Impeachment

[vector2]

---

Members do not see this ad.

For most it's just a political calculation. They know if he's removed from office Sanders or Biden or Warren will be the next president. They'd rather have Trump with all his baggage than any of them. They don't really believe that any of the illegal actions he's been accused of (whether proven, unproven, or unknown) are actually a greater threat than the things the Democratic candidates intend to do.

For all the talk of personality cults it really is about judge appointments, the economy, immigration, abortion, guns, foreign policy, healthcare.

You also can't just dismiss the simple base pleasure some take, after a lifetime of disgust with politicians in general, a lifetime of derision and contempt for flyover rubes by the coastal enlightened, to see their president keep on ****posting about his opponents on Twitter during his impeachment trial. A large portion of the GOP base just don't care what the left thinks about anything any more, beyond opposing their plans. I'm not saying that kind of bitter schadenfreude is right, but I understand.

Look at Sen McConnell. He's arguably the person who's defending the president the most right now, using his Senate majority in what he openly states is not an impartial manner. Do you think he's deluded? That he doesn't see the president and his actions with clarity? There's nothing wrong with his brain or the brains of Trump's supporters.

There's a vocal minority that wear the t shirts at rallies but most simply prefer him, flaws included, to the alternative.

We talked about this a little earlier in the thread, and while I dont disagree that judges, guns, abortion, immigration etc are also driving factors, you simply can't have crazy primary races like the one in 2015-2016 (where actually qualified conservatives got stomped) or polls like the one I posted earlier in the thread where like 70-80% of Republicans found him honest, well-informed, and say keeps his promises...unless personality cult, extreme personal approval (+schadenfreude as you point out) are the main driving factors. The quote about shooting someone on 5th ave becomes less and less hyperbolic day by day. For instance:

These are not one off responses. Poll after poll, interview after interview, and it ranges from the redhat on the street who hasn't "read the transcript" all the way to Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes.

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what Mitch thinks in his heart of hearts. He might genuinely be in that 60-70% of GOP respondents in that poll who think trump definitely/probably hasn't committed a crime. And even if he's not, he'd be too craven, cynical, and shameless to admit as much to a pollster, reporter, or anyone else.

e:


pgg, what are we supposed to when US Senators talk like this about wounded in Iraq, purple heart awarded public servants? Does this person "know" deep-down trump is guilty of a crime like you think Mitch does? Is she part of the personality cult (yes, imo)? How could you ever tell the difference...

 

[Mikkel]

We talked about this a little earlier in the thread, and while I dont disagree that judges, guns, abortion, immigration etc are also driving factors, you simply can't have crazy primary races like the one in 2015-2016 (where actually qualified conservatives got stomped) or polls like the one I posted earlier in the thread where like 70-80% of Republicans found him honest, well-informed, and say keeps his promises...unless personality cult, extreme personal approval (+schadenfreude as you point out) are the main driving factors. For instance:

View attachment 293616

These are not one off responses. Poll after poll, interview after interview, and it ranges from the redhat on the street who hasn't "read the transcript" all the way to Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes.

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what Mitch thinks in his heart of hearts. He might genuinely be in that 60-70% of GOP respondents in that poll who think trump definitely/probably hasn't committed a crime. And even if he's not, he'd be too craven, cynical, and shameless to admit as much to a pollster, reporter, or anyone else.

Bill Clinton committed actual crime, yet he was not removed from office.

 

[vector2]

As I said to matty (and I guess now to anyone who doesn't understand the difference between a speeding ticket and a capital crime), "I'm definitely not about to once again get sucked into your lunatic trollbaiting. You can enjoy your false equivalency between [lying about a blowjob] vs [illegally withholding 400 million dollars of congressionally appropriated funds in the attempt to coerce a foreign head of state into investigating your political rival / obstructing an investigation of said thing] all on your own."

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

As I said to matty (and I guess now to anyone who doesn't understand the difference between a speeding ticket and a capital crime), "I'm definitely not about to once again get sucked into your lunatic trollbaiting. You can enjoy your false equivalency between [lying about a blowjob] vs [illegally withholding 400 million dollars of congressionally appropriated funds in the attempt to coerce a foreign head of state into investigating your political rival / obstructing an investigation of said thing] all on your own."

Federal perjury is a felony, so that speeding ticket analogy is also false equivalency, FYI.

This should not be construed as a defense of Trump in any way, but a President commiting perjury should be extremely concerning to everyone.

 

[vector2]

Federal perjury is a felony, so that speeding ticket analogy is also false equivalency, FYI.

This should not be construed as a defense of Trump in any way, but a President commiting perjury should be extremely concerning to everyone.

You're taking the analogy a little too literally since obviously perjury isn't a traffic violation. Lying under oath is serious, probably serious enough for a censure of some sort. The point being that there needs to be some context vis a vis consequences for perjury about a consensual blowjob vs the gross abuse of power and violations against the constitution that trump has committed. And that's before even talking about Mueller or the fact that trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot for which Michael Cohen is currently in jail.

 

[Mikkel]

As I said to matty (and I guess now to anyone who doesn't understand the difference between a speeding ticket and a capital crime), "I'm definitely not about to once again get sucked into your lunatic trollbaiting. You can enjoy your false equivalency between [lying about a blowjob] vs [illegally withholding 400 million dollars of congressionally appropriated funds in the attempt to coerce a foreign head of state into investigating your political rival / obstructing an investigation of said thing] all on your own."

1) Aid was ultimately not withheld

2) No quid pro quo actually occurred

3) Presidents have discretion on how funds are paid out, as presidents have done since the 1970s

4) The OMB did not make a report to Congress, which violated the law, but it is not a criminal offense

5) Trump had probable cause to suspect Joe and Hunter Biden were engaged in illegal activity in Ukraine that warranted Ukraine to investigate.

6) The Executive Branch has separation of powers and can refuse Congressional subpoena, but must comply if the Supreme Court rules that the Executive Branch must comply.



These are the facts.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

You're taking the analogy a little too literally since obviously perjury isn't a traffic violation. Lying under oath is serious, probably serious enough for a censure of some sort. The point being that there needs to be some context vis a vis consequences for perjury about a consensual blowjob vs the gross abuse of power and violations against the constitution that trump has committed. And that's before even talking about Mueller or the fact that trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot for which Michael Cohen is currently in jail.

Once again, my post had nothing to do with Trump. I thought I made that clear.

And I don't care if a sitting President lies about where he went for supper last night - a) you shouldn't lie under oath no matter who you are and b) you definitely shouldn't if you're the freaking President. Context absolutely doesn't matter, if you lie under oath you've lied under oath, period.

 

[Matty44]

Vec, you love to play all conservatives up as lunatics, caught up in supporting some kind of presidential cult leader or something. When in reality, the only one with a derangement here is you. Level-headed people like PGG have a perfect understanding of why people support Trump, despite his political disagreements. Yet you seem to struggle so much to look at things rationally, and instead accuse us all of trolling, being disingenuous, flat out lying, and then you just insult everyone personally and demean them in order to try and bully them into submission or something. We all see it for what it truly is; a big political game full of corrupt actors....on both sides. We greatly prefer our flawed President to your flawed politicians. Its that simple really.

 

[FiremedicMike]

If that’s true then I will not vote for her for president, Nor will I vote for anyone else that supports our greatest foreign adversary interfering with our democratic elections, regardless of how I feel about their other policies.

even if it turns out that Nancy Pelosi calling for Russian interference in our elections on Facebook is just bat-$hit crazy conspiracy theory nonsense, I would still agree not to vote for her for anything.

C'mon, you're smarter than that. Every politician since the beginning of civilization has used every backdoor connection they have to interfere with every election, ever.

 

[Matty44]

C'mon, you're smarter than that. Every politician since the beginning of civilization has used every backdoor connection they have to interfere with every election, ever.

Quite right.

And as I’ve mentioned previously in the other thread, we are all missing the forest for the trees here. Everyone is caught up in foreign election interference, when the MUCH larger threat to our democratic elections is the influence of big tech. Many multiples the amount of influence is being done by Facebook, YouTube, google, etc than is done by a few Russian imposters or by Trump trying to expose Bidens dirty deeds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Wait quick question: what would have happened if Nixon hadn't resigned?

Pretty sure Nixon would have been impeached by the house. Nearly half of Republicans on committees voted for articles of impeachment. So lots of bipartisan support. Unlike the totally partisan fiasco we have today. Senators met with Nixon and said there was a good possibility he would be removed by the senate. Nixon resigned about 2 weeks after articles came out of committee. I cant remember if the whole House of Reps voted on the articles before he resigned.

 

[vector2]

Once again, my post had nothing to do with Trump. I thought I made that clear.

And I don't care if a sitting President lies about where he went for supper last night - a) you shouldn't lie under oath no matter who you are and b) you definitely shouldn't if you're the freaking President. Context absolutely doesn't matter, if you lie under oath you've lied under oath, period.

Yes...Clinton lied under oath and shouldn't have...and....

The point of contention is what to do about perjury, and whether the subject of the perjury matters, right? Context does matter when it comes to the consequences since apparently the DOJ memo where you can't indict a sitting president has somehow become a de facto rule. And since impeachment is an inherently political process based on 200+ yo language, we all have to make an informed decision based on scholarly legal advice of whether lying about a blowjob is what the founders had in mind when they penned the words treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Yes...Clinton lied under oath and shouldn't have...and....

The point of contention is what to do about perjury, and whether the subject of the perjury matters, right? Context does matter when it comes to the consequences since apparently the DOJ memo where you can't indict a sitting president has somehow become a de facto rule. And since impeachment is an inherently political process based on 200+ yo language, we all have to make an informed decision based on scholarly legal advice of whether lying about a blowjob is what the founders had in mind when they penned the words treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.

I think we can all agree that the Constitution would be way better if it talked more about "ye olde blowjobs"

 

[Angus Avagadro]

So.......anyone have a chance to try Giapreza? Apparently it comes with a money back guarantee.

No. Looks interesting. Finally, something that might replace Norepi. Any idea on the cost?

 

[vector2]

1) Aid was ultimately not withheld

Aid was released after ICIG received the whistleblower report and the WH became aware of a congressional investigation. Getting caught is not absolution.

2) No quid pro quo actually occurred

Yes it did. Bolton called it a drug-deal and a million-dollar donor to Trump agrees.

3) Presidents have discretion on how funds are paid out, as presidents have done since the 1970s

4) The OMB did not make a report to Congress, which violated the law, but it is not a criminal offense

They dont have the authority to do it without going through the proper channels, which is exactly why the GAO says they broke the law by violating the Impoundment Control Act.

,
5) Trump had probable cause to suspect Joe and Hunter Biden were engaged in illegal activity in Ukraine that warranted Ukraine to investigate.

This is a Russian propaganda line which has been debunked over and over. And even if were true in whatever fantasy world you have created, investigations are started by the DOJ, not by a dirty private call extorting a foreign leader to announce an investigation.

6) The Executive Branch has separation of powers and can refuse Congressional subpoena, but must comply if the Supreme Court rules that the Executive Branch must comply.

That's a good argument for when the crime doesn't involve cheating in an upcoming election when one knows the court case won't be decided before the election.

These are the facts.

LOL, you need medication.

 

[Leon'sMom]

One could argue that BC's blowjob did hurt at least one person. ML's life was forever changed for the worse--partly because of her own actions and partly because the Clintons actively sought to destroy her. They obliterated that young woman in the press and lied about some Right Wing Conspiracy Theory. (You know they're desperate when they start throwing that phrase out there, and I heard it several times from the D's during the impeachment hearings so far.)

One could argue that a 8 week pause on Ukraine's aid money hurt NO ONE.

So, objectively, which scenario actually did more harm? IMO, the "consensual blowjob" between the 49-year old President and a 22-year old intern.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

For most it's just a political calculation. They know if he's removed from office Sanders or Biden or Warren will be the next president. They'd rather have Trump with all his baggage than any of them. They don't really believe that any of the illegal actions he's been accused of (whether proven, unproven, or unknown) are actually a greater threat than the things the Democratic candidates intend to do.

For all the talk of personality cults it really is about judge appointments, the economy, immigration, abortion, guns, foreign policy, healthcare.

You also can't just dismiss the simple base pleasure some take, after a lifetime of disgust with politicians in general, a lifetime of derision and contempt for flyover rubes by the coastal enlightened, to see their president keep on ****posting about his opponents on Twitter during his impeachment trial. A large portion of the GOP base just don't care what the left thinks about anything any more, beyond opposing their plans. I'm not saying that kind of bitter schadenfreude is right, but I understand.

Look at Sen McConnell. He's arguably the person who's defending the president the most right now, using his Senate majority in what he openly states is not an impartial manner. Do you think he's deluded? That he doesn't see the president and his actions with clarity? There's nothing wrong with his brain or the brains of Trump's supporters.

There's a vocal minority that wear the t shirts at rallies but most simply prefer him, flaws included, to the alternative.

I thinkyou are spot on. MANY voters are single issue voters. I am one, so is my wife. It why conservative Christian's are with Pres Trump, despite his many flaws, as they are solidly Pro Life. I'm not sure if anyone has ever polled this question of single issue voters. I agree Trumps base stays with him as the far left Ds dont offer a viable alternative to several voting blocks.

 

[GaseousClay]

vector believes in facts but claims quid-pro-quo is proven true based on 2 disgruntled people's opinions. so why are they not in the articles of impeachment?

 

[Mikkel]

Aid was released

Ok, we agree.

They dont have the authority to do it without going through the proper channels, which is exactly why the GAO says they broke the law by violating the Impoundment Control Act.

They do have the authority, the OMB just didn't discuss it as laid out in the law. It's still not a criminal offense. And it still only involves the OMB.

And even if were true

in whatever fantasy world you have created, investigations are started by the DOJ, not by a private call extorting a foreign leader to announce an investigation.

The US DOJ has no jurisdiction in foreign countries. Are you clueless? Do you honestly think the FBI is just going to fly a bunch of agents into Kiev and start arresting people?! That's insane.


BTW, there was no extortion. If there was, don't you think the House would impeach for it?

That's a good argument for when the crime doesn't involve cheating in an upcoming election when one knows the court case won't be decided before the election.

Yet Pelosi held up the transfer of articles to the Senate for a full month. Not so urgent after all.

 

[Matty44]

This is a Russian propaganda line which has been debunked over and over.

Russian propaganda?!?!?!

Lol.


How on earth do you consider the idea that Biden did something shady (which is obvious to everyone) Russian propaganda????

Ur funny.

And no, it has not been debunked by anyone.

Proof?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[vector2]

vector believes in facts but claims quid-pro-quo is proven true based on what 2 disgruntled people's opinions. so why are they not in the articles of impeachment?

Mulvaney admitted it on national TV.

 

[GaseousClay]

Mulvaney admitted it on national TV.

So whyaretheynotin the articles of impeachment! i couldn't finish this clapping thing as I started to annoy the s*** out of myself.

 

[GaseousClay]

heres a nice copy+paste RE Mulvaney

Mulvaney: "Once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump. Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainan military aid and any investigation in the 2016 election. The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the server. The only reasons we were holding the money was because or concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption. Multiple times during the more-than 30 minute briefing where I took over 25 questions, I referred to President Trump’s interest in rooting out corruption in Ukraine, and ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly and appropriately. There was never any connection between the funds and the Ukrainians doing anything with the server –– this was made explicitly obvious by the fact that the aid money was delivered with any action on the part of the Ukrainians regarding the server.

"There never was any condition on the flow of the aid related to the matter of the DNC server."

**So you can believe him here or believe his statement from before but none are facts, thus not in the articles**

 

[vector2]

Ok, we agree.

Yep. Agree they got caught in the middle of a crime and then released the aid.

They do have the authority, the OMB just didn't discuss it as laid out in the law. It's still not a criminal offense. And it still only involves the OMB.

That's a crime. Perpetrated by head of OMB Mulvaney who was ordered to do so by Trump. As all the witnesses have said, everyone was in on it. Giuliani's letter to Z also confirms everything came from trump.

The US DOJ has no jurisdiction in foreign countries. Are you clueless? Do you honestly think the FBI is just going to fly a bunch of agents into Kiev and start arresting people?! That's insane.

I know you're totally delusional but to those who do care, overseas corruption investigations are still instigated by the DOJ and US agencies. Law enforcement here then coordinates with foreign law enforcement and and diplomatic channels if they need assistance.

BTW, there was no extortion. If there was, don't you think the House would impeach for it?

That's part of the abuse of power

Yet Pelosi held up the transfer of articles to the Senate for a full month. Not so urgent after all.

In the intervening month, more damning data from Giuliani came out, Parnas gave everyone up, GAO found they broke the law, we found out that nutjob R from Connecticut was surveilling Yovanovitch, DoD admitted they were speechless OMB was holding up the money, and Bolton said he'd be willing to testify.

Not like it needed it, but the intervening month made the case that much stronger. Unfortunately your heads are buried so deep in the sand that you're seeing China. You don't want witnesses and you dont want documents because you know the whole corrupt lot of them are guilty.

 

[vector2]

heres a nice copy+paste RE Mulvaney

Mulvaney: "Once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump. Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainan military aid and any investigation in the 2016 election. The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the server. The only reasons we were holding the money was because or concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption. Multiple times during the more-than 30 minute briefing where I took over 25 questions, I referred to President Trump’s interest in rooting out corruption in Ukraine, and ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly and appropriately. There was never any connection between the funds and the Ukrainians doing anything with the server –– this was made explicitly obvious by the fact that the aid money was delivered with any action on the part of the Ukrainians regarding the server.

"There never was any condition on the flow of the aid related to the matter of the DNC server."

**So you can believe him here or believe his statement from before but none are facts, thus not in the articles**

Cool after the fact walk back. I'll take the first statement on TV (which was part of the house manager case currently being presented as evidence) where he was actually candid and told everyone to "get over it" wrt to their illegal behavior.

 

[GaseousClay]

Yep. Agree they got caught in the middle of a crime and then released the aid.



That's a crime. Perpetrated by head of OMB Mulvaney who was ordered to do so by Trump. As all the witnesses have said, everyone was in on it. Giuliani's letter to Z also confirms everything came from trump.



I know you're totally delusional but to those who do care, overseas corruption investigations are still instigated by the DOJ and US agencies. Law enforcement here then coordinates with foreign law enforcement and and diplomatic channels if they need assistance.



That's part of the abuse of power



In the intervening month, more damning data from Giuliani came out, Parnas gave everyone up, GAO found they broke the law, we found out that nutjob R from Connecticut was surveilling Yovanovitch, DoD admitted they were speechless OMB was holding up the money, and Bolton said he'd be willing to testify.

Not like it needed it, but the intervening month made the case that much stronger. Unfortunately your heads are buried so deep in the sand that you're seeing China. You don't want witnesses and you dont want documents because you know the whole corrupt lot of them are guilty.

you know the court can make them testify right? but because this is a SHAM they won't go through the courts because this is all about their weak candidates losing in 2020.

 

[vector2]

you know the court can make them testify right? but because this is a SHAM they won't go through the courts because this is all about their weak candidates losing in 2020.

1. If you weren't such a shill, you'd realize that Slick Willy testified under oath, Holder testified under oath, HRC testified under oath, and they all also released a ****ton of documents because they complied with lawful subpoenas. Trump and co are stonewalling because we all know they'd perjure themselves and the documents are damning.

2. You know it, I know: Trump is also stonewalling because he knows a court case wouldnt even get started by the time November rolls around.

 

[Mikkel]

they got caught in the middle of a crime

Nice conspiracy theory. Why wasn't this "crime" in the articles of impeachment?

As all the witnesses have said, everyone was in on it.

The "witnesses" who admitted that Mulvaney/Trump/Pompeo didn't tell them to do anything, they were just making up what they thought Trump wanted. Solid evidence!

Law enforcement here then coordinates with foreign law enforcement and and diplomatic channels if they need assistance.

Which is why Trump brought it up with Zelensky.

So now you're admitting that Trump did the right thing in going through diplomatic channels to investigate corruption in Ukraine.

That's part of the abuse of power

There's no such crime as committing an "abuse of power". Every president in recent history would be guilty and impeachable.

In the intervening month, more damning data from Giuliani came out, Parnas gave everyone up

Isn't Parnas indicted for lying and falsifying documents?

 

[Mikkel]

Holder testified under oath

The same Holder who was found to be in contempt for withholding Fast and Furious documents?

 

[Mikkel]

Trump is also stonewalling because he knows a court case wouldnt even get started by the time November rolls around.

Democrats dropped their lawsuits and withdrew any objections. They didn't even let the courts adjudicate a case that was in process.

And these Court cases would have been expedited straight to the Supreme Court, yet the Democrats didn't even try.

And Pelosi held onto the articles of impeachment for a full month.

This is a farce.

 

[GaseousClay]

Democrats dropped their lawsuits and withdrew any objections. They didn't even let the courts adjudicate a case that was in process.

And these Court cases would have been expedited straight to the Supreme Court, yet the Democrats didn't even try.

And Pelosi held onto the articles of impeachment for a full month.

This is a farce.

Guy is not capable of rational arguments. His mind is set: Trump is evil, conservatives are evil and liberals are the saviors of the world. On to discussing actual anesthesia related stuff.

 

[vector2]

Nice conspiracy theory. Why wasn't this "crime" in the articles of impeachment?

I know you're a king troll who wants others to roll around in the mud, but it's really so simple a 4 yo could understand it. Trump held the aid up for months. They became aware of the congressional investigation on sept 9. The aid was released on sept 11. Easy peasy.

The "witnesses" who admitted that Mulvaney/Trump/Pompeo didn't tell them to do anything, they were just making up what they thought Trump wanted. Solid evidence!

Mulvaney is head of OmB and Mulvaney answers to the orange one.

Which is why Trump brought it up with Zelensky.

So now you're admitting that Trump did the right thing in going through diplomatic channels to investigate corruption in Ukraine.

Are you trolling or are you really that dumb that you don't understand that investigations originate with DOJ and US attorneys and don't originate with POTUS and the WH?

There's no such crime as committing an "abuse of power". Every president in recent history would be guilty and impeachable.

Maybe spend 5 min learning about how impeachment works before you keep blathering on with nonsense.

Isn't Parnas indicted for lying and falsifying documents?

Lol

 

[vector2]

The same Holder who was found to be in contempt for withholding Fast and Furious documents?

The same Holder who testified 9 times before congress and released thousand of documents related to faf. How many times have Trump and co complied with a lawful subpoena and testified ?

 

[pgg]

We talked about this a little earlier in the thread, and while I dont disagree that judges, guns, abortion, immigration etc are also driving factors, you simply can't have crazy primary races like the one in 2015-2016 (where actually qualified conservatives got stomped) or polls like the one I posted earlier in the thread where like 70-80% of Republicans found him honest, well-informed, and say keeps his promises...unless personality cult, extreme personal approval (+schadenfreude as you point out) are the main driving factors. The quote about shooting someone on 5th ave becomes less and less hyperbolic day by day. For instance:

View attachment 293616

These are not one off responses. Poll after poll, interview after interview, and it ranges from the redhat on the street who hasn't "read the transcript" all the way to Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes.

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what Mitch thinks in his heart of hearts. He might genuinely be in that 60-70% of GOP respondents in that poll who think trump definitely/probably hasn't committed a crime. And even if he's not, he'd be too craven, cynical, and shameless to admit as much to a pollster, reporter, or anyone else.

e:


pgg, what are we supposed to when US Senators talk like this about wounded in Iraq, purple heart awarded public servants? Does this person "know" deep-down trump is guilty of a crime like you think Mitch does? Is she part of the personality cult (yes, imo)? How could you ever tell the difference...

For the record I think the way that Lt Col has been treated is shameful. Any such person should be given the benefit of the doubt and heard (not necessarily believed at face value, but respectfully heard) unless and until proven to be lying. I do have to exercise some restraint in what I say about certain categories of public officials, D or R or neither, positive or negative, because despite the disclaimer in my .sig everyone here knows what I do for a living and there are rules I have to follow.

Primaries are strange things. Typically only the hardcore true believers participate in them, and the bulk of both parties are left to vote for the nominee (or stay home).

I think there's probably a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance amongst many GOP voters. I suspect that a lot of single-issue anti-abortion voters have absolutely correct thinking that Democrats are pro-choice and Republicans are anti-abortion, and they have a clear understanding that Republicans will appoint judges to chip away at and eventually overturn R v W. They want that very much. To keep supporting the only guy who'll appoint those judges, they engage in a combination of not noticing, not caring, or not acknowledging inconvenient facts. But politics is full of scandals that are minimized or ignored by people who make greater good calculations ... even if they don't like to speak the math out loud.

I'm watching events unfold in Virginia from afar right now, but I keep in touch with a number of members of the semi-private shooting club and range I belong to. Among the dozens (yes dozens) of anti-gun bills being passed on strictly party lines in Virginia right now is SB353 which would force our range to close immediately. It's been open for about 30 years, with zero incidents, but Democrats are going to force it to close. I can't tell you how many of the members think Trump broke the law regarding Ukraine's aid, but I can tell you that few if any of them care enough one way or another to overcome their revulsion for anyone running for office with a D behind their name. They are actually making plans to charter a bus on election day to ferry old people to go vote for Trump. And it's not because they really love Trump (some probably do, I guess) but it's outrage over what Democrats are doing, and they can't stomach the idea of one winning the presidency this November.

You also have to remember that a central plank in President Trump's platform (and one that he's mostly fulfilled) is a sort of isolationism, non military interventionism, America first-ism. I haven't conducted any formal polls myself, but I'm confident that most of Trump's supporters just don't care about Ukraine that much. Which is why I keep coming back to the issues that we know they do care about - immigration, abortion, guns, the economy, and so on.

Back in the day, I just didn't care that Clinton lied that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski." I thought the impeachment was ridiculous. Yes it was perjury, but I distinctly remember rationalizing that crime away as not that big a deal ... and I wasn't even really a pro- or anti- Clinton person with strong feelings one way or another about either party. I think my strongest feeling about that whole series of events was just sympathy for Hillary Clinton and a mild hope that she'd divorce him. Funny how times change ...

I don't know what Sen McConnell really thinks deep inside either. But I do feel pretty confident, given his announced and easily observed focus on getting federal judges confirmed over the last 3 years, that his thought process is squarely realpolitik. He's making the most of the here & now opportunities a R in the White House affords. I think he and every other Senator would rather have President Trump-R instead of President ______-D through 2024, and it'd take a whole lot more than the Ukraine saga to convince them a Democratic president would be a net improvement. Because the bottom line is that even if Trump wins this year he'll be gone in 2024, but the judges he appoints will be serving until 2044 (or longer).

 

[PainDrain]

For the record I think the way that Lt Col has been treated is shameful. Any such person should be given the benefit of the doubt and heard (not necessarily believed at face value, but respectfully heard) unless and until proven to be lying. I do have to exercise some restraint in what I say about certain categories of public officials, D or R or neither, positive or negative, because despite the disclaimer in my .sig everyone here knows what I do for a living and there are rules I have to follow.

Primaries are strange things. Typically only the hardcore true believers participate in them, and the bulk of both parties are left to vote for the nominee (or stay home).

I think there's probably a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance amongst many GOP voters. I suspect that a lot of single-issue anti-abortion voters have absolutely correct thinking that Democrats are pro-choice and Republicans are anti-abortion, and they have a clear understanding that Republicans will appoint judges to chip away at and eventually overturn R v W. They want that very much. To keep supporting the only guy who'll appoint those judges, they engage in a combination of not noticing, not caring, or not acknowledging inconvenient facts. But politics is full of scandals that are minimized or ignored by people who make greater good calculations ... even if they don't like to speak the math out loud.

I'm watching events unfold in Virginia from afar right now, but I keep in touch with a number of members of the semi-private shooting club and range I belong to. Among the dozens (yes dozens) of anti-gun bills being passed on strictly party lines in Virginia right now is SB353 which would force our range to close immediately. It's been open for about 30 years, with zero incidents, but Democrats are going to force it to close. I can't tell you how many of the members think Trump broke the law regarding Ukraine's aid, but I can tell you that few if any of them care enough one way or another to overcome their revulsion for anyone running for office with a D behind their name. They are actually making plans to charter a bus on election day to ferry old people to go vote for Trump. And it's not because they really love Trump (some probably do, I guess) but it's outrage over what Democrats are doing, and they can't stomach the idea of one winning the presidency this November.

You also have to remember that a central plank in President Trump's platform (and one that he's mostly fulfilled) is a sort of isolationism, non military interventionism, America first-ism. I haven't conducted any formal polls myself, but I'm confident that most of Trump's supporters just don't care about Ukraine that much. Which is why I keep coming back to the issues that we know they do care about - immigration, abortion, guns, the economy, and so on.

Back in the day, I just didn't care that Clinton lied that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski." I thought the impeachment was ridiculous. Yes it was perjury, but I distinctly remember rationalizing that crime away as not that big a deal ... and I wasn't even really a pro- or anti- Clinton person with strong feelings one way or another about either party. I think my strongest feeling about that whole series of events was just sympathy for Hillary Clinton and a mild hope that she'd divorce him. Funny how times change ...

I don't know what Sen McConnell really thinks deep inside either. But I do feel pretty confident, given his announced and easily observed focus on getting federal judges confirmed over the last 3 years, that his thought process is squarely realpolitik. He's making the most of the here & now opportunities a R in the White House affords. I think he and every other Senator would rather have President Trump-R instead of President ______-D through 2024, and it'd take a whole lot more than the Ukraine saga to convince them a Democratic president would be a net improvement. Because the bottom line is that even if Trump wins this year he'll be gone in 2024, but the judges he appoints will be serving until 2044 (or longer).

As for those judges, I cannot believe how poorly qualified some of these nominees are to serve as federal judges. Several nominees had literally no courtroom experience. Some were blatantly partisan political operatives. Some have a downright troubling legal philosophy. I imagine these nominees may eventually throw such a wrench in the federal judiciary with poor legal decisions that many will be overturned and it will lead to legal stagnation.

 

[Southpaw]

One could argue that BC's blowjob did hurt at least one person. ML's life was forever changed for the worse--partly because of her own actions and partly because the Clintons actively sought to destroy her. They obliterated that young woman in the press and lied about some Right Wing Conspiracy Theory. (You know they're desperate when they start throwing that phrase out there, and I heard it several times from the D's during the impeachment hearings so far.)

One could argue that a 8 week pause on Ukraine's aid money hurt NO ONE.

So, objectively, which scenario actually did more harm? IMO, the "consensual blowjob" between the 49-year old President and a 22-year old intern.

I’m staying out of this pissing contest because it could reach 1 million posts and I’m 100% sure no opinions would be changed. It’s pretty clear, regardless of political opinion, that Donald Trump is a morally bankrupt individual. You have to believe he’s stepped on women (grab ‘Em by the pu**y) to get where he is, or ruined the lives of women along the way. He’s what - three marriages in right now?

ML suffered, no doubt. Yes, BC and HRC tried to ruin her. But she appears to have come through it all stronger. Good for her.

let’s not sit here though and believe that Trump is any different. In my opinion he’s far worse. But I guess you’d debate that (likely largely because of your personal political beliefs).

 

[pgg]

As for those judges, I cannot believe how poorly qualified some of these nominees are to serve as federal judges. Several nominees had literally no courtroom experience. Some were blatantly partisan political operatives.

I don't disagree.

Some have a downright troubling legal philosophy.

Heh, "troubling legal philosophy" is in the eye of the beholder. I find the minority opinion in Heller pretty goddamn troubling, myself.

I imagine these nominees may eventually throw such a wrench in the federal judiciary with poor legal decisions that many will be overturned and it will lead to legal stagnation.

I also disagree there. I mean, the whole reason we have appeals courts and Circuit courts and SCOTUS in the first place is because ... some legal decisions get overturned. That's normal. The system will be fine, the Republic will endure.

 

[pgg]

I’m staying out of this pissing contest because it could reach 1 million posts and I’m 100% sure no opinions would be changed.

Just because people rarely admit their opinions changed, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

People moderate their opinions all the time, often slowly, often without even really noticing. They can gain an appreciation for an opposing viewpoint. People read these discussions without contributing, and among THEM are some of the true undecided swing vote unicorns. Society's values shift gradually, over many years, but the shift does happen, and society is of course made up of individuals. Some of whom read SDN.

And arguing, if you take it seriously anyway, and expect others to take you seriously, forces you to justify your own opinions and ideas. I've changed or moderated opinions based on these discussions before. Arguing is practice; it has helped me compose other arguments. Rhetoric is a useful skill. One reason I get my way so often in hospital committee meetings is because I'm better than most at simply arguing.

I don't mean to say that this is all just an academic exercise, i.e. work. It's also entertaining. If the day comes when I quit having fun with this forum, I'll find something else fun to do. I'm not a masochist.

So I'm not here expecting to convince Paindrain to join the NRA and buy an AR15, or persuade Mikkel that an 8-week abortion isn't murder. That'd be nice, truly an accomplishment deserving of immortalization in song, but I don't expect it. I'm here for my own betterment, and maybe to occasionally convince a fence-sitter that I'm right and those other guys are wrong. 🙂

 

[PainDrain]

So I'm not here expecting to convince Paindrain to join the NRA and buy an AR15, or persuade Mikkel that an 8-week abortion isn't murder. That'd be nice, truly an accomplishment deserving of immortalization in song, but I don't expect it. I'm here for my own betterment, and maybe to occasionally convince a fence-sitter that I'm right and those other guys are wrong. 🙂

While I do own guns (handguns and shotguns), I don’t feel the need for an AR. I am sure they are fun as h@ll to shoot but it’s just not my thing. I also wouldn’t join the NRA mainly because their mission has gone so far outside of their intended purpose when they formed. Since the late 1970s they have become a political machine and have delved outside of firearms into areas such as ”defend your ground” laws.

 

[Southpaw]

Just because people rarely admit their opinions changed, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

People moderate their opinions all the time, often slowly, often without even really noticing. They can gain an appreciation for an opposing viewpoint. People read these discussions without contributing, and among THEM are some of the true undecided swing vote unicorns. Society's values shift gradually, over many years, but the shift does happen, and society is of course made up of individuals. Some of whom read SDN.

And arguing, if you take it seriously anyway, and expect others to take you seriously, forces you to justify your own opinions and ideas. I've changed or moderated opinions based on these discussions before. Arguing is practice; it has helped me compose other arguments. Rhetoric is a useful skill. One reason I get my way so often in hospital committee meetings is because I'm better than most at simply arguing.

I don't mean to say that this is all just an academic exercise, i.e. work. It's also entertaining. If the day comes when I quit having fun with this forum, I'll find something else fun to do. I'm not a masochist.

So I'm not here expecting to convince Paindrain to join the NRA and buy an AR15, or persuade Mikkel that an 8-week abortion isn't murder. That'd be nice, truly an accomplishment deserving of immortalization in song, but I don't expect it. I'm here for my own betterment, and maybe to occasionally convince a fence-sitter that I'm right and those other guys are wrong. 🙂

yes but you’re a reasonable person. Look at the argument vector2 and Matty/Gaseous are having. It’s absurd. Yes they’re free to do as they please and I don’t have to read it - but it’s clear they’re just wasting their own time.

Many years ago I used to enjoy the debating in the SPF. At some point I wised up and found better uses of my time. Most people who debated politics aren’t terribly open minded and they almost always come to the table with an already determined set of values that certainly isn’t changing due to the intellect or debate skills from someone on the other side of the aisle.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

As for those judges, I cannot believe how poorly qualified some of these nominees are to serve as federal judges. Several nominees had literally no courtroom experience. Some were blatantly partisan political operatives. Some have a downright troubling legal philosophy. I imagine these nominees may eventually throw such a wrench in the federal judiciary with poor legal decisions that many will be overturned and it will lead to legal stagnation.

And so it begins. The R appointed judges are uneducated dunces who are probably racist, sexist, homophobes. Every R is branded that way in every election as far back as I can remember, going back to Pres Reagan. , Bush 41, Bush 43 Trump 45. The 9th circuit is just a bunch of legal scholars, hopelessly devoted to the rule of law. Never a hint of activism. They are never overruled, no legal gridlock from them.
/S

 

[Matty44]

yes but you’re a reasonable person. Look at the argument vector2 and Matty/Gaseous are having. It’s absurd. Yes they’re free to do as they please and I don’t have to read it - but it’s clear they’re just wasting their own time.

Many years ago I used to enjoy the debating in the SPF. At some point I wised up and found better uses of my time. Most people who debated politics aren’t terribly open minded and they almost always come to the table with an already determined set of values that certainly isn’t changing due to the intellect or debate skills from someone on the other side of the aisle.

I'm a very reasonable person. Vector has done nothing but personally insult me and been demeaning to everyone who disagrees with him. Thusly, he gets the level of respect and discourse from me that he has earned. I also enjoy pushing his buttons, can't deny that. I really enjoy PGGs perspective, and FFP, and someother people that I don't agree with on everything, but at least they are civil. But yes, most of my posts have been in silly back and forth with petty people like Vector.

Additionally, I'm much more interested in social topics than this political wonk kind of stuff, and arguing legal or constitutional matters. But when libs like Vector go nuts accusing the president and every conservative of racist, corrupt nonsense, I push back.

 

[pgg]

While I do own guns (handguns and shotguns), I don’t feel the need for an AR. I am sure they are fun as h@ll to shoot but it’s just not my thing. I also wouldn’t join the NRA mainly because their mission has gone so far outside of their intended purpose when they formed. Since the late 1970s they have become a political machine and have delved outside of firearms into areas such as ”defend your ground” laws.

Fair enough

The NRA sure has some issues of late. It's a broken organization in a lot of ways. Even their competition division has been pretty messed up the last few years ... they got into a gigantic pissing match with the Civilian Marksmanship Program and ended up fracturing the national championships. Basically they left in a huff from the venue that's been the home of the championships for over 100 years, with predictably bad effects on the sport.

Wayne Lapierre is a tool. Lots of wasted money. But. They're still an effective lobbying force. I hope they'll get their act together again. For now most of my support goes to Gun Owners of America for national issues and the superbly run and very focused VCDL for my state (Virginia).

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Totally agree the NRA has fallen from grace and needs an injection of better leadership. I prefer to support SCI as IMO, they are the best advocates for sustainable hunting, conservation and habitat improvement.

 

[pgg]

And so it begins. The R appointed judges are uneducated dunces who are probably racist, sexist, homophobes. Every R is branded that way in every election as far back as I can remember, going back to Pres Reagan. , Bush 41, Bush 43 Trump 45. The 9th circuit is just a bunch of legal scholars, hopelessly devoted to the rule of law. Never a hint of activism. They are never overruled, no legal gridlock from them.
/S

The 9th has shifted significantly in the last 3 years. Trump has appointed NINE judges to the 9th as of last month. Out of 29. Young judges, on average 10 years younger than Obama's appointees. Four of the nine judges he replaced were Democrat appointees.

Even though the 9th still has a liberal majority, it's not such a lopsided majority that a litigator can count on getting a liberal-friendly 3 judge panel. The result of an en-banc review isn't a 100% sure thing any more either. Simply being close to balanced is already changing how aggressive (and ridiculous) Democrats can be in those states.

Already the 9th isn't what it used to be. Now, imagine Trump is re-elected and Republicans maintain control of the Senate, and the above is just the state of affairs 3 years into an 8-year Trump presidency. @vector2, this is why Trump was elected, and why he still enjoys so much support from the right.

 

[pgg]

Totally agree the NRA has fallen from grace and needs an injection of better leadership. I prefer to support SCI as IMO, they are the best advocates for sustainable hunting, conservation and habitat improvement.

I wholeheartedly support SCI, and I certainly welcome support from hunters and other recreational shooters and sportspeople. But I always do feel compelled to point out that the 2nd Amendment isn't about deer hunting.

There are more than a few hunters who are totally OK with sweepingly unconstitutional bans and regulations, so long as their duck shotguns and deer rifles are exempted.

Little do they understand that a deer rifle is indistinguishable from a sniper rifle, in all respects, and they're on the Democrats' hit list too.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

The 9th has shifted significantly in the last 3 years. Trump has appointed NINE judges to the 9th as of last month. Out of 29. Young judges, on average 10 years younger than Obama's appointees. Four of the nine judges he replaced were Democrat appointees.

Even though the 9th still has a liberal majority, it's not such a lopsided majority that a litigator can count on getting a liberal-friendly 3 judge panel. The result of an en-banc review isn't a 100% sure thing any more either. Simply being close to balanced is already changing how aggressive (and ridiculous) Democrats can be in those states.

Already the 9th isn't what it used to be. Now, imagine Trump is re-elected and Republicans maintain control of the Senate, and the above is just the state of affairs 3 years into an 8-year Trump presidency. @vector2, this is why Trump was elected, and why he still enjoys so much support from the right.

Holding the Senate in 2020 by the Rs will be no gimme. 23 R seats to 12 D seats are contested, plus 2 special elections. They only need to pick up 3 or 4 seats to gain control. If both houses go D, then Trumps agenda will stall and we'll have 4 yrs of gridlock

 

[Lawpy]

The impeachment is turning out to be the loser here. And it's not because of Trump. It's because of the preceding impeachment attempts that failed. Andrew Johnson should have been removed from office. That didn't happen and it was a tragic mistake with disastrous long term implications. Richard Nixon should've stayed and faced impeachment and removal from office. Apparently, he knew he would be removed from office so he resigned.

Clinton and Trump impeachments pale in comparison of these two. And Clinton shouldn't have even been impeached in the first place. The reasons for that were absurd.

 

[vector2]

yes but you’re a reasonable person. Look at the argument vector2 and Matty/Gaseous are having. It’s absurd. Yes they’re free to do as they please and I don’t have to read it - but it’s clear they’re just wasting their own time.

Many years ago I used to enjoy the debating in the SPF. At some point I wised up and found better uses of my time. Most people who debated politics aren’t terribly open minded and they almost always come to the table with an already determined set of values that certainly isn’t changing due to the intellect or debate skills from someone on the other side of the aisle.

I used to take debating much more seriously when I was younger and more naive to the fact that most minds won't be changed, and most of the time nowadays if someone is a pure troll like matty or mikkel I'll let it go. Indeed, there are people like pgg or FFP or even possibly blade who are interested in discourse, make reasonable arguments, and who have even moderated some of my views. Debating or learning from people like these I find to be a valuable experience.

However, occasionally, like the 1st trump thread in parts or yesterday/this morning, if I'm bored enough I'll respond to trolls. I along with others like ffp and pgg made a good faith effort with matty in the first thread and it was mostly met with selective quoting and responses, feigned ignorance, and overall disingenuousness. Additionally matty doesn't contribute anything clinical to this forum so there's even less reason to take him seriously. Mikkel otoh is apparently a schizophrenic when it comes to how insane he is about trump and muslims, but yet somehow has reasonably normal discourse in clinical or financial threads. Is it a waste of time responding to them? Sure. But hopefully some lurkers might at least see one of their numerous, numerous false statements and misrepresentations called out and corrected with a verifiable fact.

 

[Matty44]

I used to take debating much more seriously when I was younger and more naive to the fact that most minds won't be changed, and most of the time nowadays if someone is a pure troll like matty or mikkel I'll let it go. Indeed, there are people like pgg or FFP or even possibly blade who are interested in discourse, make reasonable arguments, and who have even moderated some of my views. Debating or learning from people like these I find to be a valuable experience.

However, occasionally, like the 1st trump thread in parts or yesterday/this morning, if I'm bored enough I'll respond to trolls. I along with others like ffp and pgg made a good faith effort with matty in the first thread and it was mostly met with selective quoting and responses, feigned ignorance, and overall disingenuousness. Additionally matty doesn't contribute anything clinical to this forum so there's even less reason to take him seriously. Mikkel otoh is apparently a schizophrenic when it comes to how insane he is about trump and muslims, but yet somehow has reasonably normal discourse in clinical nor financial threads. Is it a waste of time responding to them? Sure. But hopefully some lurkers might at least see one of their numerous, numerous false statements and misrepresentations called out and corrected with a verifiable fact.

Lol.

So now since I only talk politics on here that somehow makes my comments less valid?

If only I could be double-board certified and live in a cool city like you , then maybe I’d have better views on politics.




You’re just an angry, delusional lefty. Period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk