House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
My position is that by 2009, many progressives had already long abandoned any pretense of benefit of the doubt for the entire set of conservatives, including the family values subset. If I had to guess, I'd say the family values crowd was among the first subsets that progressives crossed off their list, probably at least another decade before that. I doubt very much that if you went back ten years on this forum, and looked at SG's body of work from that period, you'd find any charitable mention of conservatives, let alone "family values" conservatives.

This "I still had some hope in 2009" crap is only plausible if you're sixteen years old and still feel like politics started about the same time you noticed it.
Click to expand...


You come up with some of the weirdest rationalizations. In 2009, and indeed decades before, progressives were "whining" about climate change. Now, by your logic apparently, their current concerns about pulling out of the Paris Agreement and rolling back carbon emissions regulations can be dismissed because it's nothing new.
 
theprestige said:
My position is that by 2009, many progressives had already long abandoned any pretense of benefit of the doubt for the entire set of conservatives, including the family values subset. If I had to guess, I'd say the family values crowd was among the first subsets that progressives crossed off their list, probably at least another decade before that. I doubt very much that if you went back ten years on this forum, and looked at SG's body of work from that period, you'd find any charitable mention of conservatives, let alone "family values" conservatives.

This "I still had some hope in 2009" crap is only plausible if you're sixteen years old and still feel like politics started about the same time you noticed it.
Click to expand...

I don't know what all that means. It's the so called fundy Christians that walked away from the Democratic party not the other way around. Their idea of politics was based on biblical values. Now if you think you can square Donald Trump with biblical values, I want to see that dance.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Yep, Democrats are dividing the country by refusing to become Republicans, and the solution is obvious to Republicans.
Click to expand...

I was actually thinking more about being more tolerant and civil, and not just trying to invalidate or dismiss everything you disagree with. Progressives converting to conservatives didn't strike me as obvious, practical, or necessary. I'm sorry you can only see it in those terms. I hope you find a different viewpoint.
 
theprestige said:
I was actually thinking more about being more tolerant and civil, and not just trying to invalidate or dismiss everything you disagree with. Progressives converting to conservatives didn't strike me as obvious, practical, or necessary. I'm sorry you can only see it in those terms. I hope you find a different viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Really? You think being civil, tolerant and not dismissing everything you disagree with is the solution?

Then WTF is the idea behind supporting Donald Trump?
 
theprestige said:
I was actually thinking more about being more tolerant and civil, and not just trying to invalidate or dismiss everything you disagree with.
Click to expand...

Yes, it certainly wouldn’t do to be dismissive of what someone else thinks or feels:
theprestige said:
On the other hand, I can think of plenty of problems that only exist in people's heads, or are serious problems only in people's heads.
Click to expand...

Thanks for showing us the way. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I was actually thinking more about being more tolerant and civil, and not just trying to invalidate or dismiss everything you disagree with.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's how "conservatives" won their current power, huh -- all that uniting the country with tolerance and civility from right-wing radio, Fox News, websites and email chains. No, that's not intended as a whataboutism. I'll freely admit I've lost a considerable amount of tolerance and civility along the way myself, and in fact I agree with you about what it would take to restore some semblance of civility to our political discourse. But progressives already brought a knife to a gun fight, so I'm not entertaining the "obvious solution" of putting down the knife, thanks.

As for "just trying to invalidate or dismiss everything you disagree with", I certainly have been attempting to make a better substantiation for my opinions than that, but I'll try to be clearer in the future.
 
acbytesla said:
This is the problem with comparing the various impeachments. They are all very different and have very little in common.

That said, when the wall breaks in Donnies's stonewall, the information is likely to come flooding through. The flood for Nixon came fast as the result of the Supreme Court ruling that ordered the release of the White House tapes. Nixon was toast because it proved Nixon and the White House had been lying about it all.
Click to expand...
This is a little odd... you first start by saying that it's not a good idea to compare impeachments then you go on saying that you think × will happen... based on a previous impeachment?
 
The Norseman said:
This is a little odd... you first start by saying that it's not a good idea to compare impeachments then you go on saying that you think × will happen... based on a previous impeachment?
Click to expand...
The first paragraph was an acknowledgment that the second paragraph may have a weakness, though he thinks not. Hence "that said".
 
Belz... said:
Do those idiots not know that impeachment is laid out in the Constitution?
Click to expand...
The target audience is Trump's followers, not necessarily who the letter is addressed to.

Edited to add, on second thought, it's likely Trump is the target market, the result of Trump's lawyers trying to appease him. A temper tantrum is a good description.
 
Last edited:
The Norseman said:
This is a little odd... you first start by saying that it's not a good idea to compare impeachments then you go on saying that you think × will happen... based on a previous impeachment?
Click to expand...


Yea, you're right, I did.

I had grown tired of people using the example of Clinton's impeachment when discussing Trump. Trump is very different from Clinton's or Johnson's impeachments. The aspect of the Nixon comparison which "might" be fair is related to how it progressed.

Everyone knew precisely what the Clinton impeachment was about for years. No big bombshells dropped. The general public never really cared. I don't see the electorate having a backlash against the Democrats like what happened to the GOP over their impeachment of Clinton.

Nixon OTOH like Trump tried to stonewall the investigation. And that worked......until it didn't. And public and political support while a little diminished held for about a year.
And then a flood of damaging evidence became public and support for Nixon disappeared in about 2 weeks, if that.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
My position is that by 2009, many progressives had already long abandoned any pretense of benefit of the doubt for the entire set of conservatives, including the family values subset. If I had to guess, I'd say the family values crowd was among the first subsets that progressives crossed off their list, probably at least another decade before that. I doubt very much that if you went back ten years on this forum, and looked at SG's body of work from that period, you'd find any charitable mention of conservatives, let alone "family values" conservatives.

This "I still had some hope in 2009" crap is only plausible if you're sixteen years old and still feel like politics started about the same time you noticed it.
Click to expand...

The "Family Values Crowd" is/was mostly comprised of people who are into stuff like this: https://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/ Their churches have "family bookstores" with books on Christian parenting which are sold alongside devotionals and cutsie fancy bookmarks for bibles. A lot of them are very "legit" in their convictions.

Republican insiders/elites/operatives have been shamelessly and cynically playing these folks for decades, and progressives knew THAT by the early or mid 2000's. Numerous books on the history of how evangelicals were "tapped" as a voting block had been written by then, and the rumors from republican staffers in Washington about what a con it was were dripping/flooding out.

What Trump proved was just that among a large sub-set of the supposed family values voters, republican brand loyalty was orders of magnitude more important than any sort of traditional family values. These are part of the Trump base who cheer at his rallies. They're just shameless hypocrites. We always suspected there were a lot of them, but but we didn't know there were so many, or that it was so extreme.
 
theprestige said:
My position is that by 2009, many progressives had already long abandoned any pretense of benefit of the doubt for the entire set of conservatives, including the family values subset. If I had to guess, I'd say the family values crowd was among the first subsets that progressives crossed off their list, probably at least another decade before that. I doubt very much that if you went back ten years on this forum, and looked at SG's body of work from that period, you'd find any charitable mention of conservatives, let alone "family values" conservatives.

This "I still had some hope in 2009" crap is only plausible if you're sixteen years old and still feel like politics started about the same time you noticed it.
Click to expand...
Dude, I was talking about the Family Values crowd because they are holding their annual Values Voter's Summit this week.
 
a_unique_person said:
If they suddenly decide to dump him it won't be for reasons of ethics, it will be because he is no longer a useful idiot but a massive liability.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right. But that was the case with Nixon too. At least partially so. When the public support cratered on Nixon so did his support in the Republican party.
 
acbytesla said:
Yea, you're right, I did.

I had grown tired of people using the example of Clinton's impeachment when discussing Trump. Trump is very different from Clinton's or Johnson's impeachments. The aspect of the Nixon comparison which "might" be fair is related to how it progressed.

Everyone knew precisely what the Clinton impeachment was about for years. No big bombshells dropped. The general public never really cared. I don't see the electorate having a backlash against the Democrats like what happened to the GOP over their impeachment of Clinton.

Nixon OTOH like Trump tried to stonewall the investigation. And that worked......until it didn't. And public and political support while a little diminished held for about a year.
And then a flood of damaging evidence became public and support for Nixon disappeared in about 2 weeks, if that.
Click to expand...
Okay, thanks for taking time to explain more thoroughly. If it matters, I tend to agree with what you're saying here.
 
It's interesting that Trump's approval ratings seem to be hanging at about 42% even as the impeachment sentiment has gone up sharply. But unfortunately for the Party of Trump, it appears to me that Trump's approval/disapproval ratings, his impeach/don't impeach polls, and his Trump vs. any Democrat election forecasts are all converging at 10 points or more underwater.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
The target audience is Trump's followers, not necessarily who the letter is addressed to.

Edited to add, on second thought, it's likely Trump is the target market, the result of Trump's lawyers trying to appease him. A temper tantrum is a good description.
Click to expand...

People noted that much of the language sounds like Trump, and then a report came out (from the usual anonymous insiders) saying that Trump basically dictated it.
 
When I hear these calls for "civility" a picture forms in my head.

I'm having a lovely picnic in the park with my friends when suddenly a 1920's silent movie villain shows up, throws our picnic basket over a cliff and ties my friends to the train tracks.

When I say "What the **** are you doing?" a bunch of people with the villain's face on their t-shirts show up to say "That language really isn't called for".
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I was actually thinking more about being more tolerant and civil, and not just trying to invalidate or dismiss everything you disagree with. Progressives converting to conservatives didn't strike me as obvious, practical, or necessary. I'm sorry you can only see it in those terms. I hope you find a different viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Tolerance and civility have no place in confronting treason.
 
Even though events in Syria are outside the impeachment investigation...

The phenomenal degree of bumbling and the results thereof -- condemnation from his own party, events in Syria that will continue to show on the news for the foreseeable future -- will help the impeachment effort, which ultimately is about public opinion.
 
varwoche said:
Even though events in Syria are outside the impeachment investigation...

The phenomenal degree of bumbling and the results thereof -- condemnation from his own party, events in Syria that will continue to show on the news for the foreseeable future -- will help the impeachment effort, which ultimately is about public opinion.
Click to expand...


Maybe when he starts bombing our bases here in the States.
 
If someone were to tell you, "President Trump is abusing the power of his office for personal gain", you'd have to ask them to be more specific.
 
kellyb said:
Exposing him as a liar alone definitely won't do it.

They're going to have to out him as a LOSER. Someone getting his **** kicked. Someone who is NOT safe for them to be associated with, because he's small and weak and pathetic compared to his betters.
Click to expand...

I think Syria may be the issue that shows that he is "a LOSER. Someone getting his **** kicked. Someone who is NOT safe for them to be associated with, because he's small and weak and pathetic compared to his betters."

He is getting waxed by everyone and it will be very hard for him to spin this to a win for everyone but his most ardent base. He's even publishing pictures of Pelosi dressing him down while the generals hang their heads in shame. For ***** sake that was weak and he didn't even realize it.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
Trump just awarded the location of the next G7 summit to himself:

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/17/770367250/trumps-miami-golf-course-to-host-g-7-summit?t=1571334692193

yep, in a textbook definition of the violation of the Emoluments Clause, the President is ordering one of the biggest diplomatic events in the world to be held at his properties.

In normal times, this in itself would be sufficient for Impeachment.
Click to expand...


"We haven't found anything that could even come close to competing with it," Trump told reporters."​


I wonder how hard they looked.

:rolleyes:
 
quadraginta said:
"We haven't found anything that could even come close to competing with it," Trump told reporters."​


I wonder how hard they looked.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Planner: How about spot X?

Trump: Do I own it?

Planner: No.

Trump: Next.

Planner: How about Y?

Trump: Do I own it?

Planner: No.

Trump: Next.

Rinse, repeat until his property was named.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Trump just awarded the location of the next G7 summit to himself:

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/17/770367250/trumps-miami-golf-course-to-host-g-7-summit?t=1571334692193

yep, in a textbook definition of the violation of the Emoluments Clause, the President is ordering one of the biggest diplomatic events in the world to be held at his properties.

In normal times, this in itself would be sufficient for Impeachment.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but now it's just like getting a traffic ticket after being charged with murder.
 
I wonder if any of the committees are preparing a forensic accounting of the Inauguration Committee?
 
Grizzly Bear said:
I mean, when you look at the clown show going on in Congress generally I find it hard to disagree with him about the putrid state of any politics these days. Just my general commentary...
Click to expand...

Aah, the "both sides are corrupt" defense. Demonstrably incorrect.

I for one think the impeachment gig is a political show for the election season. Given that they seem hesitant to take the vote on moving it forward
Click to expand...

The investigation IS moving forward. The inquiry is gathering evidence to form articles of impeachment, which will be voted on. Or have you not been paying attention?
 
Grizzly Bear said:
I for one think the impeachment gig is a political show for the election season. Given that they seem hesitant to take the vote on moving it forward
Click to expand...

slyjoe said:
The investigation IS moving forward. The inquiry is gathering evidence to form articles of impeachment, which will be voted on. Or have you not been paying attention?
Click to expand...

It should be noted that during the impeachment hearings on Nixon, the House investigated and held private hearings for almost 6 months before the full House voted to open an impeachment inquiry. So it's not like the House is breaking new ground in how they are proceeding.

In theory, they could decide after the unofficial inquiry that they might not issue articles of impeachment. I doubt it since a great amount of impeachment worthy behaviour has been corroborated so far.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
I mean, when you look at the clown show going on in Congress generally I find it hard to disagree with him about the putrid state of any politics these days. Just my general commentary...

I for one think the impeachment gig is a political show for the election season. Given that they seem hesitant to take the vote on moving it forward
Click to expand...


You mean aside from taking the time to investigate to ensure there was a case for impeachment to be made, of course.

That's the normal course of events for such things, you know (that wasn't a question, BTW), evidence first, and then the impeachment.
 
It would be unwise to cave to Trump and take a house vote on moving forward. Such a vote is not required in the Constitution. It's not up to Trump to tell Congress how to do its business.
 
slyjoe said:
Aah, the "both sides are corrupt" defense. Demonstrably incorrect.
Click to expand...

It's only 'incorrect' because partisanship causes people to ignore things they dont like to hear. I'm not arguing for equal responsibility. But it's obvious from news coverage that issues Trump gets legitimately pinned on are largely ignored when it's not him or the Republicans doing it.

Notice how Bidens involvement in getting a ukranian prosecutor fired when his son had a stake in that company gets very little attention and isnt held accountable...

Much like this false dichotomy that anyone who voted for him can be nothing other than mysoginist racists and nazis. If you're wondering why I have a hard time taking politics seriously anymore theres your answer. But keep arguing that it's all one sided...

quadraginta said:
You mean aside from taking the time to investigate to ensure there was a case for impeachment to be made, of course.

That's the normal course of events for such things, you know (that wasn't a question, BTW), evidence first, and then the impeachment.
Click to expand...
They've voted on it three times during his term already. This vote to proceed on it will make 4. They can ultimately prove me wrong and do the impeachment but we have an election taking place in one year where voters could wind up removing him that way. I dont think people like Pelosi are blind to that...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom