuse of power, obstruction of Congress charges"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-acquits-president-trump-impeachment-vote

Please don't cry! There is plenty of time for a few more coup attempts until November  ;)



So, why did we waste almost 200 pages on this?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on February 05, 2020, 05:12:13 pm
"Senate acquits Trump on abuse of power, obstruction of Congress charges"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-acquits-president-trump-impeachment-vote

Please don't cry! There is plenty of time for a few more coup attempts until November  ;)

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Time for tears passed a while back. What you have now is the official confirmation of no more moral high ground. What y'all just did was blow it. And it ain't coming back.

Does not a one of you see what has just been approved to great cheering, the national self-harm that's been achieved?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 05, 2020, 05:18:45 pm

Time for tears passed a while back. What you have now is the official confirmation of no more moral high ground. What y'all just did was blow it. And it ain't coming back.

Does not a one of you see what has just been approved to great cheering, the national self-harm that's been achieved?

Indeed, self-destruction at its worth.

The officialization that cheating and breaking the law is fine as long as you have the right friends.

Such a great teaching for the kids of America.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: fdisilvestro on February 05, 2020, 05:58:36 pm
The officialization that cheating and breaking the law is fine as long as you have the right friends.


Nihil novi sub sole
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 05, 2020, 06:04:53 pm
Nihil novi sub sole

Yes, but this is reaching new heights.

The degree matters.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on February 05, 2020, 06:26:44 pm
After Trump was elected, but before he took office, I was commiserating with a friend. I expressed my belief that there were enough honorable and honest Republican Senators, Representatives, etc. to keep Trump in check. Boy was I ever wrong. They have almost all turned into a bunch of sniveling toadies who don't give squat about this country. But bravo to Romney.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on February 05, 2020, 06:49:17 pm
Nihil novi sub sole

Yes, but this is reaching new heights.

Except maybe with respect to Mitt Romney.  It couldn't have been easy for him.  I suspect many traditional Republicans, including many of Romney's colleagues in the Senate, have been harboring hopes that somehow Trump could be persuaded not to run for re-election, and that they could draft Romney to take his place.  The former was probably always unrealistic, and any chance of the latter has been destroyed by Romney's decision to put conscience over partisanship.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on February 05, 2020, 06:49:44 pm
From a piece Mike Huckabee wrote,

"Democrat voters who called into the SOTU 'reaction' segment on C-SPAN certainly don’t seem to think Pelosi’s tantrum was 'the courteous thing to do.' One caller, who has been a Democrat for nearly as long as Pelosi has been alive, called her behavior 'appalling,' 'disrespectful,' and 'embarrassing,' vowing that 'I am never voting for a Democrat again.' Another caller reported that she and her entire family had voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, but could not bring themselves to vote Democrat ever again after watching Pelosi’s spectacle.  'I am no longer a Democrat,' another caller said sadly, no doubt capturing the feelings of countless Democrats and independent voters across the country."

What a bad week for Democrats.  Someone earilier this week made the analogy that the current Democratic party is looking like the White Sox in 1919, as if they are trying to loose.  After this, I kind of have to agree with him. 

And bear in mind, polling this morning found that over 80% of independents thought it was a good speech. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 05, 2020, 06:51:07 pm
Awww... you are still crying. Here, take a tissue.

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 05, 2020, 06:54:46 pm
Time to close this thread, too painful to watch our dear friends cry.

Time to open a new thread: “Recalling Mitt Romney.”
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on February 05, 2020, 06:55:23 pm
"Senate acquits Trump on abuse of power, obstruction of Congress charges"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-acquits-president-trump-impeachment-vote
...
P.S. Now, recall Romney!

Great and historical valuable speech by Romney in that link... For me he put it all in the right perspective.
Like he stated; Boltons testimony could have made things more clear eitherway, but he was not allowed to testify by the republicans, making the defense very poor.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: texshooter on February 05, 2020, 06:59:59 pm
P.S. Now, recall Romney!

I predict Romney will run in 2024.  He thinks voting to convict Trump now will win him votes from swing democrats later. It's the ol' "enemy of my enemy is my friend" move.  Yeah, right, sure, uhha.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on February 05, 2020, 07:17:13 pm
From a piece Mike Huckabee wrote...
Exactly what you would expect Mike Huckabee to say. No news there. I am sure the Rush Limbaugh fans were ecstatic too.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on February 05, 2020, 07:38:43 pm
After Trump was elected, but before he took office, I was commiserating with a friend. I expressed my belief that there were enough honorable and honest Republican Senators, Representatives, etc. to keep Trump in check. Boy was I ever wrong. They have almost all turned into a bunch of sniveling toadies who don't give squat about this country. But bravo to Romney.

Well said!  I don't know what was more painful, looking at and listening to the clapping of his spineless apostles or to the devil himself.
 
The old fable comes to mind:

Quote
Many years ago there was an Emperor so exceedingly fond of new clothes that he spent all his money on being well dressed. He cared nothing about reviewing his soldiers, going to the theatre, or going for a ride in his carriage, except to show off his new clothes. He had a coat for every hour of the day, and instead of saying, as one might, about any other ruler, "The King's in council," here they always said. "The Emperor's in his dressing room."

In the great city where he lived, life was always gay. Every day many strangers came to town, and among them one day came two swindlers. They let it be known they were weavers, and they said they could weave the most magnificent fabrics imaginable. Not only were their colors and patterns uncommonly fine, but clothes made of this cloth had a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid.

...

So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.

"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said. "Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?" said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't anything on." "But he hasn't got anything on!" the whole town cried out at last. The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, "This procession has got to go on." So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all.

Full text here:
https://andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on February 05, 2020, 07:41:32 pm
I predict Romney will run in 2024.  He thinks voting to convict Trump now will win him votes from swing democrats later. It's the ol' "enemy of my enemy is my friend" move.  Yeah, right, sure, uhha.   

Only a moron could have lost that election against Obama. And here he is.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on February 05, 2020, 07:44:34 pm
Exactly what you would expect Mike Huckabee to say. No news there. I am sure the Rush Limbaugh fans were ecstatic too.

I believe the more important part is what the Dems who called into C-SPAN said. 

Face it, Pelosi embarrassed herself and pretty much turned her "Trump is too childish" critique right back on her. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on February 05, 2020, 08:03:56 pm
Time to open a new thread: “Recalling Mitt Romney.”

Nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizes states to provide for the recall of a federal senator or a member of the House of Representatives.  The two federal legislative chambers are responsible for determining whether and, pursuant to their respective rules, how their members may be removed from office prior to the expiration of their elective terms.

Of course, if the Republican majority in the Senate wanted to remove Romney, they have the ability to do it.

Edited to eliminate my earlier reference to removal by a majority: a two-thirds supermajority of a chamber is required to remove one of its members by Article I §5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on February 05, 2020, 09:38:00 pm
I thought Romney would have made a good president.  I was wrong.  He did very poorly in his campaign and wasn't tough enough.  He didn't know how to fight and defend himself against the Democrats and Obama.  He became petty after Trump insulted him like McCain.  Both of them turned against their party taking out their hostility against Trump.  I thought they would act that way after Trump played them like fools. They did. That's Trump's own fault.  On the other hand, they put their animosity against Trump ahead of their party and hurt it, which is a rather selfish thing to do.  Republican senators won;t talk about it.  But I'm sure they're pissed.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 06, 2020, 12:49:41 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z3qgRvMHCU

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 06, 2020, 12:51:45 am
I predict Romney will run in 2024.  He thinks voting to convict Trump now will win him votes from swing democrats later. It's the ol' "enemy of my enemy is my friend" move.  Yeah, right, sure, uhha.   

Romney was the only republicans behaving ethically and with the balls to oppose the big bully.

For many people, there is only one person in the GOP worth something and that's Romney.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 06, 2020, 03:24:07 am
Nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizes states to provide for the recall of a federal senator or a member of the House of Representatives.  The two federal legislative chambers are responsible for determining whether and, pursuant to their respective rules, how their members may be removed from office prior to the expiration of their elective terms.

Of course, if the Republican majority in the Senate wanted to remove Romney, they have the ability to do it.

Edited to eliminate my earlier reference to removal by a majority: a two-thirds supermajority of a chamber is required to remove one of its members by Article I §5 of the U.S. Constitution.

True.

However:

https://nationalfile.com/utah-conservatives-launch-recall-romney-effort-to-defend-president-trump/

http://kutv.com/news/local/utah-bill-would-allow-voters-to-remove-their-us-senators
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on February 06, 2020, 04:00:25 am
So, why did we waste almost 200 pages on this?

I have absolutely no idea. But it's over, so this tediously repetitive thread is now closed.

Jeremy