[Continuation] House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3 - Page 5

pgwenthold · 23rd January 2020, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Huh. I always read that as "the GOP has been taken over by Trump", not "there is a faction of the GOP that is pro-Trump".

According to Trump, that "faction" is the largest faction of the GOP that has ever supported a President ever, so "the GOP has been taken over by Trump" seems a fair characterization, for sure.

As I just posted, if those non-Trump supporters of the GOP have a problem with it, they should take it up with him.

acbytesla · 23rd January 2020, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

There's a difference between Senators overseeing foreign policy by consensus of the Senate, and the Senators conducting diplomacy themselves as individuals.

It depends. US Congressmen are diplomats representing this nation. As long as they are staying true to stated national policy and goals, they are good to go. Congressional leaders often meet with Heads of State and foreign government representatives abroad. It's part of their oversight responsibilities.

Skeptic Ginger · 23rd January 2020, 01:14 PM

They're on break and PBS is interviewing Senators.

Rick Scott, FL Republican: Just keep lying. Keep lying the Democrats have no case. Keep lying they've proved nothing. Keep lying there was something suspicious about Hunter Biden getting hired.

It's maddening.

theprestige · 23rd January 2020, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

According to Trump, that "faction" is the largest faction of the GOP that has ever supported a President ever, so "the GOP has been taken over by Trump" seems a fair characterization, for sure.

As I just posted, if those non-Trump supporters of the GOP have a problem with it, they should take it up with him.

"According to Trump."

LOL.

pgwenthold · 23rd January 2020, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

"According to Trump."

LOL.

Yes.

As I said, if the non-trumpers have a problem, take it up with him.

But no, they sit quiet.

The Great Zaganza · 23rd January 2020, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

"According to Trump."

LOL.

You got better data?

Tero · 23rd January 2020, 01:45 PM

I've bought very few books related to Trump directly. I looked at the election itself and have a book on the media effects happening then. I don't really need to waste my reading time with Trump, I can read all his tweets and other similar things on line.

I'm not reading Comey book, Woodward book, not Stable Genius. BUT, if Parnas comes out out with a book (get help from Rachel Maddow, Lev) I will get that. Almost like watching one of them crime series on TV.

Skeptic Ginger · 23rd January 2020, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Why would roberts say anything? It's not like he has any real power here.

If he can tell them not to pettifog, why can't he point out leaving is disruptive?

Segnosaur · 23rd January 2020, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Quote:

According to Trump, that "faction" is the largest faction of the GOP that has ever supported a President ever, so "the GOP has been taken over by Trump" seems a fair characterization, for sure.

"According to Trump."
LOL.

I am assuming your complaint is that we are basing things on Trump's claims of support.

It is true... Trump is an untrustworthy source of information. He regularly regularly takes numbers out of context and cherry-picks (at best), and outright lies (at worst.) His '95% support' from the republicans should be viewed with some skepticism.

However, even less favorable polls suggest that the vast majority of Republicans support Trump. For example:
Ipsos (January 2020): 84% approval from registered republicans
Emmerson poll (December 2019): 90% support in GOP Primary

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-pol...cal-2020-01-22
https://emersonpolling.reportablenew...s-warren-falls

So even if Trump is over-stating his current support level among Republicans, it is not a stretch to say that he still enjoys a majority support among GOP voters.

The man who called Neo-Nazis fine people and who insinuated Mexicans were a bunch of violent rapists. The man who has seen multiple cabinet members and other associates get arrested.The man who has lied about things like "Mexicans will pay for a wall". The man who sat out Vietnam due to 'bone spurs', and who has taken money from military families, yet claims to "love the military". And still roughly 4 out of 5 republicans at least say "Yup he's our man".

Skeptic Ginger · 23rd January 2020, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Aridas

Because here's probably a more appropriate place than the general Trump Presidency thread...

The Senate Republicans didn't even try to follow the set rules, with no consequences from Roberts.

Another reason for Moscow Mitch to ban reporters from the hallways around the hearing.

A PAC made an ad about it.

Skeptic Ginger · 23rd January 2020, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/stat...93490476371968

Article embedded in tweet. Notable because Gaetz was a full-on lapdog, but then got on the wrong side of Trump & the rest of the GOP. This could be an indicator that the split will increase from here on in.

He missed the memo.

Stacyhs · 23rd January 2020, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

They're on break and PBS is interviewing Senators.

Rick Scott, FL Republican: Just keep lying. Keep lying the Democrats have no case. Keep lying they've proved nothing. Keep lying there was something suspicious about Hunter Biden getting hired.

It's maddening.

The GOP is dedicated to the theory “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”.

There is absolutely no doubt that Trump did what the Dems say he did. That is why the GOP can't...not won't...can't disprove it. That's why they are fighting testimony from Mulvaney, Bolton, etc. They know it's true. Instead, the just repeat the lie it's not an impeachable offense, the Dems are trying to overturn the election, etc. But it's the only defense they've got...as pathetic as it is. But the saddest part is that their overriding concern for their own political self-preservation takes precedence over the good of the country.

Skeptic Ginger · 23rd January 2020, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

If you want to see up close examples of what corrupt behaviour in the legislative body of a Banana Republic looks like, look no further than the actions of the Republican Senators for the next few days.

And the past 3 years.

theprestige · 23rd January 2020, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I am assuming your complaint is that we are basing things on Trump's claims of support.

Not complaint. Amusement that Trump was your knee-jerk cite, as if either of us give a ****.

Segnosaur · 23rd January 2020, 02:38 PM

Remember Jonathan Turley? He is the constitutional expert who the Republicans called as their witness at the house impeachment hearings. (He claimed that the Democrat's case was basically not strong enough.)

Well, now here what he has to say:

From: https://www.axios.com/gop-impeachmen...f78275fe5.html
"The White House is arguing that you cannot impeach a president without a crime. It is a view that is at odds with history and the purpose of the Constitution."

Yup... the guy who the Republicans thought "This is our expert!" is basically saying one of the main defenses of Trump and the republican party is bunk.

Cabbage · 23rd January 2020, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Not complaint. Amusement that Trump was your knee-jerk cite, as if either of us give a ****.

"...as if either of us give a ****"??

With all due respect, you actually voted for him, so it seems you do indeed at least give enough of a **** to vote for him.

Fast Eddie B · 23rd January 2020, 02:59 PM

Trump’s 95% claim is bogus, or at least dated.

Still, an admittedly large or even growing percentage of a group that is dwindling is not necessarily a good thing. If and when Republicans represent 20% of the population, it will be small comfort to even reach 100% approval in that dying group of stalwarts.

There was a time I could be counted as one of the alleged 5% of Republicans not supporting Trump. In that respect I probably boosted his support when I left the party.

Skeptic Ginger · 23rd January 2020, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Remember Jonathan Turley? He is the constitutional expert who the Republicans called as their witness at the house impeachment hearings. (He claimed that the Democrat's case was basically not strong enough.)

Well, now here what he has to say:

From: https://www.axios.com/gop-impeachmen...f78275fe5.html
"The White House is arguing that you cannot impeach a president without a crime. It is a view that is at odds with history and the purpose of the Constitution."

Yup... the guy who the Republicans thought "This is our expert!" is basically saying one of the main defenses of Trump and the republican party is bunk.

Turley still can't admit the House is putting on the opposite of a thin case.

Interesting he chose to do penance bashing Dershy's ludicrous position instead of admitting being wrong.

theprestige · 23rd January 2020, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Cabbage

"...as if either of us give a ****"??

With all due respect, you actually voted for him, so it seems you do indeed at least give enough of a **** to vote for him.

Sure. Doesn't mean I'm impressed when you cite him as an authority. Are you impressed?

Cabbage · 23rd January 2020, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Sure. Doesn't mean I'm impressed when you cite him as an authority. Are you impressed?

Of course I'm not impressed. To the contrary, I'm wondering what kind of logical hoops you must jump through to justify voting for a president that you don't even trust as a cited source.

acbytesla · 23rd January 2020, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by Cabbage

Of course I'm not impressed. To the contrary, I'm wondering what kind of logical hoops you must jump through to justify voting for a president that you don't even trust as a cited source.

He thinks Trump is "godly". America's King David.

I'm sure if like King David, Trump kills some guy to sleep with his wife, in his mind, it's ok.

Minoosh · 23rd January 2020, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

If he can tell them not to pettifog, why can't he point out leaving is disruptive?

How disruptive is it, really? If I were a Democratic senator I sure as heck would need a break from the Republicans when they start their own uninterrupted presentation. If Roberts treats the sides equally maybe it's not such a huge deal.

It's interesting that this issue is smacking GOP senators across the face because it's probably the one thing that they agree with the House on. They could almost stipulate that yes,Trump did everything the House said he did; but they are still not going to remove him for it.

ETA: It may be what they're *already* saying. They could spend their 24 hours reading from the telephone book or simply say, "The defense rests," then proceed with their predetermined vote.

Skeptic Ginger · 23rd January 2020, 04:34 PM

The GOP rebuttal will be on Saturday. How convenient.

Skeptic Ginger · 23rd January 2020, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

How disruptive is it, really? If I were a Democratic senator I sure as heck would need a break from the Republicans when they start their own uninterrupted presentation. If Roberts treats the sides equally maybe it's not such a huge deal.

It's interesting that this issue is smacking GOP senators across the face because it's probably the one thing that they agree with the House on. They could almost stipulate that yes,Trump did everything the House said he did; but they are still not going to remove him for it.

ETA: It may be what they're *already* saying. They could spend their 24 hours reading from the telephone book or simply say, "The defense rests," then proceed with their predetermined vote.

The point was not how disruptive it is or isn't. The point is they are supposed to stay in the hearing. Why can't Roberts point that out? There is no rule he can't. He cited the pettifogging was disrespectful of this important court. So is walking out.

BTW, the argument being echoed by the GOP in their press interviews is denial the wrongdoing was established. Not, it was established but not significant.

Nope. The GOP has learned there is no downside to pure gaslighting.

Stacyhs · 23rd January 2020, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The point was not how disruptive it is or isn't. The point is they are supposed to stay in the hearing. Why can't Roberts point that out? There is no rule he can't. He cited the pettifogging was disrespectful of this important court. So is walking out.

BTW, the argument being echoed by the GOP in their press interviews is denial the wrongdoing was established. Not, it was established but not significant.

Nope. The GOP has learned there is no downside to pure gaslighting.

At this point, Trump could tweet a confession admitting he did exactly what the Dems have shown he did and the GOP would claim he was just kidding or the media is misrepresenting what the confession said.

theprestige · 23rd January 2020, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Cabbage

Of course I'm not impressed. To the contrary, I'm wondering what kind of logical hoops you must jump through to justify voting for a president that you don't even trust as a cited source.

I didn't vote for him because of his subject matter expertise.

Anyway, I'm just amused by how often I present my sincere and considered opinion, and the knee jerk rebuttal is "but Trump says!" by people who don't actually buy what Trump says.

What's the end game, there? Are you trying to convince me that I'm not supposed to dissent from Donald Trump?

Stacyhs · 23rd January 2020, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I didn't vote for him because of his subject matter expertise.

Anyway, I'm just amused by how often I present my sincere and considered opinion, and the knee jerk rebuttal is "but Trump says!" by people who don't actually buy what Trump says.

What's the end game, there? Are you trying to convince me that I'm not supposed to dissent from Donald Trump?

If you didn't vote for him because of his subject matter expertise, why did you vote for him? What was it about him that attracted you? Just curious.

theprestige · 23rd January 2020, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

If you didn't vote for him because of his subject matter expertise, why did you vote for him? What was it about him that attracted you? Just curious.: confused :

I've covered this ad nauseum elsewhere. I'm sorry you missed it, but I'm not going to cover it again here.

Stacyhs · 23rd January 2020, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I've covered this ad nauseum elsewhere. I'm sorry you missed it, but I'm not going to cover it again here.

Guess I missed it but going back through thousands of your posts to find this particular topic isn't exactly an easy task. I can only assume, then, that you like his policies so will overlook that he's a lying, misogynistic, bullying, childish, corrupt, racist malignant narcissist who cares only about himself. Gotcha.

Cabbage · 23rd January 2020, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I didn't vote for him because of his subject matter expertise.

Anyway, I'm just amused by how often I present my sincere and considered opinion, and the knee jerk rebuttal is "but Trump says!" by people who don't actually buy what Trump says.

What's the end game, there? Are you trying to convince me that I'm not supposed to dissent from Donald Trump?

A far more preferable end game would be for you to realize the folly of voting for Trump to begin with.

And, you know, not buying what Trump says does not magically make what Trump says irrelevant. I don't buy what Trump says but that doesn't change the fact that I would be alarmed if he threatened to nuke North Korea, for example. You seem to be comparing apples with oranges.

theprestige · 23rd January 2020, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by Cabbage

A far more preferable end game would be for you to realize the folly of voting for Trump to begin with.

And, you know, not buying what Trump says does not magically make what Trump says irrelevant. I don't buy what Trump says but that doesn't change the fact that I would be alarmed if he threatened to nuke North Korea, for example. You seem to be comparing apples with oranges.

If I say we shouldn't nuke North Korea, and your rebuttal is, "but Trump says we should!", what's your point?

Meadmaker · 23rd January 2020, 05:28 PM

Is anyone else a bit nervous about how often Russia is being called "our enemy"?

"Enemy" is such a harsh term, and usually reserved for people with an actual military conflict, even if it is a cold war.

In some ways, I'm glad. There was some reluctance for a while to acknowledge that they weren't really on our team, but there's something vaguely disquieting about a steady stream of "our enemy, Russia". Not even "adversary" or "hostile power".

Not a big deal, but just something that sounds awkward about it.

theprestige · 23rd January 2020, 05:31 PM

I've thought for a long time that Russia's geographic position puts it in existential conflict with all of its neighbors and their allies.

Almost all Russian access to the wider world and its markets is mediated by other nations. Compare with the US, which has unrestricted access to both major oceans, and the markets that border them.

Cabbage · 23rd January 2020, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

If I say we shouldn't nuke North Korea, and your rebuttal is, "but Trump says we should!", what's your point?

Assuming that was what happened:

My point would be: Then maybe you shouldn't have voted for someone who threatens to nuke North Korea. Do a better job of matching your vote to your ideals.

My turn: What was your point in asking me that question?

Stacyhs · 23rd January 2020, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I've thought for a long time that Russia's geographic position puts it in existential conflict with all of its neighbors and their allies.

Almost all Russian access to the wider world and its markets is mediated by other nations. Compare with the US, which has unrestricted access to both major oceans, and the markets that border them.

I agree. Its why Russia annexed Crimea.

Don't forget the US also has unrestricted access to the Caribbean beside the two oceans.

acbytesla · 23rd January 2020, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Is anyone else a bit nervous about how often Russia is being called "our enemy"?

"Enemy" is such a harsh term, and usually reserved for people with an actual military conflict, even if it is a cold war.

In some ways, I'm glad. There was some reluctance for a while to acknowledge that they weren't really on our team, but there's something vaguely disquieting about a steady stream of "our enemy, Russia". Not even "adversary" or "hostile power".

Not a big deal, but just something that sounds awkward about it.

I have no problem with it. Russia is our enemy.

Stacyhs · 23rd January 2020, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I have no problem with it. Russia is our enemy.

Agreed. If anyone thinks we aren't in a cold war with Putin, they're fooling themselves.

Norman Alexander · 23rd January 2020, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I have no problem with it. Russia is our enemy.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Agreed. If anyone thinks we aren't in a cold war with Putin, they're fooling themselves.

Putin =/= Russia.

The important point is that national borders are becoming less and less relevant to Pootie. He curries favours and manipulates people rather than nations. If Trump had been the president of, say, Mongolia, Putin would have been equally willing to using all that kompromat on him and holding Trump's IOU's over his head when it came to getting what he wanted.

And what Pootie wants is power. He doesn't give a crap what happens to the USA or the West per se. As long is he can use and push the situation to increase his own power over them. Trump in the White House is working out very well for him. Trump, with a little help from his friend, has almost completely destabilised the USA and its alliances. It makes Russia and especially Putin himself look like the actual "stable genius" in international politics.

Skeptic Ginger · 23rd January 2020, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

At this point, Trump could tweet a confession admitting he did exactly what the Dems have shown he did and the GOP would claim he was just kidding or the media is misrepresenting what the confession said.

Actually, they showed videos of Trump saying outright that he wanted the Bidens investigated. It appears he said it on multiple occasions.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

He can't help himself. He doesn't get it you can't ask foreign governments to investigate your political opponents. Which is especially insane given he claimed it was wrong for Obama to investigate his campaign.

There was an interesting comment on BBC news tonight. When the Constitution was written, there was no criminal code. So Dershy's claim the Founders meant for Impeachment to be for an actual crime was impossible.

Dershy's going to be laughed at by his peers.

Of course when gaslighting is as successful as it is for Trump and his minions, I suppose they don't care.

Skeptic Ginger · 23rd January 2020, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Is anyone else a bit nervous about how often Russia is being called "our enemy"?

Part of me agrees with you but then Russia cheated for Trump and they are currently spreading Trump's CT that it was Ukraine not them.

And I believe they are on opposite sides of a number of conflicts in the world.

So it's not like there is no basis for the label.

It's probably not helpful to call them the enemy, though.

23rd January 2020, 12:51 PM	#161
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,133	Originally Posted by theprestige Huh. I always read that as "the GOP has been taken over by Trump", not "there is a faction of the GOP that is pro-Trump". According to Trump, that "faction" is the largest faction of the GOP that has ever supported a President ever, so "the GOP has been taken over by Trump" seems a fair characterization, for sure. As I just posted, if those non-Trump supporters of the GOP have a problem with it, they should take it up with him.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

23rd January 2020, 12:56 PM	#162
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,292	Originally Posted by theprestige There's a difference between Senators overseeing foreign policy by consensus of the Senate, and the Senators conducting diplomacy themselves as individuals. It depends. US Congressmen are diplomats representing this nation. As long as they are staying true to stated national policy and goals, they are good to go. Congressional leaders often meet with Heads of State and foreign government representatives abroad. It's part of their oversight responsibilities.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . Last edited by acbytesla; 23rd January 2020 at 01:25 PM.

23rd January 2020, 01:38 PM	#165
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,133	Originally Posted by theprestige "According to Trump." LOL. Yes. As I said, if the non-trumpers have a problem, take it up with him. But no, they sit quiet.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

23rd January 2020, 01:40 PM	#166
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,674	Originally Posted by theprestige "According to Trump." LOL. You got better data?
	__________________ So what are you going to do about it, huh? What would an intellectual do? What would Plato do?

23rd January 2020, 01:45 PM	#167
Tero Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: North American prairie Posts: 2,202	I've bought very few books related to Trump directly. I looked at the election itself and have a book on the media effects happening then. I don't really need to waste my reading time with Trump, I can read all his tweets and other similar things on line. I'm not reading Comey book, Woodward book, not Stable Genius. BUT, if Parnas comes out out with a book (get help from Rachel Maddow, Lev) I will get that. Almost like watching one of them crime series on TV.
	__________________ I've deleted the one blog link. You can find the humor blog by searching "the kari report blogspot." Politics blog: https://esapolitics.blogspot.com/

23rd January 2020, 01:14 PM	#163
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 86,982	They're on break and PBS is interviewing Senators. Rick Scott, FL Republican: Just keep lying. Keep lying the Democrats have no case. Keep lying they've proved nothing. Keep lying there was something suspicious about Hunter Biden getting hired. It's maddening.

23rd January 2020, 01:36 PM	#164
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,661	Originally Posted by pgwenthold According to Trump, that "faction" is the largest faction of the GOP that has ever supported a President ever, so "the GOP has been taken over by Trump" seems a fair characterization, for sure. As I just posted, if those non-Trump supporters of the GOP have a problem with it, they should take it up with him. "According to Trump." LOL.

23rd January 2020, 01:50 PM	#168
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 86,982	Originally Posted by Belz... Why would roberts say anything? It's not like he has any real power here. If he can tell them not to pettifog, why can't he point out leaving is disruptive?

23rd January 2020, 02:03 PM	#169
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 17,122	Originally Posted by theprestige Quote: According to Trump, that "faction" is the largest faction of the GOP that has ever supported a President ever, so "the GOP has been taken over by Trump" seems a fair characterization, for sure. "According to Trump." LOL. I am assuming your complaint is that we are basing things on Trump's claims of support. It is true... Trump is an untrustworthy source of information. He regularly regularly takes numbers out of context and cherry-picks (at best), and outright lies (at worst.) His '95% support' from the republicans should be viewed with some skepticism. However, even less favorable polls suggest that the vast majority of Republicans support Trump. For example: Ipsos (January 2020): 84% approval from registered republicans Emmerson poll (December 2019): 90% support in GOP Primary https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-pol...cal-2020-01-22 https://emersonpolling.reportablenew...s-warren-falls So even if Trump is over-stating his current support level among Republicans, it is not a stretch to say that he still enjoys a majority support among GOP voters. The man who called Neo-Nazis fine people and who insinuated Mexicans were a bunch of violent rapists. The man who has seen multiple cabinet members and other associates get arrested.The man who has lied about things like "Mexicans will pay for a wall". The man who sat out Vietnam due to 'bone spurs', and who has taken money from military families, yet claims to "love the military". And still roughly 4 out of 5 republicans at least say "Yup he's our man".
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

23rd January 2020, 02:20 PM	#170
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 86,982	Originally Posted by Aridas Because here's probably a more appropriate place than the general Trump Presidency thread... The Senate Republicans didn't even try to follow the set rules, with no consequences from Roberts. Another reason for Moscow Mitch to ban reporters from the hallways around the hearing. A PAC made an ad about it.

23rd January 2020, 02:26 PM	#171
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 86,982	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/stat...93490476371968 Article embedded in tweet. Notable because Gaetz was a full-on lapdog, but then got on the wrong side of Trump & the rest of the GOP. This could be an indicator that the split will increase from here on in. He missed the memo.

23rd January 2020, 02:27 PM	#172
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,012	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger They're on break and PBS is interviewing Senators. Rick Scott, FL Republican: Just keep lying. Keep lying the Democrats have no case. Keep lying they've proved nothing. Keep lying there was something suspicious about Hunter Biden getting hired. It's maddening. The GOP is dedicated to the theory “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”. There is absolutely no doubt that Trump did what the Dems say he did. That is why the GOP can't...not won't...can't disprove it. That's why they are fighting testimony from Mulvaney, Bolton, etc. They know it's true. Instead, the just repeat the lie it's not an impeachable offense, the Dems are trying to overturn the election, etc. But it's the only defense they've got...as pathetic as it is. But the saddest part is that their overriding concern for their own political self-preservation takes precedence over the good of the country.

23rd January 2020, 02:29 PM	#173
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 86,982	Originally Posted by smartcooky If you want to see up close examples of what corrupt behaviour in the legislative body of a Banana Republic looks like, look no further than the actions of the Republican Senators for the next few days. And the past 3 years.

23rd January 2020, 02:34 PM	#174
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,661	Originally Posted by Segnosaur I am assuming your complaint is that we are basing things on Trump's claims of support. Not complaint. Amusement that Trump was your knee-jerk cite, as if either of us give a ****.

23rd January 2020, 02:38 PM	#175
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 17,122	Remember Jonathan Turley? He is the constitutional expert who the Republicans called as their witness at the house impeachment hearings. (He claimed that the Democrat's case was basically not strong enough.) Well, now here what he has to say: From: https://www.axios.com/gop-impeachmen...f78275fe5.html "The White House is arguing that you cannot impeach a president without a crime. It is a view that is at odds with history and the purpose of the Constitution." Yup... the guy who the Republicans thought "This is our expert!" is basically saying one of the main defenses of Trump and the republican party is bunk.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

23rd January 2020, 02:56 PM	#176
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598	Originally Posted by theprestige Not complaint. Amusement that Trump was your knee-jerk cite, as if either of us give a **. "...as if either of us give a "?? With all due respect, you actually voted for him, so it seems you do indeed at least give enough of a ** to vote for him.
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598

23rd January 2020, 02:59 PM	#177
Fast Eddie B Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA Posts: 6,742	Trump’s 95% claim is bogus, or at least dated. Still, an admittedly large or even growing percentage of a group that is dwindling is not necessarily a good thing. If and when Republicans represent 20% of the population, it will be small comfort to even reach 100% approval in that dying group of stalwarts. There was a time I could be counted as one of the alleged 5% of Republicans not supporting Trump. In that respect I probably boosted his support when I left the party.
	Last edited by Fast Eddie B; 23rd January 2020 at 03:01 PM.

23rd January 2020, 03:04 PM	#178
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 86,982	Originally Posted by Segnosaur Remember Jonathan Turley? He is the constitutional expert who the Republicans called as their witness at the house impeachment hearings. (He claimed that the Democrat's case was basically not strong enough.) Well, now here what he has to say: From: https://www.axios.com/gop-impeachmen...f78275fe5.html "The White House is arguing that you cannot impeach a president without a crime. It is a view that is at odds with history and the purpose of the Constitution." Yup... the guy who the Republicans thought "This is our expert!" is basically saying one of the main defenses of Trump and the republican party is bunk. Turley still can't admit the House is putting on the opposite of a thin case. Interesting he chose to do penance bashing Dershy's ludicrous position instead of admitting being wrong.
	Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 23rd January 2020 at 04:40 PM.

23rd January 2020, 03:35 PM	#179
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,661	Originally Posted by Cabbage "...as if either of us give a **"?? With all due respect, you actually voted for him, so it seems you do indeed at least give enough of a ** to vote for him. Sure. Doesn't mean I'm impressed when you cite him as an authority. Are you impressed?

23rd January 2020, 03:56 PM	#180
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598	Originally Posted by theprestige Sure. Doesn't mean I'm impressed when you cite him as an authority. Are you impressed? Of course I'm not impressed. To the contrary, I'm wondering what kind of logical hoops you must jump through to justify voting for a president that you don't even trust as a cited source.
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598

23rd January 2020, 04:02 PM	#181
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,292	Originally Posted by Cabbage Of course I'm not impressed. To the contrary, I'm wondering what kind of logical hoops you must jump through to justify voting for a president that you don't even trust as a cited source. He thinks Trump is "godly". America's King David. I'm sure if like King David, Trump kills some guy to sleep with his wife, in his mind, it's ok.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

23rd January 2020, 04:22 PM	#182
Minoosh Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 12,239	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger If he can tell them not to pettifog, why can't he point out leaving is disruptive? How disruptive is it, really? If I were a Democratic senator I sure as heck would need a break from the Republicans when they start their own uninterrupted presentation. If Roberts treats the sides equally maybe it's not such a huge deal. It's interesting that this issue is smacking GOP senators across the face because it's probably the one thing that they agree with the House on. They could almost stipulate that yes,Trump did everything the House said he did; but they are still not going to remove him for it. ETA: It may be what they're already saying. They could spend their 24 hours reading from the telephone book or simply say, "The defense rests," then proceed with their predetermined vote.
	Last edited by Minoosh; 23rd January 2020 at 04:26 PM.

23rd January 2020, 04:34 PM	#183
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 86,982	The GOP rebuttal will be on Saturday. How convenient.

23rd January 2020, 04:37 PM	#184
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 86,982	Originally Posted by Minoosh How disruptive is it, really? If I were a Democratic senator I sure as heck would need a break from the Republicans when they start their own uninterrupted presentation. If Roberts treats the sides equally maybe it's not such a huge deal. It's interesting that this issue is smacking GOP senators across the face because it's probably the one thing that they agree with the House on. They could almost stipulate that yes,Trump did everything the House said he did; but they are still not going to remove him for it. ETA: It may be what they're already saying. They could spend their 24 hours reading from the telephone book or simply say, "The defense rests," then proceed with their predetermined vote. The point was not how disruptive it is or isn't. The point is they are supposed to stay in the hearing. Why can't Roberts point that out? There is no rule he can't. He cited the pettifogging was disrespectful of this important court. So is walking out. BTW, the argument being echoed by the GOP in their press interviews is denial the wrongdoing was established. Not, it was established but not significant. Nope. The GOP has learned there is no downside to pure gaslighting.
	Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 23rd January 2020 at 04:41 PM.

23rd January 2020, 04:47 PM	#185
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,012	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger The point was not how disruptive it is or isn't. The point is they are supposed to stay in the hearing. Why can't Roberts point that out? There is no rule he can't. He cited the pettifogging was disrespectful of this important court. So is walking out. BTW, the argument being echoed by the GOP in their press interviews is denial the wrongdoing was established. Not, it was established but not significant. Nope. The GOP has learned there is no downside to pure gaslighting. At this point, Trump could tweet a confession admitting he did exactly what the Dems have shown he did and the GOP would claim he was just kidding or the media is misrepresenting what the confession said.

23rd January 2020, 04:47 PM	#186
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,661	Originally Posted by Cabbage Of course I'm not impressed. To the contrary, I'm wondering what kind of logical hoops you must jump through to justify voting for a president that you don't even trust as a cited source. I didn't vote for him because of his subject matter expertise. Anyway, I'm just amused by how often I present my sincere and considered opinion, and the knee jerk rebuttal is "but Trump says!" by people who don't actually buy what Trump says. What's the end game, there? Are you trying to convince me that I'm not supposed to dissent from Donald Trump?

23rd January 2020, 04:51 PM	#187
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,012	Originally Posted by theprestige I didn't vote for him because of his subject matter expertise. Anyway, I'm just amused by how often I present my sincere and considered opinion, and the knee jerk rebuttal is "but Trump says!" by people who don't actually buy what Trump says. What's the end game, there? Are you trying to convince me that I'm not supposed to dissent from Donald Trump? If you didn't vote for him because of his subject matter expertise, why did you vote for him? What was it about him that attracted you? Just curious.

23rd January 2020, 05:04 PM	#188
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,661	Originally Posted by Stacyhs If you didn't vote for him because of his subject matter expertise, why did you vote for him? What was it about him that attracted you? Just curious.: confused : I've covered this ad nauseum elsewhere. I'm sorry you missed it, but I'm not going to cover it again here.

23rd January 2020, 05:13 PM	#189
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,012	Originally Posted by theprestige I've covered this ad nauseum elsewhere. I'm sorry you missed it, but I'm not going to cover it again here. Guess I missed it but going back through thousands of your posts to find this particular topic isn't exactly an easy task. I can only assume, then, that you like his policies so will overlook that he's a lying, misogynistic, bullying, childish, corrupt, racist malignant narcissist who cares only about himself. Gotcha.
	Last edited by Stacyhs; 23rd January 2020 at 06:02 PM.

23rd January 2020, 05:20 PM	#190
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598	Originally Posted by theprestige I didn't vote for him because of his subject matter expertise. Anyway, I'm just amused by how often I present my sincere and considered opinion, and the knee jerk rebuttal is "but Trump says!" by people who don't actually buy what Trump says. What's the end game, there? Are you trying to convince me that I'm not supposed to dissent from Donald Trump? A far more preferable end game would be for you to realize the folly of voting for Trump to begin with. And, you know, not buying what Trump says does not magically make what Trump says irrelevant. I don't buy what Trump says but that doesn't change the fact that I would be alarmed if he threatened to nuke North Korea, for example. You seem to be comparing apples with oranges.
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598

23rd January 2020, 05:26 PM	#191
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,661	Originally Posted by Cabbage A far more preferable end game would be for you to realize the folly of voting for Trump to begin with. And, you know, not buying what Trump says does not magically make what Trump says irrelevant. I don't buy what Trump says but that doesn't change the fact that I would be alarmed if he threatened to nuke North Korea, for example. You seem to be comparing apples with oranges. If I say we shouldn't nuke North Korea, and your rebuttal is, "but Trump says we should!", what's your point?

23rd January 2020, 05:28 PM	#192
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,275	Is anyone else a bit nervous about how often Russia is being called "our enemy"? "Enemy" is such a harsh term, and usually reserved for people with an actual military conflict, even if it is a cold war. In some ways, I'm glad. There was some reluctance for a while to acknowledge that they weren't really on our team, but there's something vaguely disquieting about a steady stream of "our enemy, Russia". Not even "adversary" or "hostile power". Not a big deal, but just something that sounds awkward about it.

23rd January 2020, 05:31 PM	#193
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,661	I've thought for a long time that Russia's geographic position puts it in existential conflict with all of its neighbors and their allies. Almost all Russian access to the wider world and its markets is mediated by other nations. Compare with the US, which has unrestricted access to both major oceans, and the markets that border them.

23rd January 2020, 05:38 PM	#194
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598	Originally Posted by theprestige If I say we shouldn't nuke North Korea, and your rebuttal is, "but Trump says we should!", what's your point? Assuming that was what happened: My point would be: Then maybe you shouldn't have voted for someone who threatens to nuke North Korea. Do a better job of matching your vote to your ideals. My turn: What was your point in asking me that question?
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598

23rd January 2020, 06:05 PM	#195
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,012	Originally Posted by theprestige I've thought for a long time that Russia's geographic position puts it in existential conflict with all of its neighbors and their allies. Almost all Russian access to the wider world and its markets is mediated by other nations. Compare with the US, which has unrestricted access to both major oceans, and the markets that border them. I agree. Its why Russia annexed Crimea. Don't forget the US also has unrestricted access to the Caribbean beside the two oceans.