The President of the US has been impeached

[Tulpa | 3,488]

11 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

 The closed hearings were being run by whose book?

By the Republicans' book. The Republicans set up all the rules for impeachment proceedings. The Democrats are simply following it. So any bitching about "closed doors" and "no cross examinations" should be directed to the GOP.

[m308gunner | 352]

19 hours ago, Link said:

Ok let me preface this by saying I’m no fan of Biden and I wouldn’t defend his record. He might be as corrupt as anyone for all I know, and what I do know is I don’t agree with him on much if anything, to put it kindly. 

Do you think The Donald is not beholden to or compromised by a foreign nation? After he literally publicly asked Russia for help during his campaign? After meeting with Putin and not allowing US translators to be present? After bragging about “the most beautiful letter” from Kim Jong-un but not letting anyone see it? And he is going to say that Biden is corrupt for having ties to our ally Ukraine, who is aggressed upon by Russia who is not our ally? Look, I am all for making peace with other countries that we have not been getting along with and try to bring them on board, and I really admire certain aspects of Russian and Korean people and culture. But Jong-un and Putin are despots with innumerable human rights violations. No one, especially not republicans, disputed this before 2016. So to get all cozy and have secret calls and meetings and letters with them, and then say a rival is corrupt for being in bed with another country, that Russia invaded and attempted takeover, is just silly. Why do you buy this?

 So far his behavior towards all the nations he might be beholden to does not appear as such. And to characterize a campaign speech as officially asking for foreign interference, especially from what we know if the man, is a far stretch. We all know he says LOTS of stupid/weird/hilarious/off-color crap.

  His cageyness (if that is a word) in regards to Kim Jong-un seems to be working, so whatever tactics he's using I say let him. Hell, North Korea just recently said something to the effect of "we wish the US was more creative in it's negotiations", which if you read between the lines can speak volumes. 

  To my knowledge most of the suspicion of Biden comes from that news clip of him mentioning "have that guy fired before I leave or no money" during a trip to the Ukraine and his son being on the board of that Ukrainian energy company (for which I believe he has admitted to not being qualified for).

  Keep in mind that when Trump speaks he knows these foreign countries are listening. It's almost like he's not speaking to the american people at all. Despite what some may think, the guy has decades of experience in dealing with foreign entities in his private business (failed and successful) and seems to know what they may want to hear and how to apply pressure. Remember his "Rocket Man" jabs at Jong-un? And yet not too long after that they were meeting face to face in the demilitarized zone. That is shocking progress, given our history.

  To have secret calls and meetings is part and parcel with diplomacy. It may appear cozy at times, but supplying weapons (real weapons) to Ukraine is not exactly cozying up to the Russians.

  And to my knowledge Trump has not said explicitly that he thinks the Bidens are in bed with Ukraine, but correct me if I'm wrong. He only asked Zelensky to look into it (with however one would want to interpret that).

[m308gunner | 352]

11 hours ago, G-type said:

The dilbert dude? I'm pretty sure he is a diehard Trump supporter. or was. 

 Yup, the Dilbert dude. He has more intellectual chops than I ever thought possible, with an INCREDIBLY dry sense of humor. He also has a much more nuanced opinion of Trump that defies any idea one might have of a "Trump supporter", but you'd have to hear him speak to get a fuller understanding. It almost doesn't make sense that someone so completely far left can say the things he says.

[m308gunner | 352]

47 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Grab.  'em.  By.  The.  Pussy.

I don't like the man, if anyone hasn't gotten that impression yet, and find his conduct understandably repugnant, but I believe the actual quote goes something like "And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Whatever you want. Grab them by the pussy, you can do anything."

Which, in the context of celebrities, is almost meaningless in it's statement of the obvious, as there are men and women who will let famous people do almost anything to them. Hell, groupies have existed forever.

 

[m308gunner | 352]

41 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

In my opinion, it doesnt even matter if they felt pressured or not. Who cares? He still did what he did. Tried to extort a country to benefit himSelf politically. 
 

And you are right about Waters. Nothing like that should be part of politics. Still pretty minor compared to Trump “rallies”. 

And what he did, in his own words was (emphasis added):

"I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There- are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think youre  surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible."

  Unless one wants to engage in mind reading through time and space (in which case please find some way to get me a nice crispy Kid Icarus for $60. it can happen if one can read minds from a distance and in the past) one has to go by his words, and he specifically states a favor (which is the opposite of coercion) and our country, not himself. And again, if his assumed and/or unknowable inner intentions align with our interests as a nation I see no real problem.

  Leftists attack people, shout people down, publicly harass them and sometimes show up on their doorsteps (though to be fair this characterizes Antifa more than your average Democrat). The worst I've seen at Trump rallies is some chanting and flag waving, but please let me know if you are aware of something worse.

 

[m308gunner | 352]

24 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

By the Republicans' book. The Republicans set up all the rules for impeachment proceedings. The Democrats are simply following it. So any bitching about "closed doors" and "no cross examinations" should be directed to the GOP.

 Hmm. Some homework to do then (since I have almost zero trust in most news outlets). I'll let you know what I find, including if you're completely on point.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,506]

2 hours ago, m308gunner said:

I don't like the man, if anyone hasn't gotten that impression yet, and find his conduct understandably repugnant, but I believe the actual quote goes something like "And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Whatever you want. Grab them by the pussy, you can do anything."

Which, in the context of celebrities, is almost meaningless in it's statement of the obvious, as there are men and women who will let famous people do almost anything to them. Hell, groupies have existed forever.

 

Just so we understand now that nothing matters anymore.  Never will again either.  Tribalism and polarization have won out, so nothing either "side" does can have repurcussions with their base anymore.  Next Dem president does something horrific?  "Well they're a bad person but..."

The new frontier

[Teh_Lurv | 254]

3 hours ago, m308gunner said:

  As stated before, he didn't have to care about Biden's possible corruption (which if any evidence exists I haven't been made aware of yet) until it appeared Biden was a possible presidential front runner. Until the threat rose to a certain degree no action was required because the danger was very low. I do not care about Trump's personal intentions as long as they are also aligned with our nation's best interests, in that we should make sure a person is not beholden to a foreign entity if they are within reach of the presidency.

So you'd be fine if Trump asked for an investigation if Biden was a possible arsonist? We have no evidence Biden is an arsonist, but we don't want an arsonist as President, therefore it's appropriate that Trump should ask a foreign government to start an investigation into whether Biden is an arsonist?

[Teh_Lurv | 254]

Also since the thread is going on about Biden & Ukraine, I thought I should post what everyone outside Trump and his right-wing stooges agree upon:

• Victor Shokin was a top Ukrainian prosecutor.
  • He was accused of stonewalling corruption cases against Ukrainian politicians
  • Anti-corruption advocates within Ukraine had been trying for years to oust him with no success
• Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire Victor Shokin with threat of withholding US aid.
  • This pressure was supported by US policy, EU nations, and the IMF
  • Burisma Holdings (the company Hunter Biden was a member of the board) was not under investigation at this time.
  • Burisma was investigated by Victor Shokin's office regarding misconduct prior to Hunter Biden joining the board. This investigation focused on permits Burisma obtained two years prior to Hunter joining the company.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/

Edited December 21, 2019 by Teh_Lurv

[m308gunner | 352]

8 hours ago, Teh_Lurv said:

So you'd be fine if Trump asked for an investigation if Biden was a possible arsonist? We have no evidence Biden is an arsonist, but we don't want an arsonist as President, therefore it's appropriate that Trump should ask a foreign government to start an investigation into whether Biden is an arsonist?

  If Biden was a possible arsonist it would be an issue for law enforcement in whichever state or country (given your scenario) Biden was present. If he was starting fires in foreign countries I'd assume those countries would investigate too. I'm not sure your line of reasoning scales appropriately or matches the scope and character of the issue at hand.

[m308gunner | 352]

9 hours ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Just so we understand now that nothing matters anymore.  Never will again either.  Tribalism and polarization have won out, so nothing either "side" does can have repurcussions with their base anymore.  Next Dem president does something horrific?  "Well they're a bad person but..."

The new frontier

Well, given the flimsy articles of impeachment the Democrats have leveled at Trump, impeachment will probably be the new standard unless Republicans go back to their founding principals (fat chance). And you would have to ignore the masses saying things like "Well I don't particularly like the way Trump acts, but I love how he fights the Democrats". One cannot overlook the constant erosion that the liberal ideology has caused in our culture over the last 50+ years.  That is not to say "Liberals are evil!", but the natural impulse of a liberal ideology is to stretch and revivify a culture, which keeps it from stagnating (I may have mentioned this already in this thread). Taken to it's current irrational extreme it causes tearing of social fabric and norms. Remove a culture's common overarching framework (religion, the constitution, etc) and people stop using their words and start using their fists. Hellooooo Antifa. Thankfully we haven't yet seen a widespread organized movement like that on the right. Historically it doesn't end well.

[Tulpa | 3,488]

16 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

  If Biden was a possible arsonist it would be an issue for law enforcement in whichever state or country (given your scenario) Biden was present. If he was starting fires in foreign countries I'd assume those countries would investigate too. I'm not sure your line of reasoning scales appropriately or matches the scope and character of the issue at hand.

The question would be is it appropriate for Trump to require that country to announce an investigation into Biden as a possible arsonist when there is no proof that he is, and withhold something from that country unless they do so?

[m308gunner | 352]

9 hours ago, Teh_Lurv said:

Also since the thread is going on about Biden & Ukraine, I thought I should post what everyone outside Trump and his right-wing stooges agree upon:

• Victor Shokin was a top Ukrainian prosecutor.
  • He was accused of stonewalling corruption cases against Ukrainian politicians
  • Anti-corruption advocates within Ukraine had been trying for years to oust him with no success
• Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire Victor Shokin with threat of withholding US aid.
  • This pressure was supported by US policy, EU nations, and the IMF
  • Burisma Holdings (the company Hunter Biden was a member of the board) was not under investigation at this time.
  • Burisma was investigated by Victor Shokin's office regarding misconduct prior to Hunter Biden joining the board. This investigation focused on permits Burisma obtained two years prior to Hunter joining the company.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/

Hmm. Some of these points I've heard explained in a different context, one being that all the organizations that accused the prosecutor were themselves corrupt. More homework...

[m308gunner | 352]

1 minute ago, Tulpa said:

The question would be is it appropriate for Trump to require that country to announce an investigation into Biden as a possible arsonist when there is no proof that he is, and withhold something from that country unless they do so?

Requiring an announcement is bad optics, I would agree, but to characterize the situation as containing no proof is a bit too far given what we already know. Plus, arson is a bad analogy (but every analogy is inherently bad so...) 

And the US withholds things from countries all the time as a regular part of our dealings. They don't meet certain benchmarks, they don't get x. That was probably the weakest of the Democratic talking points, which is why it was dropped so dang fast. 

[MrWunderful | 2,926]

22 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

Requiring an announcement is bad optics, I would agree, but to characterize the situation as containing no proof is a bit too far given what we already know. Plus, arson is a bad analogy (but every analogy is inherently bad so...) 

And the US withholds things from countries all the time as a regular part of our dealings. They don't meet certain benchmarks, they don't get x. That was probably the weakest of the Democratic talking points, which is why it was dropped so dang fast. 

Correct, but that is usually supported by the Government and other people when they do withhold Things.  WHy was this all done through Rudy Guiliani?  WHy did Bolton want no part in it?

[Californication | 1,477]

35 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

Requiring an announcement is bad optics, I would agree, but to characterize the situation as containing no proof is a bit too far given what we already know. Plus, arson is a bad analogy (but every analogy is inherently bad so...) 

And the US withholds things from countries all the time as a regular part of our dealings. They don't meet certain benchmarks, they don't get x. That was probably the weakest of the Democratic talking points, which is why it was dropped so dang fast. 

The U.S can withhold things. Donald Trump is not the U.S. It is congress's job by law to decide where money gets spent. Donald Trump broke the law because he disregarded how congress chose to spend money on behalf of tge U.S.

And to say that Trump was being altruistic and wanted to just root out corruption. This guy doesn't care about anything, especially the law. He would not do something because it is the right theing to do. Second, he could have directed the governement to open an investigation if he was worried about corruption. Third, he lied to everyone about why the money was being with held. There is no need to lie if he didnt do anything wrong. 

And finally, if the senate opens the impeachment up for hearings they can call hunter biden and anyone else those crazy conspiracy theories involve, but they won't do that because these stories are just for the little Trump soldiers to tell themselves when they go to sleep at night.

[Lincoln | 230]

32 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

Correct, but that is usually supported by the Government and other people when they do withhold Things.  WHy was this all done through Rudy Guiliani?  WHy did Bolton want no part in it?

Yes, this is a major point. Doing all this through a personal lawyer and back channels is a tipoff that this is for the benefit of trump himself, not the country. Biden doing it was through official channels, and everyone understood that which is why nobody has had a problem with what he did. 

There's also the point that Trump did not actually care if the Biden we're doing anything wrong, or even that Ukraine actually do an investigation. He was only after the announcement, because that would be politically damaging. If this was official business and he was legitimately concerned, he would want to know the answer.

[Lincoln | 230]

13 hours ago, m308gunner said:

I don't like the man, if anyone hasn't gotten that impression yet, and find his conduct understandably repugnant, but I believe the actual quote goes something like "And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Whatever you want. Grab them by the pussy, you can do anything."

Which, in the context of celebrities, is almost meaningless in it's statement of the obvious, as there are men and women who will let famous people do almost anything to them. Hell, groupies have existed forever.

 

Most people have the wherewithal to not say something like that while being filmed for tv.

That clip of him mocking the disabled reporter during the campaign has been going around again. That alone would have cost anyone without a built in cult an election. The idea that he would mock someone like that is atrocious, but to project that image as a world leader is unforgivable. 

Hand waving away all the bullshit that falls out of his mouth as hilarious or otherwise inconsequential is doing everyone a huge disservice.

[MachineCode | 159]

15 hours ago, RegularGuyGamer said:

That's literally saying Nazi's weren't to blame for the hulacust...

They weren't. That was the Hawaiians 

[mbd39 | 2,017]

At least Bill Clinton was impeached over something interesting. I can't even bring myself to care about whatever it is that Trump did.

 

 

[coffeewithmrsaturn | 100]

19 minutes ago, mbd39 said:

At least Bill Clinton was impeached over something interesting. I can't even bring myself to care about whatever it is that Trump did.

 

 

I have a similar opinion except with the presidents reversed.

Edited December 21, 2019 by coffeewithmrsaturn

[Link | 2,707]

On 12/19/2019 at 3:40 PM, m308gunner said:

Question for all: Where do you get the majority of your knowledge of the proceedings and background information from? What news outlet? How much talking time do they show from each side? I ask because I'm struggling to understand some of the sentiments in this thread.

I get news from newspapers (Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times), the alt weekly paper (Chicago Reader), and Fox News and CNN on the TVs at work. Online, I read The New Yorker, as well as whatever comes across my feed, that frequently being The New York Times, The Atlantic, Buzzfeed News, Rolling Stone. At home, I watch news broadcasts on the local channels for WGN, NBC, Fox, or PBS.

[m308gunner | 352]

5 hours ago, MrWunderful said:

Correct, but that is usually supported by the Government and other people when they do withhold Things.  WHy was this all done through Rudy Guiliani?  WHy did Bolton want no part in it?

  Those are important questions that I hope we get answers to. Given Trump's corporate background (sending multiple people to do the same thing) mixed with how many in the government seem hell bent on impeding him in any/every way, I'd say it's reasonable to assume he's using people he trusts over career politicians (for better or worse).

[Link | 2,707]

17 hours ago, m308gunner said:

Keep in mind that when Trump speaks he knows these foreign countries are listening. It's almost like he's not speaking to the american people at all. Despite what some may think, the guy has decades of experience in dealing with foreign entities in his private business (failed and successful) and seems to know what they may want to hear and how to apply pressure. Remember his "Rocket Man" jabs at Jong-un? And yet not too long after that they were meeting face to face in the demilitarized zone. That is shocking progress, given our history.

Oh, like the time he said “Russia, if you’re listening...”? Really, you don’t say. Yes I know that was before the election. That was testing the waters, there is no way he backed down from acting like that after facing zero consequence.

I’m not impressed by that face to face meeting, given how quickly things fell apart afterwards. What a joke. 

[m308gunner | 352]

4 hours ago, Californication said:

The U.S can withhold things. Donald Trump is not the U.S. It is congress's job by law to decide where money gets spent. Donald Trump broke the law because he disregarded how congress chose to spend money on behalf of tge U.S.

And to say that Trump was being altruistic and wanted to just root out corruption. This guy doesn't care about anything, especially the law. He would not do something because it is the right theing to do. Second, he could have directed the governement to open an investigation if he was worried about corruption. Third, he lied to everyone about why the money was being with held. There is no need to lie if he didnt do anything wrong. 

And finally, if the senate opens the impeachment up for hearings they can call hunter biden and anyone else those crazy conspiracy theories involve, but they won't do that because these stories are just for the little Trump soldiers to tell themselves when they go to sleep at night.

 Trump is the executive branch and as such has power over foreign policy. I believe that includes officiating foreign aid. Congress can vote to approve how to spend the money.

  Not sure who has asserted Trump was acting altruistically (if he's even capable of acting in such a manner). I understand that to say he doesn't care about anything is an oversimplification in order to claim faults in his character, but we don't have to resort to that. We know largely who he is, though the left (and media) have clearly overplayed their hand at the beginning by claiming he's orange Hitler. The histrionics/outrage need to stop or, as we are seeing played out in real time, people will just stop caring.

  If he did not trust the government (and he seems to have ample reason not to, but lets wait for the Durham report) it only makes sense he would use people he trusts and keep clouding the truth.

  I recently saw an interview with Giuliani that suggests there is much more to the "crazy conspiracy theories" than we had previously thought. And why do the Democrats keep parroting that phrase when there hasn't been an official report to debunk these theories? If the Bidens are called, and there is something there then what?