Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 196   Go Down

Author Topic: Impeaching Donald Trump  (Read 136555 times)

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #120 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?
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4388
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #121 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.
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #122 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. :(
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #123 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? ???

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #124 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. 

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #125 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. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4851
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #126 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.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2019, 12:05:30 pm by faberryman »
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #127 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. 
« Last Edit: October 03, 2019, 12:07:43 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #128 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..

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #129 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.

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #130 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.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #131 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..

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #132 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.  :)

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #133 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
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #134 on: October 03, 2019, 01:09:54 pm »

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



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?

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #135 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.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4851
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #136 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?
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #137 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. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2347
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #138 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 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 to manage important government business, and by refusing to properly study 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). 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.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2019, 05:40:04 pm by James Clark »
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #139 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. 
« Last Edit: October 03, 2019, 06:11:40 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 196   Go Up