Impeachment

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by nosborne48, Dec 10, 2019.

Loading...
  1. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Very toxic comments with almost no actual facts. None of it changes the fact that the president committed multiple crimes while in office.
     
  2. copper

    copper Member

    ..................................and the fact that he was acquitted (underlined to de-emphasize "shouting" for Kizmets sensitive virtual hearing):) . For a guy with two doctoral degrees, I can't understand your difficulty in understanding the differences between legal terms such as alleged crimes, indictment, prosecution, conviction or acquittal. In the US system of criminal justice, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty so the statement should read, the President allegedly committed multiple crimes. Therein lies the problem with this political process to impeach the POTUS (Not shouting). The House voted to impeach first and gather evidence later. Hopefully, they learn from their mistakes. What are your predictions for another impeachment round if re-elected?
     
  3. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    And I can't understand your difficulty in understanding the differences between the word "acquitted" and the word "innocent". Or between "the US system of criminal justice", the Senate, and this forum.

    Face it, Trump committed crimes. And you, "copper", root for the guy who committed crimes. And you'll have to live with this for the rest of your life on Earth.
     
  4. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    He has committed multiple crimes while president. Those criminal actions have not been adjudicated. Impeachment is a political action with a political outcome. It has nothing to do with whether or not he committed crimes.

    How do you not know that?

    I'm sorry there are people who support him. However, he remains the only president since modern polling began who never spent a day with a 50% approval rating, not even his first. The composite polls have him at 43%. So much for his "acquittal bounce."
     
  5. copper

    copper Member

    Polling? Look at the accuracy of polling in the last election. "Hillary is going to win by a landslide". "Oh, she lost, so it must be Russian interference", Really? " How much KoolAid can Americans drink? Too many confounding variables! Look, I think a lot of Americans will agree that Trump is an ego maniac with zero humility. I'm sure that affects his polling numbers. In addition, wearing a MAGA hat or Trump bumper sticker only gets one beat up or flat tires which certainly affects willingness to participate in polling!
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
  6. copper

    copper Member

    Case in point, "And you, "copper", root for the guy who committed crimes. And you'll have to live with this for the rest of your life on Earth." This sounds like a hostile threat! Sure, I'll continue to participate in this political forum with free speech and civility. However, I would rather perform an I&D on a rectal abscess infected with MRSA.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
  7. heirophant

    heirophant Well-Known Member

    It's ironic, that pretty much everything that Trump is (probably falsely) being accused of doing, his opponents have done far more brazenly. Obama weaponizing the FBI, the CIA and the "deep state" generally against political opponents, which is almost certainly the greatest threat to the future of American Democracy that the country has ever seen in its entire history. Biden shaking down Ukraine, insisting that Obama knew about what he was doing and would support it ('just ask him!'), then bragging shamelessly and publicly about it. Collusion with foreign governments and their intelligence agencies to attack domestic political opponents. Biden using his being Vice President to enrich his son, not only in Ukraine but in China too. Hundreds of millions of dollars from overseas, including money from foreign governments and Russian oligarchs, flowing into Clinton related accounts, all while Hillary was Secretary of State and then presumptive Next President of the United States, and while she was making decisions that directly impacted those foreign interests. And (surprise) all of her conversations with those foreign contributors routed through Hillary's own illegal private server, whose drives he carefully and illegally had destroyed. And on and on and on and on it goes... where it stops, nobody knows,,,,

    That's just Stanislav telling you that he finds you morally reprehensible and that you will have to live with your abject guilt for rest of your life. I think very much the same thing about Stanislav. He's not a US citizen and doesn't live in the United States. His only connection to the United States is his having been a foreign student here for a few years. Yet he behaves like he's the board's foremost authority not only on US domestic politics, but on matters of ethics in general. And he loves to lecture (and condemn) Americans on those subjects. Stanislav's general education, such as it was, took place in the Soviet Union. And that probably explains his comfort and fondness for the kind of politics outlined in the paragraph above, provided only that the side he favors wins. Standard operating procedure where he originally came from.

    Just put Stanislav and anyone else who deserves it on ignore. That's what I do.

    I will say that I respect Stanislav's presumed expertise in computer science. (He has a PhD in it.) I'd readily defer to him on that subject. But only on that subject. (Maybe on Ukrainian domestic cultural stuff too, which I expect that he knows far better than me.) When it comes to things remote from those subjects, I don't perceive Stanislav as having any authority at all. He's just another guy talking with his butt instead of his brain.


    gBb
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
    copper likes this.
  8. copper

    copper Member

    I'm shocked (sarcasm)! A Russian computer genius espousing anti-American propaganda.
     
  9. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    You're wrong. I mean dead wrong. You're wrong on your facts, for example. The polls were very accurate as a predictor of the popular vote--the results fell within the polling margin of error. And you're wrong about polling in general. In 2018 the polls predicted a blue wave. The result was just that: a record margin of victory for a mid-term election.

    This has nothing to do with the president's criminality, which is undeniable. It DOES have to do with, once again, attempts to cloud a very basic issue: he committed crimes while in office.
     
  10. heirophant

    heirophant Well-Known Member

    Ukrainian. If you call him Russian, he won't be pleased.
     
  11. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    The clouding of the issues is non-stop:

    1. He didn't do it.
    2. He did something, but not that.
    3. What he did wasn't wrong.
    4. He can do what he wants.
    5. What he did was wrong, but it isn't a big deal.
    6. What he did was wrong, but everyone does it.

    It's exhausting to try to knock down all these strawman arguments every time. I don't even bother. What he did and does is right there for everyone to see. It's never been a secret. A lazy, indifferent electorate made him president. We'll see if that electorate--and not the one we saw in 2018--returns.
     
  12. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Politician who was most notoriously harmed, politically, due to FBI investigations under Barack Obama is Hillary Clinton. The way you ignore this nicely sets the tone of the rest of your comments, hierophant.

    This one here is, at the very best unsubstantiated, or more likely false. To enrich Hunter, Joe would surely work with Viktor Shokin, rather than pushing for his removal. The only potential fib on Uncle Joe's part was, maybe, claiming too much credit for the feat; Poroshenko was under pressure from everyone and their mothers to remove the notorious corrupt prosecutor.

    Nobody knows, and neither do you. OTOH it is way too easy to throw the same stuff, and worse, at Ivanka&Jared and the rest of the clan. Any of this surprise for you?


    Are you sure you want to go ad hominem, hierophant? This forum enforces it's rules against that. Also, you do not have a geo-tracker on me.

    Frankly, when defending a bankrupt side (like Trumpism), it is not possible to be informed, intelligent, and argue in good faith. And I respect your obvious intellect and "general education" (wherever obtained) too much to doubt either your intellect OR your informed-ness (might not be a word, but good enough for an ESL person). And oh, if it's not clear - I found you morally reprehensible, with far more certainty than I find people who may or may not know better.

    I never tried to advance argument from authority. I'm not the one defending a crime ring, see.
     
  13. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    True that.
     
  14. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    1. I have no facts.
    2. I create straw man arguments on both sides of any issue.
    3. I invite you to argue against it all while I continue to create more destructive nonsense.
    4. Soon you’ll be as crazy as me.

    It is both exhausting and pointless, and none of it changes the fact that this president has committed multiple crimes while in office, the facts of which are not in question by anyone. (Hence the flurry of nonsense instead of exculpatory facts and arguments.) Meh.
     
  15. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    IT DOES?
     
  16. copper

    copper Member

    After a little research, I concede that you are correct about polling. It was indeed reflective of the popular vote!
    https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/315145-one-last-look-2016-polls-actually-got-a-lot-right
     
  17. copper

    copper Member

    Another factor that may contribute to Trump's re-election and the willingness of many Republican and Democrat Pro-lifers to overlook his "flaws".

    "Ms. Day also does not support her party’s progressive drift. “I think on a national level [the party] is moving in the wrong direction,” she said, arguing that its views on abortion rights may cost it the support of moderate Democrats in swing states."
    https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2019/09/23/there-future-pro-life-democrats
     
  18. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    He’s polling at an average of 43%, and his disapproval approaches 60%. There simply aren’t a lot of people on the fence about him, and very little room for him to change that without changing himself. Fat chance.

    The power of the incumbency can be negated by a terrible track record. His is, in the judgment of most of America, worse than any other president’s...ever.
     
  19. copper

    copper Member

    Is that the judgment of the "lazy electorates" you talked about? I think it really depends on who the Dems nominate.
     
  20. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Active Member

    He won in 2016 by reducing Clinton's approval rating to rival his own. The advantage he had in 2016 is that the Republicans had been working on that for many years. For Trump to win (which is definitely reasonable and very possible) he will run a negative campaign again. He will have even a greater advantage in 2020 than he did in 2016. He will use the power of the whole executive branch in his smear campaign including the DoJ, the FBI, the IRS, and any leverage he can bring to bear on state governments and foreign governments. It will likely get uglier than anything we've seen in our lifetimes. Trump's supporters will be loving every minute as he breaks laws, corrupts the justice system and our other institutions because Trump's supporters will get all their news from Fox and be clueless about the laws being broken and the damage being done.
     

Share This Page