- 5,051
- Netherlands
The Trump Impeachment Thread
- Thread starter Dotini
- 2,103 comments
- 87,242 views
Joey D
Premium
- 47,508
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
It won't matter, especially in the upcoming election. Pretty much every Republican who votes will vote for Trump simply because he's not a Democrat. And if Biden is the nominee, they really won't vote for him because he's Obama's VP. Utah is a prime example of thigs, the Mormon population here despises Trump because he stands for everything Mormons don't. However, he'll win the state again simply because he's Republican.
Independents are a little different, but if they're the least bit conservative, they'll probably vote for Trump.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
- 6,072
- Simcoeace
Of course, we understand that the popular vote doesn't count for much in the US presidential election ... however, I guess, theoretically at least, YOU are the kind of voter that matters. Do you take the threat of a second Trump term seriously enough to vote for a Democrat even where that does not represent your personal political position?
Of course, we understand that! However, it has to be said that there are many people who now DO fall into the "many people" camp.
I'm not sure that is a priority for the Democrats - perhaps it should be, but I think they are more concerned with short-term political considerations.
SestoScudo
(Banned)
- 3,000
- Australia
- Decepticon 47
Impeach this
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
No laughable bias detected here[/s].
So if Hillary had ignored the subpoena issued by House Republicans in 2015 to testify on Benghazi, your response would have been that it was the Republicans' fault for not enforcing it? I'm just going to be frank: bull:censored:. There's absolutely no way that would have been your reaction. You know it, and everybody here knows it.
EDIT:
That's your argument? Being so ignorant about your own damn job that you don't know when and how you've broken the law means that you're actually innocent?
This is insanity. Absolutely bat-🤬 crazy that this has become the mindset of 40% of our country.
Last edited:
Joey D
Premium
- 47,508
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Republicans will pretty much vote for Trump no matter what. Conservatives may or may not, but they will probably lean more towards Trump than his challenger from the Democrats. As for Bloomberg, I have no idea, but I don't think he'll get the nomination.
It depends on who the Democrat nominee is. If it's Biden then it's a resounding no because I think he's a creep and is rather Trumpy on his positions. If it's Warren or Sanders, then it's also a no because I really don't like either of their stances on how the country should be run. Anyone else and I'll need to actually read up on them because I don't know much about the other potential candidates.
I'll still probably vote third party though since I see that as important. In order for a third party to get campaign financing, they need X% of the vote (I'm not sure what it is off-hand). The only way for them to do this is to actually get people to vote for them. I see this as more or a long term solution since a third party (any third party really) needs to get thrown into the mix.
Congress seems like it'd be more important to flip parties. If Trump is president and Congress has a majority of Democrats, then nothing will get done for four years and I'm good with that. Also if, or rather when, Trump breaks the law again, they'll have the votes to oust him and we can get Lord Commander Pence to sit in the White House and do whatever is he does (hate on gay people I think).
I'm honestly don't know if anyone is up for reelection in Utah for Congress. However, it really doesn't matter if I vote because by default the winner will be a Mormon Republican. It's the main reason I don't even bother voting for the local stuff since the LDS Church pretty much determines the winner since Utah is a theocracy (it's pretty though and the jobs are plentiful).
- 30,000
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Joey D
Premium
- 47,508
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Yup, Harry Reid who was the Senate Democratic leader before Chuck Schumer is Mormon, although he is from Nevada.
The only stat I've ever seen though is something like 15% of all Mormons in the US identify as Democrats. The church itself pushes a strong belief in the Republican party since Republicans tend to be against same-sex marriage and abortion. Also, Mormons love guns, especially in Utah, because they're convinced the US government will go to war with them again.
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
Trump's lawyers started today. If you are pro-impeachment, you might want grab some tissues, or pour yourself a stiff drink.
The House Managers left a lot of stuff out. Like the fact that the Ukranians didn't even know there was a hold on the money. If Trump wanted his blackmailing to be successful, he should have told them he was holding back the funds. Worst quid pro quo ever!
The House Managers left a lot of stuff out. Like the fact that the Ukranians didn't even know there was a hold on the money. If Trump wanted his blackmailing to be successful, he should have told them he was holding back the funds. Worst quid pro quo ever!
Lain
Premium
- 7,090
- Pasadena, TX
- Yaywalter
Alternative fact, you mean.
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
If you will take the time to just watch a few minutes you will see the video testimonies from the house hearings were several of the witnesses say the Ukrainians did know about the hold on funds until September.
But I don't expect many of you leftists to watch at all. You have to protect your narrative bubble.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,732
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Are they going to let witness's testify to that...
.... not that it's new news, or that it changes intent.
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,732
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Plenty of people that they mentioned today haven't.
Add in that it's also a rather disputed 'fact' and it's not quite the slam dunk your were claiming.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/ukraine-aid-freeze-impeachment.html
Maybe this one would be interesting
Danoff
Premium
- 34,043
- Mile High City
You're not just talking to leftists. I know you like to pretend it's an us vs. them scenario here, but really it's just reality vs. fiction. If you're talking about the part of the video you linked until about 1:11:00, I watched it, listened to the key points (I think he lays out 6 of them), and they're pathetic.
I've got so many responses for that nonsense (which you won't listen to), but let's start out with this one: He admitted it on national television.
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
Ah man, I've heard about that tape, but haven't listened to it. I didn't know it was 90 minutes long. I am still listening the the video I posted. From what I gather though the meaty part is about firing the ambassador. There is nothing wrong with the president firing an ambassador.
So you watched enough to see the clips of the witnesses? If you didn't you didn't watch enough. BTW the reason I started the vid so late is because the first 50 minutes or so is just a picture of the capitol building.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,732
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Republicans should have no problem with him testifying then, I'm sure you would agree.
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
- 30,000
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
It's like he's angling for a cabinet appointment. You may recall, Bill Barr was appointed to AG because he wrote a memo criticizing the Special Counsel investigation.
Aaaaanywaaaaay...this is fun:
https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/in-recording-trump-asks-how-long-ukraine-can-resist-russians
But wait, there's more!
I suppose Parnas himself is pretty forgettable, the sweaty Russian weasel that he is, but I don't believe Trump forgot that praise. It surely gave him a stiffy.
The end is great too:
Lain
Premium
- 7,090
- Pasadena, TX
- Yaywalter
What was that you said about protecting a narrative bubble?
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
I don't think they need to call new witnesses. Watch Saturdays hearing that I posted. The witnesses that the Democrats called during the house hearings prove that Trump is innocent.
The Dems are cherry picking words to make Trump look guilty. Watch what I posted, Watch the hearings on Monday.
- 13,907
- Adelaide
- Neomone
But they don't, and there's wide ranging disagreement on this. More witnesses mean more likelihood that everybody, politicians or citizens, can make an informed decision on the facts and maybe even all get on the same page.
Both sides are cherry picking words to make their case. That's how trials are supposed to work. The idea is that if both the prosecution and defense are allowed to present all evidence and justification that they believe necessary to make the strongest case for their side possible, then rational, intelligent, independent and judicially minded observers can come to a reasonable conclusion as to the actual facts of the case and rule appropriately.
I don't get why anyone doesn't want the trial to be as thorough as possible. This isn't trying to knock your homework out on a Sunday night, this is one of the most important tests of a governmental system. Not only does the decision need to be right, but the public needs to see and believe that the system is fair and just. That means witnesses and evidence, not "trust me, I didn't do it". Regardless of outcome, if the public comes away from this feeling that the government even more corrupt than ever then everyone loses.
There's a case to be made that Trump isn't worthy of conviction, but at this stage Trump and his lawyers actually have to make that case. His actions, those there are evidence for and those that he's admitted to, are suspicious enough given his position that there is a requirement for him to explain in detail exactly how and why this was in the best service of the United States and not for personal gain. Why, exactly, are you covertly getting a foreign power to investigate your political opponents when you suspect them of wrongdoing instead of doing so openly using the many people the United States has employed for precisely that sort of task?
That's part of being a public servant; you may be required to justify your actions and if you appear to be acting in bad faith then that assumption will remain unless you can prove otherwise. That's how checks and balances work at a high level, or at least they're supposed to. We're not talking about personal freedom and a presumption of innocence here, we're talking about someone who is nominally acting on behalf of every citizen of the United States and they should rightly be able to question the motives and rationale behind his actions.
Trust me, you want this street to stay open as it very much runs both ways. Think about the precedents that you want in place when President Chelsea Clinton is accused of trying to make a private deal with Ji Xinping to sell her dirt on Candidate Ivanka Trump. Even if it's an open and shut case, you want a rigorous trial to establish that Chelsea is profoundly unfit for office and that despite political parties the system works to ensure that whoever is in high office is held accountable to act in the best interests of the nation.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,732
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
A trial without witnesses! That's a great idea, not.
They may well do, odd that they are refusing to do so.
Then why is Trump refusing to allow witnesses, if they prove he is innocent?
Perhaps his team don't agree with your view on that.
Both sides have, I've already pointed out one example of Trump's team doing so, around when the Ukraine knew.
Hence the reason why a trial shouldn't just be based around opening arguments, and that witnesses and all available evidence should be presented.
Once again, odd that Trump and his team are pushing against that, if they in fact prove him innocent.
Last edited:
- 11,290
- Sweden
- eran0004
Perhaps not, but it’s strange that the firing was preceded by a smear campaign and that it coincided with Giuliani’s mission to Ukraine. As such it’s circumstantial evidence and helps building the case against the president.
I'm neither a Democrat or Republican.
What I stand for is truth.
You cannot have a trial to determine innocence or guilt, if you are not willing to hear ALL of the evidence.
You can't have fair proceedings if the jurors have decided ahead of hearing any of the fact, that you are innocent.
This whole thing...(I understand)...has to be on record but it is a monumental waste of the American taxpayer's money.
The disgusting behavior seen here is not 'afforded' to any normal American.
I cannot simply ignore a subpoena to appear before a court.
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a sexual encounter.
It wasn't a Russian or North Korean operative he was sleeping with.
That'd certainly go to national security interest if he had.
Lying to 'save face' is one thing...and deserved punishment.
Extortion to have a political rival investigated for personal gain...if true, is so much worse.
It is inexcusable and should have the harshest of punishment if proven.
What I stand for is truth.
You cannot have a trial to determine innocence or guilt, if you are not willing to hear ALL of the evidence.
You can't have fair proceedings if the jurors have decided ahead of hearing any of the fact, that you are innocent.
This whole thing...(I understand)...has to be on record but it is a monumental waste of the American taxpayer's money.
The disgusting behavior seen here is not 'afforded' to any normal American.
I cannot simply ignore a subpoena to appear before a court.
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a sexual encounter.
It wasn't a Russian or North Korean operative he was sleeping with.
That'd certainly go to national security interest if he had.
Lying to 'save face' is one thing...and deserved punishment.
Extortion to have a political rival investigated for personal gain...if true, is so much worse.
It is inexcusable and should have the harshest of punishment if proven.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
First of all, not all antiTrumpers are Leftist. Secondly do you have any selfreflection? Do you see the irony at all in your statement?
Trump claimed:
- he didnt know Parnas
- yovanovitch was removed because she was a "bad"ambassader
- he did not withhold aid.
All amazing lies debunked by his own words:
edit:
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
This is not a trial to determine guilt or innocence. This is not a trial in which the evidence is heard.
The evidence was supposed to have been presented in the impeachment. The trial is supposed to decide upon removal from office. This whole thing has nothing whatever to do with law or justice. It is strictly a unique constitutional political process.
