The Trump Impeachment Thread

[Danoff]

I do dream of an outsider being able to return the USA to a less corrupt govt and further uphold the principles of the Constitution.
So I am hoping that (idealism) maybe this situation will ferret out some corruption.
But I will wait and see. My position is they’ve been trying to get him out from day one and haven’t been able to yet, so maybe he can successfully disrupt the old boy network in Washington.

You're over-thinking government.

What you say above is certainly the sentiment that got Trump elected. He's an outsider, he'll break up the bureaucracy, bring some real scrutiny down on the way things are done, etc. etc. The reality of the situation is that the government is just made up of people. Most government employees persist from one administration to the next (good luck hiring if they don't). Really only a small pocket of the government changes hands when an administration changes hands. And those that stay, while you might think of them as an "old boy network", are really just people. They're people that have decided to work in government, for whatever reason, mostly because they like the stability, and who are many times quite good at their job, and maybe poorly managed. Poor management comes from size, and it affects corporations and government alike. Changing the guy at the top, whether it's the CEO or the president, doesn't really provide a way to lean up the bureaucracy. To do that you really have to, what they would call in the corporate world, "divest", or reduce the scope of government.

What Trump has been doing since he took office is basically running off government employees who were really quite excellent or at least had a great deal of institutional knowledge, and he has replaced them with people like himself, who have ties to outside business. It is the very model of corruption. If you want an old boy network in Washington, where there wasn't one before, Trump is your man. He has systematically intertwined the executive with corporate interest.

The question I keep coming back to is... what was supposed to be the point of draining "the swamp"? Save money? Well we're not doing that. Eliminating government waste? No chance, we're dumping money into our southern border like nobody's business, and it's going to be completely useless. Eliminating corruption? Not a chance, we're lining government with conflicts of interest like never before. Put someone in office who has no clue when it comes to foreign policy? Nailed it.

 

[Groundfish]

Yeah - there's a lot of lying & corruption in political life. It's possible an outsider would be able to return the USA to a less corrupt govt. HOWEVER the chances that that person would be Donald Trump, whose trademark characteristic even before entering politics has been lying & corruption? Not likely. And Trump has delivered on the lying & corruption on a level exceeding anybody's expectations

Has he? He promised to try to stop illegal immigration and he’s worked to that end.
He disliked trade deals and he’s tried to get better deals. Whether he’s succeeded or not imo these are valuable examples of honesty with regard to what he promised.
Not everything he says is a lie.

LOL. People dislike President Trump because, glaringly obviously, he's a terrible person. "Vindication" by the Senate? You mean you're rooting for Republican corruption to win out over Democratic corruption. Why

I live in a state with a Democratic supermajority and feel the effects of their policies everyday. I literally have watched what happens in reality when those ideas are put to practice.
Hence I cannot support those ideas.

The question I keep coming back to is... what was supposed to be the point of draining "the swamp"? Save money? Well we're not doing that. Eliminating government waste? No chance, we're dumping money into our southern border like nobody's business, and it's going to be completely useless

The point is getting back to what people actually want. The point is limiting unnecessary bureaucracy, and reducing govt size.
Say what you want about the border but I live that issue everyday and have seen the effects of allowing illegal immigration being allowed over the last 30 years.
If you haven’t lived it and seen the effects some emotion based position may be attractive.
To me I simply go on what I see in reality and what ideas I believe have utility.
Allowing mass illegal immigration is a terrible policy.
Your position that it’s useless to resist makes no sense to me.
So it’s useless to maintain rule of law?
It’s useless to maintain order?
It’s useless to ensure adequate housing availability?
It’s useless?
How could anyone hang their hat on giving up?
Sorry can’t agree.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Hey do what you want as long as you don’t infringe on others rights is no basis for a system of govt.
People will always have disputes and fight over a finite amount of resources. Looking at the platform, I just can’t support it.
I also am not 100 percent behind the right, it’s not as if it’s not just as loaded with corruption as the left.
One reason I have the position I do is because from the beginning pretty much no one wanted Donald Trump involved in govt. Maybe it’s weakness on my part and idealism, but I do dream of an outsider being able to return the USA to a less corrupt govt and further uphold the principles of the Constitution.

You trusted a slumlord, trust-funded, real estate developer from Queens with a long and remarkably well documented history of general skeeze and narcissism to reduce corruption? You wanted Donald Trump, a man most previously famous for swindling and reality TV to uphold the constitution? Why?!

The point is getting back to what people actually want. The point is limiting unnecessary bureaucracy, and reducing govt size.
Say what you want about the border but I live that issue everyday and have seen the effects of allowing illegal immigration being allowed over the last 30 years.
If you haven’t lived it and seen the effects some emotion based position may be attractive.

I've lived in Texas and in California. In BOTH places I've lived in areas heavily populated with undocumented immigrants, including currently. I also "live that issue" every day. Articulate to me why they are such a huge problem as to ignore the constitutional role of Congress having the power of the purse. I've never had a single issue with an "illegal immigrant". In fact I know some of them, remarkably, who have managed to acquire graduate degrees! They probably contribute to this country more than many native-born Americans. Put another way: I do have problems with California. I honestly cannot remember a time when any logical line of reasoning led me to illegal immigrants as causing them.

To me I simply go on what I see in reality and what ideas I believe have utility.
Allowing mass illegal immigration is a terrible policy.
Your position that it’s useless to resist makes no sense to me.
So it’s useless to maintain rule of law?
It’s useless to maintain order?
It’s useless to ensure adequate housing availability?
It’s useless?
How could anyone hang their hat on giving up?
Sorry can’t agree.

How does one ensure adequate housing availability aside from going full on state-run housing? That seems far closer to a liberal policy than a conservative one.

 

[Danoff]

The point is getting back to what people actually want. The point is limiting unnecessary bureaucracy, and reducing govt size.

Is he though?

Say what you want about the border but I live that issue everyday and have seen the effects of allowing illegal immigration being allowed over the last 30 years.

"Allowing". Too funny. Here's illegal immigration (sans wall).

If you haven’t lived it and seen the effects some emotion based position may be attractive.

You don't know who you're talking to.

Your position that it’s useless to resist makes no sense to me.

Who are you talking to?

So it’s useless to maintain rule of law?

What?

It’s useless to maintain order?

Uh.

It’s useless to ensure adequate housing availability?

Excuse me?

It’s useless?

Come again?

How could anyone hang their hat on giving up?
Sorry can’t agree.

Strawman much?

 

[Groundfish]

lol Nice.

 

[Danoff]

lol Nice.

lol facts

 

[Scaff]

Has he? He promised to try to stop illegal immigration and he’s worked to that end.
He disliked trade deals and he’s tried to get better deals. Whether he’s succeeded or not imo these are valuable examples of honesty with regard to what he promised.
Not everything he says is a lie.



I live in a state with a Democratic supermajority and feel the effects of their policies everyday. I literally have watched what happens in reality when those ideas are put to practice.
Hence I cannot support those ideas.



The point is getting back to what people actually want. The point is limiting unnecessary bureaucracy, and reducing govt size.
Say what you want about the border but I live that issue everyday and have seen the effects of allowing illegal immigration being allowed over the last 30 years.
If you haven’t lived it and seen the effects some emotion based position may be attractive.
To me I simply go on what I see in reality and what ideas I believe have utility.
Allowing mass illegal immigration is a terrible policy.
Your position that it’s useless to resist makes no sense to me.
So it’s useless to maintain rule of law?
It’s useless to maintain order?
It’s useless to ensure adequate housing availability?
It’s useless?
How could anyone hang their hat on giving up?
Sorry can’t agree.

Is that the same Trump who's businesses continue to employ large numbers of illegal immigrants?

He can't even stop it occurring in the businesses he runs, let alone the country.

Not do I believe he has any intention of doing so (as it was already dropping, and has been for a very long time), it was however a really good dog-whistle for his base.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The more I see otherwise intelligent people twist themselves into pretzels to defend their support of Donald Trump the more I realize one thing.

You cannot support Donald Trump, in good faith, on a logical basis:

#1 You can support him in bad faith on a logical basis, certainly: You can consciously appreciate that he trolls liberals and otherwise wages a relentless culture war against his supporters opponents, that's it. This is Ann Coulter and probably Steve Bannon.

#2 You can also support him in good faith, not with any sort of sturdy logical framework: You can appreciate that he embodies all manner of superficial attributes many on the American right aspire to: Playboy, rich, "successful", powerful, seemingly resolute in his positions. He talks like it is. "♫ I did it my way ♫". But dig any deeper and you'll find all manner of complexity and contradiction in what Donald Trump is...because he is actually just a con man. The refusal to accept that is what catches so many people out that want to be in category 2. He simply is not what he says he is.

 

[Groundfish]

ou wanted Donald Trump, a man most previously famous for swindling and reality TV to uphold the constitution? Why?!

Because he’s patriotic number one, number 2 he’s not a career crook politician. 3 he’s the least of all evils available. 4 he’s already rich enough so MAYBE harder to influence.
5 he’s old and would love to etch himself into history.
There’s 5 reasons why.
I’m saying it’s pretty sad a guy like him is who gets put in supposedly as the best but it is what it is.

e lived in Texas and in California. In BOTH places I've lived in areas heavily populated with undocumented immigrants, including currently. I also "live that issue" every day. Articulate to me why they are such a huge problem as to ignore the constitutional role of Congress having the power of the purse. I've never had a single issue with an "illegal immigrant". In fact I know some of them, remarkably, who have managed to acquire graduate degrees! They probably contribute to this country more than many native-born Americans. Put another way: I do have problems with California. I honestly cannot remember a time when any logical line of reasoning led me to illegal immigrants as causing them.

Ok, understand that you are not speaking with some backwoods redneck or someone who hasn’t worked side by side gone to school with parties with taken trips with has friends who married illegal and legal immigrants from more countries than Mexico.
You’re not telling me anything new here nor do I disagree really.
It’s a question of resources and having more competition for those resources in a sense cost and quality of life affected by that. How does it make any sense to advocate doing nothing about a persons country being overrun?
Seriously. Drugs crime guns etc etc etc are also part of the overall situation along with honest hardworking intelligent and moral immigrants.
We are off in the weeds here but one reason it’s been allowed is they are a fantastic source of labor to be exploited not to mention voting numbers.

How does one ensure adequate housing availability aside from going full on state-run housing? That seems far closer to a liberal policy than a conservative one

I’m not advocating that all I’m simply saying housing is a finite resource so it’s senseless to increase the pop without the infrastructure to support that, not as clear as I’d like to articulate that but that’s the viewpoint.
Govt shouldn’t be mandating housing numbers like they do under the current socialist regime in CA.
So I view the impeachment of the President sort of like an attempt at further advancing a socialist agenda that’s getting more prevalent.
I do not agree that people here know the facts and who is corrupt and who if anyone is honest. I disagree with @Danoff that we should just sit back and do nothing though and let things happen and go libertarian and every man for himself. No. Instead of doing nothing the Senate needs to ferret out the anti American unconstitutional and illegal actions of those involved in the sham impeachment.
If it goes through in a couple months and Pence is in there I will gladly eat my words but I don’t see that happening. My idealism is probably too great but I am an optimist at heart.
Thanks for your well reasoned response Eunos.
I’m glad it wasn’t inane badgering.

 

[Danoff]

Because he’s patriotic number one,

Systematically destroying the constitution and US political structure, undermining the power of the judicial and legislative branches. How much more patriotic can you get?

number 2 he’s not a career crook politician.

Just a career crook.

It’s a question of resources and having more competition for those resources in a sense cost and quality of life affected by that.

You know what's really helpful if you want to avoid outsourcing? Cheap labor.

Drugs crime guns etc etc etc are also part of the overall situation along with honest hardworking intelligent and moral immigrants.

Drug crimes... things which should not be illegal. Guns... things which the... republicans? are doing something about?

We are off in the weeds here but one reason it’s been allowed is they are a fantastic source of labor to be exploited not to mention voting numbers.

Yea... those illegal immigrant votes. That's a thing.

I disagree with @Danoff that we should just sit back and do nothing though and let things happen and go libertarian and every man for himself.

Yea no, didn't say that. Go find a quote of me saying that.

 

[Groundfish]

Yea no, didn't say that. Go find a quote of me saying that

You said it was a waste of money to spend it on securing the border.
That’s doing nothing. It costs money to do things.

 

[huskeR32]

Instead of doing nothing the Senate needs to ferret out the anti American unconstitutional and illegal actions of those involved in the sham impeachment.

What "illegal" actions have been taken? By whom? Please provide specifics.

EDIT:

You said it was a waste of money to spend it on securing the border.
That’s doing nothing. It costs money to do things.

You entirely missed his point. It's not a waste of money philosophically. It's a waste of money because data shows that illegal immigration had already decreased dramatically for 15 years before Trump was elected. He's throwing money at a problem that really isn't that much of a problem anymore, and he's throwing it at methods that have proven to be quite ineffective.

Perhaps pay more attention to what he's trying to communicate when he makes an effort to find data for his responses to you, rather than just posting "lol nice" and moving on without having given even a single brain cell a work out.

 

[Danoff]

You said it was a waste of money to spend it on securing the border.
That’s doing nothing. It costs money to do things.

I said it was a waste of money to build a wall. And it is. That's not the same thing as spending money to secure the border. A wall is just the most brain-dead way to do it.

 

[jjaisli]

He disliked trade deals and he’s tried to get better deals. Whether he’s succeeded or not imo these are valuable examples of honesty with regard to what he promised.
Not everything he says is a lie.
.

. Please, don’t even go there. Other than the ******** rhetoric he spews during his campaign rallies, he’s done far more harm than good. And there was never anything honest about them.

 

[Groundfish]

What "illegal" actions have been taken? By whom? Please provide specifics

According to Lindsey Graham lots of folks, however none of them have yet been convicted of crimes.
That’s why I said before I will wait and see.

You entirely missed his point. It's not a waste of money philosophically

We have laws. The laws need to be enforced. It requires money. Further the numbers are unknown and vary widely across all sources.
Further it makes no sense to say well we only allowed 50000 people to ignore all law last year so let’s do nothing since the year before the number was 100000.
Laws are laws.
I respect rule of law, unlike CA Dems.
If Dems don’t respect rule of law here why should they be expected to respect rule of law regarding surveillance when they are in Washington?
To me it’s ignore all law get Trump out to those people.

 

[huskeR32]

According to Lindsey Graham lots of folks, however none of them have yet been convicted of crimes.
That’s why I said before I will wait and see.

You're not waiting and seeing. You declared it so.

We have laws. The laws need to be enforced. It requires money. Further the numbers are unknown and vary widely across all sources.

Danoff provided some numbers above. Why don't you make a go at explaining why those numbers are "unknown." Or why they're incorrect, if you're not going to accept them as true.

Further it makes no sense to say well we only allowed 50000 people to ignore all law last year so let’s do nothing since the year before the number was 100000.

I agree. But we should also get rid of the fear-mongering from Trump and his ilk. Lie to people, dramatically, and they'll be too scared to notice that you're wasting their money. Show a more accurate picture, and maybe people will be able to slow down, have a conversation about the best way to proceed, and make some rational decisions. Trump's wall isn't where we'd be if people were taking the time to think things through.

Laws are laws.

They are.

I respect rule of law, unlike CA Dems.

You don't seem to have much respect for the law that says a president can be impeached.

If Dems don’t respect rule of law here why should they be expected to respect rule of law regarding surveillance when they are in Washington?

What?

To me it’s ignore all law get Trump out to those people.

Do you have similar objections to Republican behavior through the Obama presidency? They ignored the part where the president gets to select Supreme Court nominees, for but one example. Ignored their constitutional duty for over a year, and just threw a hissy instead. Are you as outraged about that as you are about impeachment?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Because he’s patriotic number one, number 2 he’s not a career crook politician. 3 he’s the least of all evils available. 4 he’s already rich enough so MAYBE harder to influence.
5 he’s old and would love to etch himself into history.
There’s 5 reasons why.
I’m saying it’s pretty sad a guy like him is who gets put in supposedly as the best but it is what it is.

1. Is he patriotic because he hugs the flag? What does patriotic mean to you? Does it mean serving your country? Donald Trump has lived his whole life exploiting the USA (well documented tax evasion, evading the draft) not serving it. Its well documented that he hires undocumented immigrants while simultaneously railing against them. I appreciate that you value patriotism, but do you really think Donald Trump is a patriot? Don't think about what he says, thinking about his entire life trajectory before he became serious about politics around 2012. Remember that he was a Democrat up to that point. I don't even care if you respond to me, just think about it.

2. Not all career politicians are crooks. And not all non-politicians are angels. I would argue that its much easier for people in the private sector, not subject to constant public review, to be below board. I do not think Donald Trump has lived his live honestly. There is far, far too much evidence to suggest that he has manipulated (proudly!) his financial reporting to benefit himself. To provide just one example: He has routinely underreported earnings to the IRS vs earning reported to creditors. This is proven and inarguable. This means he is enriching himself at the expense of the US treasury. This is not the actions of an honest person. Even avoiding all manner of other accusations, Donald Trump is a crook. I assume you are an honest and hard working American...you deserve better representation than him.

3. He is not the least of all evils because that sets an extraordinarily low bar considering #1 & #2. It's hard to say definitively that he is the worst of all evils, but c'mon...you know there are better people out there.

4. Donald Trump does not strike me as the type of person to not want to be richer than he already he. His actions with Saudi Arabia alone seem to indicate to me that his position is highly susceptible to foreign influence. Why is the president's personal Lawyer so involved over in Ukraine? Does that not seem suspicious to you? Why was he planning to have the G7 meet at his own personal property? Why has he been so secretive about his finances? Why did he not completely separate himself from his company? When there are so many examples of situation that could result in graft, it's probably not merely a coincidence. Put another way: Do you think it's impossible that Trump is financially benefiting from his position? On balance, I would think most reasonable people would say that its not only possible, but quite likely.

5. You're saying he's ambitious. Ambition is not a wholly positive attribute, please understand. I can think a lot of ambitious people throughout history, who also wanted to leave their mark, that did decidedly un-good things.

I think your 5 reasons are not critically sound.

 

[Groundfish]

Trump's wall isn't where we'd be if people were taking the time to think things through

Walls work, observe how many rich folks live behind them.
Heck even in Baja Mexico the resorts are walled in. Arguing against the effectiveness of walls is silly. Now whether or not they are the best solution is definitely open to debate. Definitely.
So, point taken.

You don't seem to have much respect for the law that says a president can be impeached

Sure I do if it’s bipartisan and there’s serious crimes as listed in the Constitution but that’s not the case here. Maybe I will end up wrong but I seriously doubt that when the entire Left side of the system said it was all gonna happen from Mueller.
Those were lies! It never happened. (What they said)
Now conveniently a whistleblower! Wait 2!
Oh wait the second was a lie...I see a pattern of lies.
I will eat crow if I’m wrong.

. I assume you are an honest and hard working American...you deserve better representation than him

I wholeheartedly agree.

but c'mon...you know there are better people out there

Yes many, but they aren’t politicians or running.

 

[Boston77]

I served in the US Army. I was present when the Berlin Wall came down. It was a magical time for not only both countries but for the world itself.
Walls don’t work.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Walls work, observe how many rich folks live behind them.
Heck even in Baja Mexico the resorts are walled in. Arguing against the effectiveness of walls is silly. Now whether or not they are the best solution is definitely open to debate. Definitely.
So, point taken.

It is open to debate. In fact there was a debate. The majority of Americans decided that it wasn't something that their money should be spent on. They elected a congress (2018) who would not spend money on the wall. Donald Trump overrode that decision, effectively stole the money from other pools that American citizens (via their elected representatives) had specified, and commenced building the wall anyways. That is not the correct way to execute policy. Don't insert a whataboutism response here. Its ineffective.

Sure I do if it’s bipartisan and there’s serious crimes as listed in the Constitution but that’s not the case here. Maybe I will end up wrong but I seriously doubt that when the entire Left side of the system said it was all gonna happen from Mueller.

Why does the right keep saying it needs to be bipartisan? Isn't that circular reasoning? "I don't favor impeachment because it isn't bipartisan because I don't favor impeachment because it isn't bipartisan because I don't favor impeachment because [halt and catch fire]" I mean it seriously when I say you couldn't write a computer program on that premise because it would result in a logic loop. The fact that it isn't bi-partisan just means that one party is ignoring the severity of the situation. Hint: It's not the democratic party.

Those were lies! It never happened. (What they said)
Now conveniently a whistleblower! Wait 2!
Oh wait the second was a lie...I see a pattern of lies.
I will eat crow if I’m wrong.

Say the whistleblower was demonstrably wrong. Say it.

I wholeheartedly agree.



Yes many, but they aren’t politicians or running.

So you agree that you deserve a better president but you are reflexively opposed to impeaching/removing him. I'll say this for everyone on the right: What's so wrong with Mike Pence that you will sell your integrity to ensure he doesn't become president?

 

[Danoff]

Donald Trump overrode that decision, effectively stole the money from other pools that American citizens (via their elected representatives) had specified, and commenced building the wall anyways.

Not just the money... he told employees to steal the land, against the law, and that he would pardon them. Apparently after that Trump said that it was fake. And then someone from the White House anonymously stated that it wasn't fake, but that it was a joke. In other words, it happened.

 

[huskeR32]

Walls work, observe how many rich folks live behind them.

Yes, that's a good comparison for a wall that's intended to hold back millions of people.

Heck even in Baja Mexico the resorts are walled in. Arguing against the effectiveness of walls is silly.

Nope, comparing beach resorts to entire nations is what's silly.

Now whether or not they are the best solution is definitely open to debate.

That debate has already been had, many times. That a large section of the populace has decided to ignore it (or been scared into ignoring it) doesn't undo that.

Sure I do if it’s bipartisan...

Remember during his campaign, when Trump would just throw words around while clearly not knowing what they really meant? He'd say something like "We have so many things that we have to do better, Lester and certainly cyber is one of them." and everyone watching would immediately know that Trump had no idea what "cyber" meant, or how to use it in a sentence?

That's what it sounds like to me every time someone says that impeachment "has to be bipartisan."

For starters, what does "bipartisan" even mean in this case? What is the standard they're failing to live up to?

That the vote to impeach must be unanimous? That's an odd interpretation of a law that says a simple majority of the House can impeach, and a 2/3rds majority of the Senate can convict.

That a majority of the minority party must vote in favor? Well, in that case, everything is gravy at the moment, right? We can't know until they've actually had a vote whether or not they violated "bipartisan."

I'm at a loss here. What does it mean? In what way must impeachment be "bipartisan?" How would we know whether it is or it isn't? Oh, and once you answer this, be sure to find me the law or amendment or whatever that says impeachment must be "bipartisan."

and there’s serious crimes as listed in the Constitution but that’s not the case here.

Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Justice aren't "serious" crimes? Okay, where exactly does that line lay? What crimes qualify as "serious?"

Maybe I will end up wrong but I seriously doubt that when the entire Left side of the system said it was all gonna happen from Mueller.

What? The crimes outlined in the Mueller Report weren't acted upon by Trump's own hand-picked AG, so therefore, other unrelated crimes obviously didn't happen? Seriously, what?

Those were lies! It never happened. (What they said)

You've lapsed into feverish ranting again. Slow down. What were lies? What never happened? Who said it never happened? What has that got to do with, well, anything at all?

Now conveniently a whistleblower! Wait 2!

Convenient for whom? Convenient how? How is a second whistleblower a bad thing? Isn't it generally good to have corroboration for something?

Oh wait the second was a lie...I see a pattern of lies.

The second what was a lie? The whistleblower was a lie? What does the even mean? They don't exist? They do exist, but they're lying? How do you know? What did they say? How was it proven to be a lie?

I will eat crow if I’m wrong.

I'd prefer you just go with "I'll change my mind if I'm wrong." I suspect Satan will get ice in his tea before that, though.

Oh, and by the way, I did notice that you utterly ignored more than half my last post when you responded to me. I'd still like a response, especially to this:

To me it’s ignore all law get Trump out to those people.

Do you have similar objections to Republican behavior through the Obama presidency? They ignored the part where the president gets to select Supreme Court nominees, for but one example. Ignored their constitutional duty for over a year, and just threw a hissy instead. Are you as outraged about that as you are about impeachment?

 

[Groundfish]

Say the whistleblower was demonstrably wrong. Say it

I don’t know him personally. I was not witness to the convo. There’s a transcript but is that doctored? I dunno. You’re right, none of us here really know all that much about it. I feel that’s kind of a cop out response by me but you’re right I couldn’t say that for a fact.

Why does the right keep saying it needs to be bipartisan? Isn't that circular reasoning

Personally I say it because of the votes needed according to the constitution.
In all likelihood members from both sides would have to agree...

Donald Trump overrode that decision, effectively stole the money from other pools that American citizens (via their elected representatives) had specified, and commenced building the wall anyways. That is not the correct way to execute policy

It is if it’s a national emergency. I dunno why he doesn’t just take the troops coming home from overseas or use other troops to guard the border. We are already paying for them. I would guess that might be way more economical...


I don’t know all the specifics. I am not a newshound or insider.
I’m just offering opinions in an opinion forum.
There’s a point though when the discussion gets away from my personal experiences and things I can claim as fact or have seen with my own eyes.
I’ve watched the effects of some issues personally.
It’s my opinion that the impeachment is a sham. I can really only point to anecdotal evidence/circumstance/past lies from the instigators to support that though, which I have done.
I really don’t have a lot more to offer on impeachment tbh.
We will see what happens.
You all know my stance so I’m sure if I am proved wrong later I will have to eat crow.

Cheers

Edit, I just saw your post there just above mine husker.
Gated communities fences around secure govt facilities prisons etc etc etc walls do work for security that’s unarguable
Anyways cheers also.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

@Groundfish

If I may, and don't think of this as being unfair, with hostility, or too presumptuous: In talking with you I gather most of your alleged support for Donald Trump (the 5 reasons you listed, which I don't even think you truly believe in) is a pretext so that you don't have to defend that you support him because he is waging retribution, on your behalf, on the liberals as a comeuppance for what you perceive was a long and unjust Barrack Obama presidency, or more generally, liberals' fast and loose relationship with the federal government. You like him because he is going scorched earth on them. If I'm wrong, then that's fine. If I'm right...isn't that...just kind of sad? I was far from Obama's biggest fan and I lived my first few years in San Francisco in a near-perpetual state of angst/distaste for liberal policy. But people are trying, mostly in good faith. I find it sad that there has been such a hostile reaction from the right to the left's flawed but mostly not ill-meaning policy goals. But I digress....

edit: I guess I should clarify that I experienced some people close to me break down and be consumed by the Barrack Obama presidency (thanks to incessant talk radio and Fox news mostly) to the point of actual physical and emotional distress. It's hard to say there was ever any legitimate reason for this, but the right wing pundits crafted a very powerful message and it worked on a lot of intelligent people. I can understand that people who experienced this distress would want to see their opponents pay...but I don't think it's worth it.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Walls work

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...e-easily-climb-us-mexico-border-fence-2019-12

 

[Groundfish]

@Eunos_Cosmo
Tbh I wasn’t negatively affected by President Obama very much. He didn’t really bother me.
It might sound very strange for me to say this but I’m not really a political guy!
Not in terms of activism or what have you.
Of course I vote and everything but most of the stuff I dislike is more of a nuisance to me. Not earth shattering lol.
I do agree people try hard and yes there’s many good folks in govt also.
But I don’t think putting Donald in was a retribution or anything imo it just happened even though people worked hard against it.
It is what it is imo

 

[Scaff]

It is if it’s a national emergency. I dunno why he doesn’t just take the troops coming home from overseas or use other troops to guard the border. We are already paying for them. I would guess that might be way more economical...

It's not a national emergency.

The numbers are dropping and have been since 2007
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

They commit less crime than native-born Americans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime#United_States

They pay taxes and don't use welfare etc. to such a degree they are a net contributor to the system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econo...ts_in_the_United_States#Cost-benefit_analysis

They don't vote (despite what Trump claims)
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/05/599868312/fact-check-trump-repeats-voter-fraud-claim-about-california

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

@Eunos_Cosmo
Tbh I wasn’t negatively affected by President Obama very much. He didn’t really bother me.
It might sound very strange for me to say this but I’m not really a political guy!
Not in terms of activism or what have you.
Of course I vote and everything but most of the stuff I dislike is more of a nuisance to me. Not earth shattering lol.
I do agree people try hard and yes there’s many good folks in govt also.
But I don’t think putting Donald in was a retribution or anything imo it just happened even though people worked hard against it.
It is what it is imo

I struggle to see why you are so anti-impeachment. In some posts you seem to indicate that you don't really care about politics...but you also seem to be adamantly and personally invested in Donald Trump's impeachment. Why? For me, I care a lot because I value the system (as in, our constitutional order) we have and I see Donald Trump as a threat to it, especially if he emerges from impeachment (and the underlying wrongdoing) unscathed.

 

[Groundfish]

I struggle to see why you are so anti-impeachment. In some posts you seem to indicate that you don't really care about politics...but you also seem to be adamantly and personally invested in Donald Trump's impeachment. Why? For me, I care a lot because I value the system (as in, our constitutional order) we have and I see Donald Trump as a threat to it, especially if he emerges from impeachment (and the underlying wrongdoing) unscathed.

I know right.
I think it’s because of my view of those doing it and what I said before about propoganda, but also imo it may just be that they know it will die in the Senate and knew that from the get go.
In that case it would be a waste of time and money.
However if you are correct and the President is the threat and it gets worse well than I was just wrong and idealistic I suppose.
I think I saw something in the China trade agreement regarding banking, that made me nervous because it was unclear.
I mean how messed up would that be if all this is a distraction to cover up a further sellout of America somehow?
That would suck.
Anyways, perhaps you are correct or maybe I am.
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I know right.
I think it’s because of my view of those doing it

Because of Nancy? C'mon, Nancy isn't that bad. She's not even that liberal.

and what I said before about propoganda, but also imo it may just be that they know it will die in the Senate and knew that from the get go.

That may be true. But wouldn't it be worse to not follow up on something, if there is corroborated evidence of wrongdoing? Again, it's congresses JOB to make sure the President does not defraud or otherwise imperil the nation.