Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

Belz...

Fiend God
Belz...
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
96,875
Location
In a post-fact world
Again, why does Moscow Mitch have so much power if Republicans disagree with him? Or are they just paying lip service to the idea of a fair process?

Thread continued from here.
Posted By: kmortis
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Norman Alexander said:
No. Quite the opposite.

They are TRYING, despite all the opposition from Trump, to give him a fair trial. That includes the opportunity to bring refutations, his evidence, his witnesses and even to step up and attempt to refute the accusations in person should he so wish. Is that not fair?

But the people who are attempting to prevent this happening are NOT the Dems or the Senate. It's the GOP and specifically The Turtle, who has already proudly stated he is taking his marching orders from the White House, i.e. Donny himself.

So Donny is bitching about a situation that he himself is creating. Nobody else. It's almost like he is trying to get sympathy for "Look what you made me do!"
Click to expand...

Bingo. GOP 101. Make a mess, then use the mess you made to argue that the system is broken and against you.
 
alfaniner said:
I get the distinct impression that some of the Republican Senators are hearing the details of this case for the first time. "Holy ****, he did that? I'm going to have to think about this some more..."
Click to expand...

But they're still voting to support McConnell's whitewash.
 
Regarding “Being Bobbed”...

I appreciate a well-rounded and appropriate “Argumentum ad Adsurdum.” They have their time and place to show the possible implications of a flawed position. I’ve used them myself when appropriate.

But they should be used as a scalpel, not a bludgeon. Absurdity for the sake of absurdity accomplishes little, which is what I think we see in Bob’s case.
 
It's off-topic, but i've never liked the accusation being made about a thread being 'bobbed'. it's personal by definition. my view is that BTC's arguments are sometimes confusing because we make assumptions about his base logic that are wrong. He is always civil and that counts for far more, in my view, than anything else. I've felt frustrated in arguments with him, only to realise that it was my own misunderstanding that caused it. [/o-t]
 
Belz... said:
Again, why does Moscow Mitch have so much power if Republicans disagree with him? Or are they just paying lip service to the idea of a fair process?
Click to expand...

Gut feeling?

Because "disagree" is not purely binary. Very few if any Senators are actually going to come down as against McConnell, but I think at least some (no I can't put anything resembling a X percent of Republican Senators kind of number to it) at least recognize that this could still go bad for them so are... softening their blows a little bit?

We will get some token resistant from some Republicans, most probably never on any thing that actually matters, never in a way that's actually going to effect the final outcome.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Regarding “Being Bobbed”...

I appreciate a well-rounded and appropriate “Argumentum ad Adsurdum.” They have their time and place to show the possible implications of a flawed position. I’ve used them myself when appropriate.

But they should be used as a scalpel, not a bludgeon. Absurdity for the sake of absurdity accomplishes little, which is what I think we see in Bob’s case.
Click to expand...

Umm,I'm not making argumentum as absurdum. I'm staring my positions. But my conclusions are normally the ends themselves, and not means to an end. So,y positions result in what you would regard as absurd outcomes that I'm indifferent to.
 
TofuFighter said:
It's off-topic, but i've never liked the accusation being made about a thread being 'bobbed'. it's personal by definition. my view is that BTC's arguments are sometimes confusing because we make assumptions about his base logic that are wrong. He is always civil and that counts for far more, in my view, than anything else. I've felt frustrated in arguments with him, only to realise that it was my own misunderstanding that caused it. [/o-t]
Click to expand...

You are right, of course, and thank you for pointing that out.

However, we have to pull back and ask if his input actually moves a discussion forward or tends to drag it off on a tangent. I don’t think it’s necessarily intentional or inspired by suspect motives, but the end result is the same.
 
Bob wouldn't be problem if he would just start threads for all the basic human things he doesn't understand instead of demanding everyone explain to him that water is wet in the middle of every discussion about showering.

But I notice when people like Bob can't use their amazing ability to not understand things to ruin discussion, they suddenly don't have nearly as much problem understanding things. As if they only can't understand things when they don't want a discussion to happen. Funny that.

And I will continue to use "Bobbing" until such a time as the term is no longer necessary.
 
Last edited:
Get it back on topic, and not about other posters.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/1219981403120644103?s=20

In an incredible exchange at Davos,
@realdonaldtrump
admits he is comfortable with the status of the impeachment trial because the White House is withholding evidence. "Honestly, we have all the material. They don't have the material." As always, he says the quiet part out loud.
Click to expand...

Video embedded in tweet.

I do have to grudgingly give Trump one thing, though - "Shifty Shiff" is a good nickname. Trips off the tongue. I wonder if he came up with it himself?
 
An intriguing theory I heard on Michael Smerconish's show - If Republicans "trade" witnesses, like allowing Bolton in trade for allowing Hunter Biden, it could be a net win for Democrats, because Hunter Biden could be a great witness.

I'm skeptical about this affecting the general public because of the crap TV quality, but could it sway 4 senate votes? You never know.
 
carlitos said:
An intriguing theory I heard on Michael Smerconish's show - If Republicans "trade" witnesses, like allowing Bolton in trade for allowing Hunter Biden, it could be a net win for Democrats, because Hunter Biden could be a great witness.

I'm skeptical about this affecting the general public because of the crap TV quality, but could it sway 4 senate votes? You never know.
Click to expand...

No bad idea. The Republicans already want to turn this into the Hunter Biden Impeachment. Officially involving him in it in basically does just that. It's buying into their "Well what Trump did was okay because he thought Biden was dirty" argument which they could probably do.

Don't put them into a scenario where they can sell the narrative that Trump didn't do anything wrong if they can get Hunter Biden on the stand and get a soundbite that can sound a little guilty of something if you stand on your head, close one eye, and squint at it.

Even if Hunter Biden was building an army of cloned mecha-Hitlers in the Ukraine to march on the United States, Trump was not in the right for what he did.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
No bad idea. The Republicans already want to turn this into the Hunter Biden Impeachment. Officially involving him in it in basically does just that. It's buying into their "Well what Trump did was okay because he thought Biden was dirty" argument which they could probably do.

Don't put them into a scenario where they can sell the narrative that Trump didn't do anything wrong if they can get Hunter Biden on the stand and get a soundbite that can sound a little guilty of something if you stand on your head, close one eye, and squint at it.

Even if Hunter Biden was building an army of cloned mecha-Hitlers in the Ukraine to march on the United States, Trump was not in the right for what he did.
Click to expand...

The questioning process is different in the Senate than in the House, isn't it? Legit question, I'm not sure. In the House they just got to scream at the witness repeatedly, I don't think they get to do that in the Senate, do they?

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Documents may show Schiff mischaracterised a text exchange in the Parnas documents
Click to expand...

The part that sucks is people will actually look at that as if it's a big deal instead of a fairly minuscule oversight that doesn't actually make any difference in the grand scheme.
 
plague311 said:
The questioning process is different in the Senate than in the House, isn't it? Legit question, I'm not sure. In the House they just got to scream at the witness repeatedly, I don't think they get to do that in the Senate, do they?
Click to expand...

I think the Senate Republicans will be given enough leeway (or just take it and dare someone to stop them which amounts to the same thing) to, if Hunter Biden is called to testify, throw enough "When did you stop beating your wife" style questions at him to get a soundbite they can use to drive home their "See? See? Trump was in the right to investigate Biden, therefore this whole thing is a sham/nothingburger" narrative better then... whatever the Democratic narrative would be.

Again nothing Hunter Biden did matters, so putting him on the stand can't possibly make the narrative clearer.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I think the Senate Republicans will be given enough leeway (or just take it and dare someone to stop them which amounts to the same thing) to, if Hunter Biden is called to testify, throw enough "When did you stop beating your wife" style questions at him to get a soundbite they can use to drive home their "See? See? Trump was in the right to investigate Biden, therefore this whole thing is a sham/nothingburger" narrative better then... whatever the Democratic narrative would be.

Again nothing Hunter Biden did matters, so putting him on the stand can't possibly make the narrative clearer.
Click to expand...

If nothing hunter did matters, then the democrats should put him up and demonstrate that.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I think the Senate Republicans will be given enough leeway (or just take it and dare someone to stop them which amounts to the same thing) to, if Hunter Biden is called to testify, throw enough "When did you stop beating your wife" style questions at him to get a soundbite they can use to drive home their "See? See? Trump was in the right to investigate Biden, therefore this whole thing is a sham/nothingburger" narrative better then... whatever the Democratic narrative would be.

Again nothing Hunter Biden did matters, so putting him on the stand can't possibly make the narrative clearer.
Click to expand...

The Democrats would get Bolton (according to rumor). Do you think Bolton has something that would be more damaging to Trump than whatever the GOP can distort Biden into saying to be used against the Dems?

I have no doubts that the GOP and the conservative media will find a way to spin Biden saying, "Good Morning" into a threat against God fearing, blue collar men and women. That's standard. What I don't doubt is that Bolton has something up his sleeve that he is dying to say. I want to know what it is.
 
plague311 said:
Pay attention Bob. He said that they'll spin what he says, not that Biden did anything wrong. Try to keep it straight.
Click to expand...

If you don't believe in your ability convince the jury that your position is correct, then you shouldn't be pursuing impeachment.
 
BobTheCoward said:
If you don't believe in your ability convince the jury that your position is correct, then you shouldn't be pursuing impeachment.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with a jury as the American public isn't the jury. The GOP has already made up their minds, there's no convincing anyone in the Senate. What isn't wanted is a bunch of lies thrown on social media, and the TV stations that are twisting what Biden said, did, or does.

They aren't pursuing impeachment, he's been impeached. They're pursuing removal from office. If you're going to play semantic, absurdly nonsensical games at least get the facts straight. Enough now, I'm done with this conversation with you. I refuse to chase the rabbit.
 
plague311 said:
The Democrats would get Bolton (according to rumor). Do you think Bolton has something that would be more damaging to Trump than whatever the GOP can distort Biden into saying to be used against the Dems?
Click to expand...

I think since the outcome of this is already obvious giving Republicans more rope in the hope that this is the time they'll finally trip up and hang themselves is insane.

Long story short I have a lot more faith in the Republican's ability to pull some dirt on Biden out of whatever thin air they can they I do in the Democrat's ability to get Bolton on the stand and play out the "Did you order the Code Red?" scene in a few good men.

Even without Biden involved at all I don't want the Democrats to get Bolton on the stand. They'll find a way to mess that up.

Not to be my grumpy self again, but the Democrats haven't wowed me yet with their ability to take advantage of opportunities, they always backfire. So I'm not giving them anymore. I'm not buying any of their "Just give us a chance and we'll swoop in and save the day" requests anymore.

Run out the clock until the Republicans decided they've played with the Democrats enough and declare Trump innocent, the victim of a witch hunt, and dashingly handsome and get back to trying to win in 2020.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
It has nothing to do with a jury as the American public isn't the jury. The GOP has already made up their minds, there's no convincing anyone in the Senate. What isn't wanted is a bunch of lies thrown on social media, and the TV stations that are twisting what Biden said, did, or does.

They aren't pursuing impeachment, he's been impeached. They're pursuing removal from office. If you're going to play semantic, absurdly nonsensical games at least get the facts straight. Enough now, I'm done with this conversation with you. I refuse to chase the rabbit.
Click to expand...

If they don't trust in their ability to make an argument persuasive enough to change people's minds, then they shouldn't be doing this.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I think since the outcome of this is already obvious giving Republicans more rope in the hope that this is the time they'll finally trip up and hang themselves is insane.
Click to expand...

To be honest, we could have stopped here.

If you don't believe they can possibly handle this then why in the **** would we want them in power? I'm serious here. If that's how you feel, that the Dems are complete and total morons, then why would anyone want them to win? What possible ******* reason is there to put them in charge of anything more than a buffet? This is why your position has constantly baffled me.

"These guys are ******* morons. Lets stop doing this and hope that these complete dip ***** find a way to win in 2020!" Like, why? Why not leave Trump in office? He has to be a better choice than the people you've already said can't handle simple tasks. At least the economy is better.
 
plague311 said:
To be honest, we could have stopped here.

If you don't believe they can possibly handle this then why in the **** would we want them in power? I'm serious here. If that's how you feel, that the Dems are complete and total morons, then why would anyone want them to win? What possible ******* reason is there to put them in charge of anything more than a buffet? This is why your position has constantly baffled me.

"These guys are ******* morons. Lets stop doing this and hope that these complete dip ***** find a way to win in 2020!" Like, why? Why not leave Trump in office? He has to be a better choice than the people you've already said can't handle simple tasks. At least the economy is better.
Click to expand...

This is how I felt about Dems complaining about Russian advertisement. If you think so many people fell for that, what does it say about those voters and why do you want their votes?
 
plague311 said:
To be honest, we could have stopped here.

If you don't believe they can possibly handle this then why in the **** would we want them in power? I'm serious here. If that's how you feel, that the Dems are complete and total morons, then why would anyone want them to win? What possible ******* reason is there to put them in charge of anything more than a buffet? This is why your position has constantly baffled me.
Click to expand...

I don't. I'm not a Democrat, I'm realist. I don't want them in power but I live in the world I live in not an idealistic fantasy world in my own head.

They are the better of the two options by a huge margin but I'm not a fanboy for them.

My options are not "Supporting the BAD ORANGE MAN" or "OMG the Democrats are just the bestest."

I hate Trump and I am infinitely annoyed at how bad the Democrats are at handling him. This isn't a paradox.

This is how vile and toxic modern politics have gotten. I'm only given two options and then I'm treating like I'm either a hypocrite or some impossible to satisfy monster because I'm not totally in love with the... I despise the term "Lesser of Two Evils" because of how it conceptualizes it but something in that ballpark... that I have to settle for.

The Democrats have my vote in 2020. They do not have my slobbering adoration. This is not that hard of a concept.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I don't. I'm not a Democrat, I'm realist. I don't want them in power but I live in the world I live in not an idealistic fantasy world in my own head.

They are the better of the two options by a huge margin but I'm not a fanboy for them.
Click to expand...

How are they the better of two options? In what ways are they better?

JoeMorgue said:
My options are not "Supporting the BAD ORANGE MAN" or "OMG the Democrats are just the bestest."
Click to expand...

Yes, you say this with almost feverish repetition. No one here has implied you should support him, or that this false dichotomy are your only options. This is completely and entirely of your own construct. I certainly didn't imply it previously.

JoeMorgue said:
I hate Trump and I am infinitely annoyed at how bad the Democrats are at handling him. This isn't a paradox.
Click to expand...

Yet, when you've been asked repeatedly what else they should do, the bulk of your answers are "I don't know, it's not my job to know". So, what should they be doing, in your opinion, that they aren't? Leave everything tied up in the courts? They're still chasing several avenues through the courts (his finances, and illegal donations). Just give a brief list of what the dems should be doing that they aren't.

JoeMorgue said:
This is how vile and toxic modern politics have gotten. I'm only given two options and then I'm treating like I'm either a hypocrite or some impossible to satisfy monster because I'm not totally in love with the... I despise the term "Lesser of Two Evils" because of how it conceptualizes it but something in that ballpark... that I have to settle for.
Click to expand...

No, you're not only given two options. I asked why, if the Democrats are so completely useless in your opinion, you would want them in power? That's not giving you two options, that's asking a question. One you didn't answer. You just reverted back to your "bad man orange" nonsense. You then turn it into a false dichotomy and rail on it ad nauseum.

JoeMorgue said:
The Democrats have my vote in 2020. They do not have my slobbering adoration. This is not that hard of a concept.
Click to expand...

A concept I completely understand, and haven't even argued with. Go on though, say "bad orange man" again. It'll be super effective this time.

ETA: The problem I see here is that the Dems have tried almost everything they can, they've been blocked by the most restrictive, least transparent administration in our brief history, and you seem to blame the Dems for it.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
This is how I felt about Dems complaining about Russian advertisement. If you think so many people fell for that, what does it say about those voters and why do you want their votes?
Click to expand...
Uh, to win an election? Counting up votes does not involve any judgment about the gullibility or lack thereof of the voter.
 
I must say I'm rather lost as to what exactly I'm being accused or what exactly need to say to defend myself here.

Trump is not going to be convicted. Is there anyone really not agreeing with this?

Why does me saying it sound so different?
 
JoeMorgue said:
I must say I'm rather lost as to what exactly I'm being accused or what exactly need to say to defend myself here.

Trump is not going to be convicted. Is there anyone really not agreeing with this?

Why does me saying it sound so different?
Click to expand...

I apologize, I'll try to be more clear.

I would like you to explain to me just a few things so we're clear.

  • What have the Democrats screwed up? Just a few examples is fine.
  • What would you have done differently?
  • If they Democrats are people that can't handle something like this, why would you want them in power to lead the entire nation? Seems counterproductive

Lets start there.

ETA: Did someone say Trump was going to be convicted? Lets take Trump being convicted out of this completely and entirely.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
I apologize, I'll try to be more clear.

I would like you to explain to me just a few things so we're clear.

  • What have the Democrats screwed up? Just a few examples is fine.
  • What would you have done differently?
  • If they Democrats are people that can't handle something like this, why would you want them in power to lead the entire nation? Seems counterproductive

Lets start there.

ETA: Did someone say Trump was going to be convicted? Lets take Trump being convicted out of this completely and entirely.
Click to expand...

Are you prepared for a lesser of two evils argument? Because you're about to get a lesser of two evils argument.

---

Personally, I think it's the right argument and a properly realistic approach.
 
well, Trump is not going to be convicted
but even a 50/50 vote would be a great embarrassment
it was for Bill
he got 55/45 and 50/50 on the two charges
 
theprestige said:
Are you prepared for a lesser of two evils argument? Because you're about to get a lesser of two evils argument.

---

Personally, I think it's the right argument and a properly realistic approach.
Click to expand...

Duly noted. Thanks.

So it really does boil down to nothing more than "Orange man bad"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom