The Trump Impeachment Thread

[eran0004]

Are we taking advice from fictional Nazi quote memes now?

 

[TexRex]

It is to keep the impeachment on focus. That is what I meant with irrelevant.

It's not really irrelevant in that context either, then. By making the differences abundantly clear, the basis for impeachment also becomes clear.

I think you should just take the correction. It wasn't tendered to correct you, per se, rather to simply provide the correct information, and yet you feel compelled, as you so very often do, to reframe your remarks so that they don't need to be corrected. It wasn't "No! WRONG!"; it was just information. Take it and move on.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's not really irrelevant in that context either, then. By making the differences abundantly clear, the basis for impeachment also becomes clear.

I think you should just take the correction. It wasn't tendered to correct you, per se, rather to simply provide the correct information, and yet you feel compelled, as you so very often do, to reframe your remarks so that they don't need to be corrected. It wasn't "No! WRONG!"; it was just information. Take it and move on.

I appreciate the correction and really understand why you made the comment and I am not defending myself or even feel attacked./criticised. I am not very good with writing. I just want to clarify what I meant (in my mind), perhaps this is more accurate: "Irrelevant to the articles of impeachment that congress voted on." All the other alleged crimes are not relevant anymore to the impeachment process.

I personally would have added bribery to the articles of impeachment, because it is more explicitly described in the constitution.

edit: added comma

 

[TexRex]

I personally would have added bribery to the articles of impeachment, because it is more explicitly described in the constitution.

I mean...

Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bribery

Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty.

 

[UKMikey]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50886437

 

[Sander 001]

Are we taking advice from fictional Nazi quote memes now?

Fictional? Did you mean to say paraphrased?

 

[VolkswagenX]

 

[TexRex]

Can either of you provide a source that indicates either of these men said these respective words in the order indicated above, and does so not in a "the [insert political compass position here] follows this mantra" context?

No? I see...

Then I'll defer to my buddy Abe, who literally has the word "honest" in his name, and so you can treat these words as gospel.

 

[Biggles]

View attachment 875748

As TexRex pointed out, there is no evidence that Marx ever said this, although right wing websites like to quote it (actually they often attribute it to Lenin). It's another example of "a lot of people are saying" - which substitutes for fact in Trump world.

 

[TexRex]

As TexRex pointed out, there is no evidence that Marx ever said this, although right wing websites like to quote it (actually they often attribute it to Lenin).

He also questioned the supposed Goebbels quote which is surely appealing to left-wing critics of the right.

 

[Biggles]

He also questioned the supposed Goebbels quote which is surely appealing to left-wing critics of the right.

So ... nobody said it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

View attachment 875748

The cleverest trick used in propaganda against Germany during the war was to accuse Germany of what our enemies themselves were doing. Even today, large parts of world opinion are convinced that the typical characteristics of German propaganda are lying, crudeness, reversing the facts, and the like.

That's probably where the mashed-up pseudo-quote came from, a Goebbels speech of 1934.

 

[eran0004]

Fictional? Did you mean to say paraphrased?

1. It’s presented as a quote - not a paraphrase.

2. There is no source.

3. If the source is the one @TenEightyOne mentions, the meaning has changed from an accusation made towards Germany’s enemies as part of Nazi propaganda, to what’s arguably an admission of guilt. A paraphrase, although expressed in other words, must be true to the original meaning.

Hence it’s fiction.

But if it was a legitimate paraphrase, why are we taking advice from Nazi propaganda?

 

[Scaff]

1. It’s presented as a quote - not a paraphrase.

2. There is no source.

3. If the source is the one @TenEightyOne mentions, the meaning has changed from an accusation made towards Germany’s enemies as part of Nazi propaganda, to what’s arguably an admission of guilt. A paraphrase, although expressed in other words, must be true to the original meaning.

Hence it’s fiction.

But if it was a legitimate paraphrase, why are we taking advice from Nazi propaganda?

You appear to be taking Goebbels at his word, and not taking into account hindsight.

It the speach in question Goebbels is doing exactly what he is said to be directly saying in the paraphrased quote.

The only alternative is that Naxi propaganda was actually 100% honest and accurate.

So the question is less did he say those exact words, but more did he act in accordance to those exact words, which he certainly did and with hindsight admitted as much in his speach.

 

[UKMikey]

But if it was a legitimate paraphrase, why are we taking advice from Nazi propaganda?

Erroneous though it was, was it actually being presented here as advice or behaviour that people should emulate?

 

[baldgye]

I'm looking forward to British politics becoming so equally interesting

 

[Sander 001]

why are we taking advice from Nazi propaganda?

That's a question I've been asking some people for years.

 

[eran0004]

Erroneous though it was, was it actually being presented as advice?

In what other capacity was it presented?

You appear to be taking Goebbels at his word, and not taking into account hindsight.

It the speach in question Goebbels is doing exactly what he is said to be directly saying in the paraphrased quote.

The only alternative is that Naxi propaganda was actually 100% honest and accurate.

So the question is less did he say those exact words, but more did he act in accordance to those exact words, which he certainly did and with hindsight admitted as much in his speach.

That doesn’t make it a legitimate quote (or paraphrase). Just because a person did something doesn’t mean you can claim that they said whatever you want them to have said.

 

[VolkswagenX]

Can either of you provide a source that indicates either of these men said these respective words in the order indicated above, and does so not in a "the [insert political compass position here] follows this mantra" context?

No? I see...

Then I'll defer to my buddy Abe, who literally has the word "honest" in his name, and so you can treat these words as gospel.

View attachment 875772

I Google the words accuse and enemy, looked for a picture and then post here without doing any research or providing any context. Took me less then a minute.

 

[ryzno]

I'm looking forward to British politics becoming so equally interesting

They are, trust me!

 

[Scaff]

That doesn’t make it a legitimate quote (or paraphrase). Just because a person did something doesn’t mean you can claim that they said whatever you want them to have said.

I'm not.

 

[UKMikey]

In what other capacity was it presented?

It looked to me that he posted it as an example of what the other side are doing rather than presenting it as an advisable course of action. Godwinism, if you will.

 

[PocketZeven]

As TexRex pointed out, there is no evidence that Marx ever said this, although right wing websites like to quote it (actually they often attribute it to Lenin). It's another example of "a lot of people are saying" - which substitutes for fact in Trump world.

During 2016 I was also annoyed how this meme was wrongfully quoted and spread on social media. At the time, allthough I didnt like Trump, but I found many lines were being crossed. I think that is one of the origins of "fake news", even though I dont remember this being used on traditional media.

That said day 1 when he started lying that it didnt rain on his inaugeration and it was the biggest crowd ever, he lost all the benefit of doubt I had reserved.

 

[Rallywagon]

During 2016 I was also annoyed how this meme was wrongfully quoted and spread on social media. At the time, allthough I didnt like Trump, but I found many lines were being crossed. I think that is one of the origins of "fake news", even though I dont remember this being used on traditional media.

That said day 1 when he started lying that it didnt rain on his inaugeration and it was the biggest crowd ever, he lost all the benefit of doubt I had reserved.

Did you use that fake quote ironically or....

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think that is one of the origins of "fake news",

Not even close.

 

[Joey D]

Yup, fake news has been around since there's been news. In a modern sense, I think you could probably point to yellow journalism that was popular around the 1890's and if I remember history correctly, it was the cause of the Spanish American War.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Moderate GOP senator 'disturbed' by McConnell's coordination with White House

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/25/politics/lisa-murkowski-senate-impeachment-trial/index.html

 

[Biggles]

Yup, fake news has been around since there's been news. In a modern sense, I think you could probably point to yellow journalism that was popular around the 1890's and if I remember history correctly, it was the cause of the Spanish American War.

I think what's new is the fragmentation & polarization of the "news". Until the internet & social media most people - "normal people" - got their information from the "mainstream media". Even if it tilted a little more left or right, the various mainstream media outlets presented a mainstream point of view. There were more extreme viewpoints out there, but they weren't followed by all that many people. That has all changed in the last 20 years.

The mainstream media may have had a "leftist" slant to the extent that the majority of journalists were educated people who shared a set of basic cultural values - values that were somewhat different from many people in the "fly-over" areas of the US. With the arrival of Fox News, those people & their cultural values found expression in a mainstream news organization. Fox News was joined by a myriad of other online, often more extreme, right wing media outlets. So here we are today ... more & more people increasingly see/read/hear ONLY information that comes from a news source that is highly politically & culturally slanted. This is reinforced by online algorithms that proscribe what information people are exposed to. There is no longer any sense of a shared perspective on "news".

 

[Joey D]

I think what's new is the fragmentation & polarization of the "news". Until the internet & social media most people - "normal people" - got their information from the "mainstream media". Even if it tilted a little more left or right, the various mainstream media outlets presented a mainstream point of view. There were more extreme viewpoints out there, but they weren't followed by all that many people. That has all changed in the last 20 years.

The mainstream media may have had a "leftist" slant to the extent that the majority of journalists were educated people who shared a set of basic cultural values - values that were somewhat different from many people in the "fly-over" areas of the US. With the arrival of Fox News, those people & their cultural values found expression in a mainstream news organization. Fox News was joined by a myriad of other online, often more extreme, right wing media outlets. So here we are today ... more & more people increasingly see/read/hear ONLY information that comes from a news source that is highly politically & culturally slanted. This is reinforced by online algorithms that proscribe what information people are exposed to. There is no longer any sense of a shared perspective on "news".

It's hard to say. I know muckrakers back in the early 1900s were famous for dividing people. Even Roosevelt attacked them in the same vein as Trump, although unlike Trump he wasn't a raving lunatic and could form a sentence. I'm sure there was a similar division during the Civil Rights movement in certain areas of the country and during the Vietnam War.

I think nowadays, it's just easier to spread it since nearly everyone has access to some sort of Internet-enabled device and no longer need to rely on printed news. Social media just seems to have amplified it since now any idiot can say whatever they want, whenever they want, without a shred of evidence and have people eat it up. Trump is unique in that he's leveraged social media in a way Bush or Obama didn't (and to some degree, couldn't). It'll be interesting to see how the next president deals with social media. If they're smart, they'll stay off of it for the most part.

 

[Biggles]

It's hard to say. I know muckrakers back in the early 1900s were famous for dividing people. Even Roosevelt attacked them in the same vein as Trump, although unlike Trump he wasn't a raving lunatic and could form a sentence. I'm sure there was a similar division during the Civil Rights movement in certain areas of the country and during the Vietnam War.

I think nowadays, it's just easier to spread it since nearly everyone has access to some sort of Internet-enabled device and no longer need to rely on printed news. Social media just seems to have amplified it since now any idiot can say whatever they want, whenever they want, without a shred of evidence and have people eat it up. Trump is unique in that he's leveraged social media in a way Bush or Obama didn't (and to some degree, couldn't). It'll be interesting to see how the next president deals with social media. If they're smart, they'll stay off of it for the most part.

There certainly were sharp & bitter divisions in the '60's & '70's, but the news media was not polarized the way it is now. Walter Cronkite was often referred to as "the most trusted man in America". It's impossible to imagine any person in the news being considered that way now. Cronkite had views which nowadays would be considered "leftist" & "elitist" by the right wing media. For example:

"It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order. But the American colonies did it once and brought forth one of the most nearly perfect unions the world has ever seen."

And:

"Even as with the American rejection of the League of Nations, our failure to live up to our obligations to the United Nations is led by a handful of willful senators who choose to pursue their narrow, selfish political objectives at the cost of our nation's conscience. They pander to and are supported by the Christian Coalition and the rest of the religious right wing. Their leader, Pat Robertson, has written that we should have a world government but only when the messiah arrives. Any attempt to achieve world order before that time must be the work of the Devil! Well join me... I'm glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan."

The United States has not moved to the left since those days - in embracing Trump it has moved to a regressive, right wing & nationalist concept of what America should be.