Impeachment? [Archive] - Page 3 - Simple Living Forums

Alan

11-16-19, 8:44pm

Feel free to clarify or not but right now your reasons for wanting to out the whistleblower aren’t particularly clear. I don't have any particular desire to "out" the whistleblower although the New York Times did a pretty good job of it several months ago and several other sources have followed up with more "outing" since then, but I do think it might be particularly interesting to see what he has to say under oath. And I guess I must apologize for not being particularly clear when I gave a rather detailed reason for why that might be an interesting part of the impeachment inquiry. I'm sorry that I must have muddied it so that you couldn't understand.

Although i’m starting to think that i hit the nail on the head when i said that republicans dont believe democrats can be honorable americans.
I don't think that at all, but if you'd said 'far left' I might agree with you somewhat. ;)

But by all means keep whining about how it is all just politics Whining? I'll have you know every word I've typed on this subject has been accomplished with a smile on my face as I imagine the responses. I do enjoy the fact that you guys never let me down.

And it is all political. This impeachment process didn't begin with a whistleblower complaint, it started with an unpopular election 3 years ago. After several fits and starts, the whistleblower complaint showed promise to achieve the result Representative Schiff has been working towards since 2016. It's the best means to an end that's come along so far.

jp1

11-17-19, 1:52am

I don't have any particular desire to "out" the whistleblower although the New York Times did a pretty good job of it several months ago and several other sources have followed up with more "outing" since then, but I do think it might be particularly interesting to see what he has to say under oath. And I guess I must apologize for not being particularly clear when I gave a rather detailed reason for why that might be an interesting part of the impeachment inquiry. I'm sorry that I must have muddied it so that you couldn't understand.

I don't think that at all, but if you'd said 'far left' I might agree with you somewhat. ;)

Whining? I'll have you know every word I've typed on this subject has been accomplished with a smile on my face as I imagine the responses. I do enjoy the fact that you guys never let me down.

And it is all political. This impeachment process didn't begin with a whistleblower complaint, it started with an unpopular election 3 years ago. After several fits and starts, the whistleblower complaint showed promise to achieve the result Representative Schiff has been working towards since 2016. It's the best means to an end that's come along so far.

So you think that trump extorting an ally for personal political gain is acceptable. Got it. Because given what he did your attempts to justify his behavior don’t lead to any other conclusion.

The day you actually respond to questions about what trump did instead of ‘oh the democrats blah blah blah’ is the day i’ll think you actually give a shit about what trump actually did.

Rogar

11-17-19, 9:12am

And it is all political. This impeachment process didn't begin with a whistleblower complaint, it started with an unpopular election 3 years ago. After several fits and starts, the whistleblower complaint showed promise to achieve the result Representative Schiff has been working towards since 2016. It's the best means to an end that's come along so far.

Seems reasonable to me. I've mentioned before that they had to get Capone on tax evasion. If nothing else comes of the various investigations at least they've flushed Donald's thug and criminal circle, like Roger Stone, Cohen, Manafort, Rick Gates, Popadopoulos, Flynn, Pinedo, Pruitt, Zwaan, Maria Butina, Sam Patten, and Giuliani's Russian pals out of the political system and into the legal justice and prison system. A remarkable universe of criminality and the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree. I could imagine they might even get a fall guy out of the impeachment proceedings, too. Maybe Giuliani.

LDAHL

11-17-19, 9:27am

Explain. When did Biden do a dastardly act?

As Vice President he held up aid to Ukraine until they met his demand to fire the prosecutor who was investigating the firm enriching his son. He was so pleased with himself that he bragged about it on camera.

jp1

11-17-19, 9:47am

As Vice President he held up aid to Ukraine until they met his demand to fire the prosecutor who was investigating the firm enriching his son. He was so pleased with himself that he bragged about it on camera.

With the exception that the guy he wanted fired was corrupt and not a problem for Burisma and his replacement, whoever it would end up being, would more likely have been a problem for Burisma, you are correct.

Rogar

11-17-19, 10:13am

As Vice President he held up aid to Ukraine until they met his demand to fire the prosecutor who was investigating the firm enriching his son. He was so pleased with himself that he bragged about it on camera.

Was there corruption or just a conflict of interest?

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump-twists-facts-on-biden-and-ukraine/

JaneV2.0

11-17-19, 10:17am

I'm not sure what "far left" means, but I consider,say, Bernie Sanders far more honorable than many of his right-wing colleagues. Being honorable, to me, means having unshakeable principles that aren't determined by how much money you can make by playing the game. And Bernie's been on message for decades. I have hope for other "lefties," like the Squad, as well.

Alan

11-17-19, 11:05am

Seems reasonable to me. I've mentioned before that they had to get Capone on tax evasion.Should that be the new standard going forward? If Warren or Sanders assume the office should we immediately throw out a large net and drag in everyone in their circles, prosecute poor memories and personal secrets in hopes of getting them to give up anything useful on the President which might drive them from office?

It seems like a poor way to run a country to me.

Rogar

11-17-19, 11:30am

Should that be the new standard going forward? If Warren or Sanders assume the office should we immediately throw out a large net and drag in everyone in their circles, prosecute poor memories and personal secrets in hopes of getting them to give up anything useful on the President which might drive them from office?

It seems like a poor way to run a country to me.

I think any public official suspected of abuse of power, bribery, witness intimidation, obstruction of justice or any other crimes should be investigated fully. If they choose to surround themselves with thugs in key positions that obviously is not direct evidence of anything, but it does arouse suspicions. The "witch hunt" has captured several witches and that in itself is worthwhile.

JaneV2.0

11-17-19, 11:52am

I think any public official suspected of abuse of power, bribery, witness intimidation, obstruction of justice or any other crimes should be investigated fully. If they choose to surround themselves with thugs in key positions that obviously is not direct evidence of anything, but it does arouse suspicions. The "witch hunt" has captured several witches and that in itself is worthwhile.

This administration is by far the most corrupt, inept, and morally repugnant of any I've experienced in my long life; we would be complicit if we sat on our hands as if it embodied business as usual. You can't be serious suggesting Sanders or Warren would, for example, elevate the likes of Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon, or encourage their attorney general to act as a personal avenger, or defy the emoluments clause at every opportunity.

frugal-one

11-17-19, 3:41pm

Can’t I find both Trump and his more egregious enemies equally ridiculous? There seems to be enough mendacity to go around. It isn’t a binary good and evil choice, as much as the many tribe-bound true believers would have it.

Depends on whom you consider trump's more egregious enemies?

frugal-one

11-17-19, 3:44pm

Teacher Terry

11-17-19, 4:30pm

Frugal, read the whole story. People always only show part of the interview to make him look bad.

jp1

11-18-19, 9:03am

Depends on whom you consider trump's more egregious enemies?

Frugal, keep in mind that you’re asking that of someone who thinks jimmy carter is just as awful of a human being as trump.

LDAHL

11-18-19, 9:13am

Frugal, keep in mind that you’re asking that of someone who thinks jimmy carter is just as awful of a human being as trump.

I don’t think he’s as equally bad as Trump. Just equally annoying.

Teacher Terry

11-18-19, 1:42pm

I can see how someone would think building houses for the poor in your 90’s and teaching Sunday school at 95 certainly makes someone as horrible as trump((:

LDAHL

11-18-19, 2:02pm

I can see how someone would think building houses for the poor in your 90’s and teaching Sunday school at 95 certainly makes someone as horrible as trump((:

I’m not annoyed by that so much as his decades of lecturing from the sidelines as if he were some sort of statesmanlike moral authority. If he’s a saint he’s an insufferable one.

jp1

11-18-19, 2:36pm

That is very interesting! I did not know that!

You probably also didn't know that pretty much the only people who didn't want him fired were corrupt people in Ukraine who were worried that if he were replaced it would be with someone actually trying to reduce corruption. If Biden's son was doing corrupt activity Biden's actions were actually making his son more likely to get in trouble.

jp1

11-18-19, 2:36pm

I’m not annoyed by that so much as his decades of lecturing from the sidelines as if he were some sort of statesmanlike moral authority. If he’s a saint he’s an insufferable one.

Since it'll probably be a short list can you name the politicians that don't annoy you?

Teacher Terry

11-18-19, 2:38pm

He’s as close to a saint as anyone could be. The world needs more people like him. I have always appreciated his viewpoint.

LDAHL

11-18-19, 2:56pm

Since it'll probably be a short list can you name the politicians that don't annoy you?

Tough question, isn’t it? As a class, we seem to demand that our politicians adopt a sort of self-righteous earnestness that mere flesh and blood cannot sustain. The ones who keep up the act even when they’re out of office are the cringiest.

I haven’t actually enjoyed a political debate since Cheney-Lieberman in 2000. I can’t say I’ve been positively inspired by a politician’s style since Reagan. I don’t mind listening to Bernie, even if he does talk a lot of nonsense. Bill Clinton had a certain oily charm, even at his sleaziest. You wanted to keep watching just to see how he would wriggle out of the latest difficulty.

frugal-one

11-18-19, 3:40pm

Frugal, keep in mind that you’re asking that of someone who thinks jimmy carter is just as awful of a human being as trump.

Thanks. Will read further before making the leap to that assumption.

Teacher Terry

11-18-19, 4:34pm

Carter isn’t acting. He lives his values.

LDAHL

11-18-19, 4:44pm

Thanks. Will read further before making the leap to that assumption.

Once again, I said not as awful but equally annoying.

What is it about Trump that triggers this Pavlovian response that makes otherwise rational people leap to the conclusion that anyone who doesn’t commence howling the instant they hear the name must be one of his supporters? That any comparison must begin with a Trumpian benchmark?

Tammy

11-18-19, 8:22pm

Perhaps because he is so very evil?

ApatheticNoMore

11-18-19, 8:44pm

Carter was an ok president, though none will say he was great, whose presidency was caught up in and maybe doomed by factors larger than himself.
Trump is NOT an ok president, and none will say he was good, whose presidency is caught up in self-aggrandizing and self-dealing, and who can't even conceive of anything larger than himself. And we can only hope he is doomed by it.

In no way comparable.

Rogar

11-18-19, 9:48pm

jp1

11-18-19, 10:49pm

What is it about Trump that triggers this Pavlovian response that makes otherwise rational people leap to the conclusion that anyone who doesn’t commence howling the instant they hear the name must be one of his supporters? That any comparison must begin with a Trumpian benchmark?

That benchmark exists because he is by far the most corrupt and incompetent president to live in the White House for at least as long as anyone alive today can remember. Beyond that, the fact that if he succeeds in avoiding impeachment and removal he will have made it perfectly acceptable for a president to use the powers of the office to do pretty much anything they want without having to worry about personal consequences. And that he's just a truly mean and cruel person who brings out the worst in his supporters.

jp1

11-18-19, 10:50pm

Among the crowds I run with, a few years ago you could have substituted Obama for Trump and it would have rung true. Then it was Hillary, but not quite as strongly expressed.

You need to find better crowds to run with.

Alan

11-18-19, 10:57pm

That benchmark exists because he is by far the most corrupt and incompetent president to live in the White House for at least as long as anyone alive today can remember. Beyond that, the fact that if he succeeds in avoiding impeachment and removal he will have made it perfectly acceptable for a president to use the powers of the office to do pretty much anything they want without having to worry about personal consequences. And that he's just a truly mean and cruel person who brings out the worst in his haters. I think you may have accidentally used the wrong word so I fixed it for ya. :cool:

You need to find better crowds to run with.
See?

ApatheticNoMore

11-19-19, 12:13am

I welcome my hate :)

dado potato

11-19-19, 1:15am

Here we are on the 54th page of discussion! Impeachment is quite a lively topic.

The New York Times 11/17/2019 reported that Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) and Sean Hannity (FOX) anchor cable news from competing studios on opposite sides of The Avenue of the Americas, "roughly 1,000 feet apart". They simultaneously deliver irreconcilable versions of the current state of the impeachment process.

A sign of the times? Not really. In 1868 (during the impeachment of President Johnson), the media coverage was just as skewed.

We might, as Americans, agree that we disagree. We might despise what is said to advance one party or another, yet vow that we would defend each other's right to free expression.

iris lilies

11-19-19, 1:21am

jp1

11-19-19, 1:28am

I think you may have accidentally used the wrong word so I fixed it for ya. :cool:

See?[/COLOR]

Feel free to disagree with any of the statements i made about him and explain my inaccuracies. I’m always eager to get a better understanding of trump’s proud boys.

LDAHL

11-19-19, 10:30am

Beyond that, the fact that if he succeeds in avoiding impeachment and removal he will have made it perfectly acceptable for a president to use the powers of the office to do pretty much anything they want without having to worry about personal consequences.

The likelihood of Trump being removed from office via impeachment seems almost nil at this point. I think his enemies realized that from the start, but hoped to use the process to taint him in advance of next November. They don’t thus far seem to have moved the needle much as far as making him more unpopular than he already was.

As far as the imperial presidency is concerned, after several years of Mr Obama’s pen and phone, it’s hard for me to think that executive power grabs and abuses are all that unique to this incumbent.

I think Trump should be removed from office; but by the voters.rather the political establishment. I don’t think he’s uniquely and historically evil. I just think he’s a lousy president. But that doesn’t seem like enough for the true believers, who seem to insist anyone who disagrees with their rites of exorcism must carry a touch of the devil themselves.

Alan

11-19-19, 11:08am

I think Trump should be removed from office; but by the voters.rather the political establishment. I don’t think he’s uniquely and historically evil. I just think he’s a lousy president. But that doesn’t seem like enough for the true believers, who seem to insist anyone who disagrees with their rites of exorcism must carry a touch of the devil themselves.
Very well and accurately said. I couldn't agree more.

LDAHL

11-19-19, 11:16am

Very well and accurately said. I couldn't agree more.

And I don’t think that makes you one of “Trump’s proud boys”.

Rogar

11-19-19, 12:00pm

The likelihood of Trump being removed from office via impeachment seems almost nil at this point. I think his enemies realized that from the start, but hoped to use the process to taint him in advance of next November. They don’t thus far seem to have moved the needle much as far as making him more unpopular than he already was.

As far as the imperial presidency is concerned, after several years of Mr Obama’s pen and phone, it’s hard for me to think that executive power grabs and abuses are all that unique to this incumbent.

I think Trump should be removed from office; but by the voters.rather the political establishment. I don’t think he’s uniquely and historically evil. I just think he’s a lousy president. But that doesn’t seem like enough for the true believers, who seem to insist anyone who disagrees with their rites of exorcism must carry a touch of the devil themselves.

For the record, use (or abuse) of multiple executive orders is not unique to "imperial president" Obama or Trump. It's easy information to verify. It appears it is integral to the position through history and there are worse. I don't know how many of the 10 commandments need to be broken to qualify for evil, but Trump's moral compass is broken. As a president it started the day he stated the crowd at his inauguration and has been followed by a long string of untruths that I have not witnessed since perhaps Nixon. He qualifies in my book as a racist, bully, and routinely denigrates women.

Otherwise I have some agreement.

Alan

11-19-19, 12:27pm

And I don’t think that makes you one of “Trump’s proud boys”.
JP1 doesn't believe that either, he's just trying to get under my skin. As my grandmother might have said "Bless his little pea pickin heart". :cool:

CathyA

11-19-19, 3:10pm

Seems like lying constantly should be some sort of violation worthy of removal.

bae

11-19-19, 3:21pm

Seems like lying constantly should be some sort of violation worthy of removal.

I think just general constant lying would be something to consider in the next election, but I don't see it being a constitutional reason for removal. Now, lying under oath, that's different.

CathyA

11-19-19, 5:45pm

I think just general constant lying would be something to consider in the next election, but I don't see it being a constitutional reason for removal. Now, lying under oath, that's different.

I know. But dang, how much damage he can do before then. :(

LDAHL

11-19-19, 6:22pm

Now, lying under oath, that's different.

That will get you disbarred in Arkansas.

catherine

11-25-19, 4:29pm

Here is an article from Truthdig, which I like because they don't lean Democrat or Republican, and I think their columns are insightful and provocative.

So here is one that talks about all the impeachable offenses that Trump has committed, but it doesn't let Democrats off the hook.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-end-of-the-rule-of-law/

Of the whole slate of Democratic candidates (including Bloomberg) who do you think is the "cleanest"? Just curious.

bae

11-25-19, 4:52pm

Thanks for the pointer to that, Catherine.

LDAHL

11-25-19, 5:14pm

I would certainly agree that the legislature was been yielding power to the executive at least since Woodrow Wilson.

bae

11-25-19, 6:06pm

I would certainly agree that the legislature was been yielding power to the executive at least since Woodrow Wilson.

Yup, I wish they'd step up and do their jobs.

LDAHL

11-30-19, 1:27pm

Yup, I wish they'd step up and do their jobs.

If the idea is to box the President’s baser instincts in, you would think there were more effective legislative strategies available than the endless quest for the golden gotcha.

jp1

12-3-19, 8:13am

Rogar

12-3-19, 10:46am

So apparently all of trump’s whining about not being able to defend himself was just like everything else that comes out of his mouth. Lies. Now that he actually has the opportunity to send lawyers to defend himself he chooses not to.

I suspect his minions in the Senate with do his dirty work quite well. My take on the defense summary is that, among other things, they support the some of the conspiracy theories around Ukraine's corruption and investigations of the Biden's. It sounds like maybe the witness list for both sides will be constitutional legal experts, which will be interesting.

Not having Donald testify under oath is a smart strategic move due to his chronic misrepresentation of the truth. I would think there is as strong a case for obstruction of justice as there could be for bribery.

LDAHL

12-3-19, 11:10am

With every day that passes, the whole thing seems less and less relevant. The House will indict, no matter what the testimony is and no matter if the branding changes from collusion to quid pro quo to the current bribery.

And just as certainly, the Senate will not convict. We will hear many sermons pointing to the onrushing election and saying the issue should be decided by the voters. Various Democratic presidential candidates will need to sit unhappily in their seats like kids in detention, while looking out the window at the electoral playground.

It’s hard to see any changed minds ensuing from this disruption of daytime TV schedules.

Rogar

12-3-19, 11:15am

"Disruption of daytime TV" is setting the bar extremely low.

LDAHL

12-3-19, 11:33am

"Disruption of daytime TV" is setting the bar extremely low.

Demosthenes, Cicero and Daniel Webster could not rescue this thing from terminal tediousness. The solons of the contemporary House and Senate seem unlikely to.

jp1

12-3-19, 11:59am

With every day that passes, the whole thing seems less and less relevant. The House will indict, no matter what the testimony is and no matter if the branding changes from collusion to quid pro quo to the current bribery.

And just as certainly, the Senate will not convict.

Voters getting to watch the republican led senate abdicate their oath of office by placing party above country doesn't seem irrelevant to me.

It'll be interesting in the coming days to learn what the quid pro quo was with the Lebanese aid that was also withheld.

Rogar

12-3-19, 12:15pm

Demosthenes, Cicero and Daniel Webster could not rescue this thing from terminal tediousness. The solons of the contemporary House and Senate seem unlikely to.

I find the whole thing mildly interesting, regardless of the outcome. I've learned a little, but maybe not a tremendous lot, about politics, politicians, the Ukraine and the democratic process. I suspect the disruption of day time TV programming will affect Trumpsters more than others;)

Alan

12-3-19, 12:28pm

I suspect the disruption of day time TV programming will affect Trumpsters more than others;)
I think people have odd ideas about those they consider 'Trumpsters' but it is always amusing to see just how confident those folks are of their own superiority. I can't think of a better way to guarantee a Trump win in 2020 and the delicious irony of the Trump haters and 'Trumpster' ridiculers having no one to blame but themselves.

For the record, most here call me a Trumpster, mainly because I don't openly detest anyone and they can't grok that, and I'm looking forward to the disruption. How about you?

Rogar

12-3-19, 1:01pm

For the record, most here call me a Trumpster, mainly because I don't openly detest anyone and they can't grok that, and I'm looking forward to the disruption. How about you?

Yes, I'd like to watch at least some of the proceedings and can catch up with news reports on the rest. I suppose things in politics tend to be relative to others, but it is one of the very few impeachment proceedings ever and has historical significance. Personal opinion, I think every voting person would benefit from watching some of the actual events rather than counting on media's versions only. Unfortunately, I plan to go fishing tomorrow and will miss out on some of it..

Alan

12-3-19, 1:13pm

I suppose things in politics tend to be relative to others, but it is one of the very few impeachment proceedings ever and has historical significance.I find it interesting that of the 4 times Presidential impeachment hearings have been held, I've been able to witness parts of 3 of them. I'm not sure if that says something about me or the growing political intolerance in this country.

LDAHL

12-3-19, 1:47pm

I think people have odd ideas about those they consider 'Trumpsters' but it is always amusing to see just how confident those folks are of their own superiority. I can't think of a better way to guarantee a Trump win in 2020 and the delicious irony of the Trump haters and 'Trumpster' ridiculers having no one to blame but themselves.

For the record, most here call me a Trumpster, mainly because I don't openly detest anyone and they can't grok that, and I'm looking forward to the disruption. How about you?

With enemies like that, who needs friends?

jp1

12-7-19, 7:11pm

I find it interesting that of the 4 times Presidential impeachment hearings have been held, I've been able to witness parts of 3 of them. I'm not sure if that says something about me or the growing political intolerance in this country.

So the only reason nixon was going to be impeached was because of political intolerance? That's an interesting theory. I'd love to hear more.

Alan

12-7-19, 7:23pm

So the only reason nixon was going to be impeached was because of political intolerance? That's an interesting theory. I'd love to hear more.That must be your theory since I never said it was the only reason Nixon faced impeachment. But I'm pretty sure it's the only reason the current impeachment show is underway, it started slow taking nearly 3 years to find it's footing but it's proving to be very entertaining now.

I still find it odd that the country went through this once during its first 185 years of existence and we're now on our third in the remaining 45 years of having a President. What does that tell you?

jp1

12-7-19, 8:22pm

That must be your theory since I never said it was the only reason Nixon faced impeachment. But I'm pretty sure it's the only reason the current impeachment show is underway, it started slow taking nearly 3 years to find it's footing but it's proving to be very entertaining now.

I still find it odd that the country went through this once during its first 185 years of existence and we're now on our third in the remaining 45 years of having a President. What does that tell you?

So you think what nixon did was worse than what the current president did? Or is it that you think it was wrong that nixon's presidency was forced to end before his term was over.

I suppose there could be any number of reasons that we're on our third impeachment in our lifetime. Perhaps media is better now at uncovering scandals and technology makes spreading the word easier. Perhaps we're picking more corrupt people as president. Perhaps in the past the idea of a president getting a blowjob from someone other than his wife was not considered to be anyone's business but the three people directly involved. Who knows.

Alan

12-7-19, 8:44pm

Perhaps in the past the idea of a president getting a blowjob from someone other than his wife was not considered to be anyone's business but the three people directly involved. Who knows.
It's still not anyone's business but lying under oath about it was a crime. You know that.

jp1

12-7-19, 9:03pm

If it’s not anyone’s business why was he asked about it.

LDAHL

12-7-19, 9:11pm

If it’s not anyone’s business why was he asked about it.

I’m sure that was Harvey Weinstein’s way of thinking.

Alan

12-7-19, 9:32pm

If it’s not anyone’s business why was he asked about it.Apparently one of the women he sexually harassed had the temerity to sue him and then the rest of the world had the gall to notice his perjury. But you knew that too.

jp1

12-8-19, 1:45am

So if it turns out that trump committed perjury in his written response
To mueller are you goi g to suddenly be in favor of impeachment?

LDAHL

12-8-19, 9:00am

It will be interesting to see if that is among the articles being brought forward.

Alan

12-8-19, 9:06am

So if it turns out that trump committed perjury in his written response
To mueller are you goi g to suddenly be in favor of impeachment?
I think I mentioned at the beginning that I was in favor of the House going through this process, why do you assume otherwise?

gimmethesimplelife

12-8-19, 9:14am

I'm reading that it looks likely Trump won't be impeached, even though he committed an impeachable offense. And the reason to have any faith at all in America again was? Rob

jp1

12-8-19, 10:10am

I think I mentioned at the beginning that I was in favor of the House going through this process, why do you assume otherwise?

I guess I missed it in the middle of all the comments about how this was Democratic Party overreach and such?

Alan

12-8-19, 10:29am

I guess I missed it in the middle of all the comments about how this was Democratic Party overreach and such?
I don't think I ever said it was overreach, it's just that the Democrats began planning the impeachment before Trump even took office so it's hard for rational folks to get all excited about it. But to your point about missing it, you responded to my post in favor of going through the impeachment process on October 31st in bae's thread about the Ukrainian thing. (I had to look it up because I actually thought it was in this thread)

I'm looking forward now to a possible result of all this foolishness, imagine Trump being impeached by the House and then the Senate fails to convict. Trump then rides a wave of sympathy to a second term while the Democrats maintain a slim lead in the House. They use their advantage to exercise a collective fit of pique to begin the process again and history is made as Trump is the only President to be impeached twice without tangible result. I wonder if the Democratic party could withstand that.

Rogar

12-8-19, 2:09pm

I'd like to see Pelosi withhold a vote until until the key witnesses like Bolton and Giuliani are allowed or forced to testify. That could well carry things past the election the way Donald can tie things up in the legal system. Then the voters can decide without giving the senate a predetermined victory. That's my fantasy.

jp1

12-8-19, 2:28pm

Trump then rides a wave of sympathy to a second term

LOL. The only sympathy trump will get if/when the senate abdicates their oath to uphold the constitution will be from the 38-42% of voters that already think he's the second coming of Christ.

Alan

12-8-19, 2:35pm

LDAHL

12-8-19, 4:30pm

LOL. The only sympathy trump will get if/when the senate abdicates their oath to uphold the constitution will be from the 38-42% of voters that already think he's the second coming of Christ.

I think that if the Senate fails to uphold the interagency consensus and Trump is allowed to run again, the issue will depend both on the deluded enthusiasm of his followers and the level of fear/disgust/confusion inspired by his opponent. It would probably also help his cause if the economy fails to tank over the next eleven months.

jp1

12-9-19, 8:52am

You paint with a broad brush dontcha?

You’ve got a point. Not all of his supporters think he’s Jesus 2.0. Some of them are more likely to think he’s the second coming of strom Thurmond.

Alan

12-9-19, 9:07am

You’ve got a point. Not all of his supporters think he’s Jesus 2.0. Some of them are more likely to think he’s the second coming of strom Thurmond.And if you mix your standard red, yellow and blue colors on your palette you'll find millions of additional hues.

jp1

12-10-19, 1:28am

It's still not anyone's business but lying under oath about it was a crime. You know that.

Yep. And that was clinton's big mistake. He should've just gone all trumpy and said "eff you, ain't gonna participate." And then he would've been golden. Everyone knows that if trump ever testifies under oath he's gonna perjure the shit out of whatever he talks about. But you know that too.

ToomuchStuff

12-10-19, 2:10am

gimmethesimplelife

12-10-19, 8:30am

I'm so excited! Today Democrats are supposed to announce Articles of Impeachment. Too bad I'm working all day. This has Presidente shots with a few neighbors written all over it. Anything legal to remove The Orange Threat To Civilized Life. Rob

Rogar

12-10-19, 9:36am

I'm looking forward now to a possible result of all this foolishness, imagine Trump being impeached by the House and then the Senate fails to convict. Trump then rides a wave of sympathy to a second term while the Democrats maintain a slim lead in the House. They use their advantage to exercise a collective fit of pique to begin the process again and history is made as Trump is the only President to be impeached twice without tangible result. I wonder if the Democratic party could withstand that.

Interesting prediction. Mine is that the Senate fails to convict and Donald wears out the phrase "witch hunt" and "no quid pro quo" over and over. Short of some gross criminal act it would be political suicide for the dems to go through another impeachment process, which will give Donald the license to romp through various other illegalities knowing the senate will protect him. It will give Don at least one more get out of jail free card.

catherine

12-10-19, 10:19am

iris lilies

12-10-19, 10:37am

If ya want a new party, stop voting for the oldies.

LDAHL

12-10-19, 10:48am

I see the White House is pushing for a speedy Senate trial. I also see that the two articles are focused on the Ukraine rather than the Mueller stuff.

In related news, it looks like the DOJ IG has determined that the DOJ was not biased in launching its various Russia probes, but were merely egregiously stupid in the execution. However, the wider ranging Durham investigation may contradict that conclusion.

gimmethesimplelife

12-10-19, 11:41am

I haven't been able to.watch the Dems unveil the Articles of Impeachment but I hope it sticks/works. In the 85006 there is now concern of Donald Trump ordering an invasion of Mexico if reelected. How realistic such is I'm sure could be debated for hours - my point us that the fear is there. Given the declining standard of living in America and relentlessly rising costs, access to Mexico is only going to become more crucial going forward. We as a nation can't afford Donald J Trump.....or any other politician that doesn't understand the reality of my last sentence.....And how many politicians realistically do?

Best we can hope for is removal of The Unfit One Of Orange. Rob

iris lilies

12-10-19, 11:47am

I heard about “Censure” as one possible outcome when some Republicans may find that palatable when they will not impeach. What do ya’ll know about Censure?

iris lilies

12-10-19, 11:48am

Invasion of Mexico.

Alrighty then.

gimmethesimplelife

12-10-19, 11:51am

Just a few random thoughts as I sit here watching CNN broadcasting The Unveiling:

Nancy looks tired
Nancy looks REALLY tired
Donald is going to get re-elected
We need to start all over with two brand new parties--the ones we have are over the hill
Bernie Sanders actually beats Trump in the polls in several states by a large margin--much larger than any other Democratic candidate--but the Dems won't believe it and they'll never support him as one of their own
See Point #3
I'm sure these goings on are stressful for Pelosi.....she's got a lot riding on this. It's towards the end of her career and this impeachment, if successful, would earn her name in history books. Plus I do believe Pelosi is a bit practical.....note that she did not jump into impeachment proceedings for quite some time. I think she realizes she's taking a gamble here but is so repulsed by Trump and all that he's about that she's willing to take this chance.

A true patriot in my book - though she's wealthy and doesn't have to join the reverse caravan headed daily to Mexico for affordable medical and dental and optical and now even veterinary care, her actions here may have the side effect of better relations with Mexico, which would be such a relief for some middle class Americans and those below them that never needed to be woke. In my book, you can't get much more patriotic than Nancy Pelosi - a side effect of her actions could be a removal of the fear of the Mexivan border being closed to access for US citizens. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

12-10-19, 11:52am

Should be Mexican in the last sentence.

gimmethesimplelife

12-10-19, 11:59am

Invasion of Mexico. Nik

Alrighty then.IL, I'd agree that such is unlikely.....but threaten to designate Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations and offer military assistance to aid in their removal? You live in the Midwest so access to Mexico is not as practical for you as it is for me. This close to the border access to Mexico is a HUGE deal and Mexican healthcare has saved many US lives. We as a nation really are indebted to Mexico for this. Instead of insulting Mexico - how about Thanking Mexico and respecting it's vital importance to millions of lower income Americans? Rob

Rogar

12-10-19, 12:09pm

I heard about “Censure” as one possible outcome when some Republicans may find that palatable when they will not impeach. What do ya’ll know about Censure?

From what I've seen of the proceedings, the GOP defense has backed Donald in that he did nothing wrong. There may be members of the party that are not in the forefront and would back such a thing, but I don't see the majority deviating from the party line story. Especially in an election year.

Notheless, a brief explanation that made sense to me. https://www.forbes.com/sites/billwhalen/2019/09/26/why-not-censure-the-president-and-move-on/#7dee29e84299

iris lilies

12-10-19, 12:18pm

IL, I'd agree that such is unlikely.....but threaten to designate Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations and offer military assistance to aid in their removal? You live in the Midwest so access to Mexico is not as practical for you as it is for me. This close to the border access to Mexico is a HUGE deal and Mexican healthcare has saved many US lives. We as a nation really are indebted to Mexico for this. Instead of insulting Mexico - how about Thanking Mexico and respecting it's vital importance to millions of lower income Americans? Rob

And now I am “insulting Mexico.”

As the kids say, I can’t even.

iris lilies

12-10-19, 12:22pm

From what I've seen of the proceedings, the GOP defense has backed Donald in that he did nothing wrong. There may be members of the party that are not in the forefront and would back such a thing, but I don't see the majority deviating from the party line story. Especially in an election year.

Notheless, a brief explanation that made sense to me. https://www.forbes.com/sites/billwhalen/2019/09/26/why-not-censure-the-president-and-move-on/#7dee29e84299

I like the idea of Censure but looks like it’s not viable.

bae

12-10-19, 12:32pm

In the 85006 there is now concern of Donald Trump ordering an invasion of Mexico if reelected.

You folks need to get out more...

herbgeek

12-10-19, 12:45pm

And now I am “insulting Mexico.”

I believe Rob was referring to Trump insulting Mexico.

Teacher Terry

12-10-19, 12:53pm

I was reading that people are going to Canada for insulin because they cannot afford it here. I would think that people closer to Mexico would go there.

gimmethesimplelife

12-10-19, 1:06pm

And now I am “insulting Mexico.”

As the kids say, I can’t even.And yes, that's one of the huge problems facing America today - that people such as yourself can't seem to grasp that America has sunk to the point that patriotism can now be seen as keeping a border to a foreign country open, so that US citizens can afford to access services their lives are not worth in the US. Here's proof positive - your lack of understanding of something that screams from rooftops and can be heard from many miles away where U live - that we truly do not live in the same country.

Cool thing here, though? I much prefer my country over yours.....mine is much more gritty and real. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

12-10-19, 1:07pm

I believe Rob was referring to Trump insulting Mexico.Thank You, Herbgeek. This is exactly what I meant. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

12-10-19, 1:09pm

Should be screams from rooftops where I live above in my reply to IL. Rob

iris lilies

12-10-19, 1:13pm

I believe Rob was referring to Trump insulting Mexico.

oh ok! Because I was not insulting Mexico.

gimmethesimplelife

12-10-19, 1:16pm

oh ok! Because I was not insulting Mexico.Agreed, IL. I was referring to Trump here. I do apologize if this was not clear. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

12-10-19, 1:20pm

I was reading that people are going to Canada for insulin because they cannot afford it here. I would think that people closer to Mexico would go there.Indeed they are. Look at it this way. A year's supply of high blood pressure pills costs $12.96 USD in Algodones. Apply this to other meds and it's understandable why a reverse caravan of sorts is going on. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

12-10-19, 1:24pm

My post above? This is the price I pay in Los Algodones for a year's supply of 10 MG Amlodipine for high blood pressure. Rob

Alan

12-10-19, 3:45pm

It's interesting that the articles of impeachment didn't include the poll tested crime of bribery, or any other crime for that matter, but rather seem to be relying on the vagueness of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors". You'd think after 3 years of effort and multiple investigations there'd be more.

Alan

12-10-19, 3:58pm

Best we can hope for is removal of The Unfit One Of Orange. RobYou can hope if you want but realistically you guys have just pretty much guaranteed his re-election. The liberal media got him elected with their wall-to-wall coverage of him in the first election and now the Democratic establishment has taken over by making all non-partisans irritated by their non-stop attempts to get him.

On another note, what's up with your impeachment party and dress up event? Will you celebrate the House's efforts or will it turn into a pity party when he's acquitted in the Senate?

gimmethesimplelife

12-11-19, 11:46am

You can hope if you want but realistically you guys have just pretty much guaranteed his re-election. The liberal media got him elected with their wall-to-wall coverage of him in the first election and now the Democratic establishment has taken over by making all non-partisans irritated by their non-stop attempts to get him.

On another note, what's up with your impeachment party and dress up event? Will you celebrate the House's efforts or will it turn into a pity party when he's acquitted in the Senate?I don't read the future so I don't know how this will turn out but in the event of an impeachment/kick the sociopath to the curb, a full on Neighborhood Block Party in Pura 85006. I of course will be making a Moroccan stew and using the good plates I earned from scanning retail goods for six months on Shopkick. My musical contribution will be Yes from the 80's, and we have our outfits preplanned and waiting.

In the event of House impeachment only, renewed activism against Trump and all that he stands for - though count me as one of the few in the neighborhood with kind words regarding Trump signing the law making animal cruelty a federal felony.

My take is that there is no sure bet here on either side. I would be making contingency plans for nationwide Trump Dumped celebrations, just in case. Rob

iris lilies

12-11-19, 12:00pm

I don't read the future so I don't know how this will turn out but in the event of an impeachment/kick the sociopath to the curb, a full on Neighborhood Block Party in Pura 85006. I of course will be making a Moroccan stew and using the good plates I earned from scanning retail goods for six months on Shopkick. My musical contribution will be Yes from the 80's, and we have our outfits preplanned and waiting.

In the event of House impeachment only, renewed activism against Trump and all that he stands for - though count me as one of the few in the neighborhood with kind words regarding Trump signing the law making animal cruelty a federal felony.

My take is that there is no sure bet here on either side. I would be making contingency plans for nationwide Trump Dumped celebrations, just in case. Rob

I would think a vote of the House for impeachment, even if the Senate doesn't agree, would be grounds for a semi-celebration. Like maybe not wearing the outfit above your station, but wearing an outfit OF your station, just one that is nicer than usual. No full blown Moroccan dish, but a dish from the general Mediterranean area. Not 80’s music but 1990’s. Etc.

You know, half measures of celebration for a halfway conducted impeachment. Appropriate but not over the top.

jp1

12-11-19, 9:06pm

“90’s music instead of 80’s.”

That made me laugh!

Tybee

12-12-19, 9:57am

I would definitely go to a party if someone else was elected next time, for sure. I might even throw a party, and I am not a party-thrower!

jp1

12-13-19, 5:46am

And 61 pages later, a brief summation of why the ugly orange turd needs to be impeached and removed. Personally I am still waiting for someone to actually offer a defense, but considering that what he has done is indefensible I doubt one will be coming.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-case-for-impeachment-is-overwhelming/

Rogar

12-13-19, 9:09am

Personally I am still waiting for someone to actually offer a defense, but considering that what he has done is indefensible I doubt one will be coming.

I don't think the facts will be particularly relevant to the vote anyway.

I've listened to quite a bit of the proceedings from the start and other than some conspiracy theory the defense has been such weak fancy legal word smithing I'm surprised anyone at all has bought into it. I might have had a nightmare where Jim Jordan is my boss and he just called me into his office and closed the door.

jp1

12-13-19, 10:10am

I don't think the facts will be particularly relevant to the vote anyway.

.

Of course not. The republicans are the anti-fact party. They know that being stupid yelling a-holes works just fine if the facts aren’t in your favor. After all, look at how things turned out for justice Rapey McBeer.

gimmethesimplelife

12-13-19, 10:12am

LDAHL

12-13-19, 10:34am

Of course not. The republicans are the anti-fact party. They know that being stupid yelling a-holes works just fine if the facts aren’t in your favor. After all, look at how things turned out for justice Rapey McBeer.

Facts seemed pretty thin on the ground in the case of our newest Associate Justice. Unless you count “credible accusations” as facts. Or learned interpretations of high school yearbook scribblings. Or silly playground insults.

Our current impeachment kerfuffle seems to be, as they say, more a political than a legal/forensic process. Whether the foolish actions of this foolish president rise to the level of a national security threat or not seemed less important to both parties than timing votes to the news cycle. With the outcome in both houses virtually predetermined, the whole process seems to be a mere sound bite generator.

jp1

12-13-19, 10:44am

You’re right, Ldahl. republicans think it’s perfectly acceptable for a president to use foreign aid to extort an ally into assisting his re-election campaign. No big deal at all to them.

flowerseverywhere

12-13-19, 10:54am

You’re right, Ldahl. republicans think it’s perfectly acceptable for a president to use foreign aid to extort an ally into assisting his re-election campaign. No big deal at all to them.

id like to correct your statement. Republicans think it is perfectly for a Republican President to use foreign aid to extort an ally into assisting his re-election campaign.

jp1

12-13-19, 11:02am

I stand corrected. It would probably also be fine with them if he lied about a blowjob.

LDAHL

12-13-19, 11:08am

I stand corrected. It would probably also be fine with them if he lied about a blowjob.

Well we have established the precedent that perjuring oneself, at least with regard to sexually exploiting subordinates, does not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Rogar

12-13-19, 12:17pm

Facts seemed pretty thin on the ground in the case of our newest Associate Justice. Unless you count “credible accusations” as facts. Or learned interpretations of high school yearbook scribblings. Or silly playground insults.

One thing I don't get about the defense is that the witness testimonies, all by credible patriots, have been discounted as not being first hand accounts, yet the ones that may have the first hand accounts have been blocked from testifying by the defenses. What is Donald hiding?

But like we've said, it's mostly mute points.

LDAHL

12-13-19, 1:52pm

One thing I don't get about the defense is that the witness testimonies, all by credible patriots, have been discounted as not being first hand accounts, yet the ones that may have the first hand accounts have been blocked from testifying by the defenses. What is Donald hiding?

But like we've said, it's mostly mute points.

Then the question becomes why did the Democrats not invest the time and litigation necessary to compel some insider testimony? Why the need for speed above all?

I think you’re right that hearing from people who were in the room firsthand, rather than hearsay from offended second and third tier mandarins would have made for a better case. Better television too, if that was the point of the exercise. I don’t think it would have been impossible to eventually drag in some hostile witnesses.

Why all the righteous pontification about the “rule of law” when you don’t seem willing to use all the legal tools available to you?

Rogar

12-13-19, 2:18pm

Then the question becomes why did the Democrats not invest the time and litigation necessary to compel some insider testimony? Why the need for speed above all?

The reason given in the arguments was that this would take months and months. The way Donald has played the courts for his tax returns I'd suspect it could go past elections. But, I think both parties wanted to just be done with things, and since it's a political choice rather than legal it probably would not have changed anything anyway.

jp1

12-13-19, 6:04pm

So now that Moscow Mitch has stated publicly that he has no intention of upholding the impeachment oath he has to take can we charge him with perjury? supposedly republicans take that seriously.

Alan

12-13-19, 6:32pm

So now that Moscow Mitch has stated publicly that he has no intention of upholding the impeachment oath he has to take can we charge him with perjury? supposedly republicans take that seriously.
The juror's oath taken by legislators during an impeachment ceremony: ”I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”

Will you hold Senators Warren and Sanders to the same standard considering they're positioning themselves to replace him?

flowerseverywhere

12-14-19, 6:56am

The juror's oath taken by legislators during an impeachment ceremony: ”I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”

Will you hold Senators Warren and Sanders to the same standard considering they're positioning themselves to replace him?

now that’s funny. The Trump tactic of gaslighting. Don’t address the question, try to turn it back to the democrats. Anything but telling the truth.

gimmethesimplelife

12-14-19, 9:59am

USA Today is calling for Trump's impeachment. Rob

iris lilies

12-14-19, 10:10am

USA Today is calling for Trump's impeachment. Rob
I don’t think there’s much question that Donald J Trump will be impeached. That doesn’t mean he’ll be removed from office.

LDAHL

12-14-19, 10:13am

The reason given in the arguments was that this would take months and months. The way Donald has played the courts for his tax returns I'd suspect it could go past elections. But, I think both parties wanted to just be done with things, and since it's a political choice rather than legal it probably would not have changed anything anyway.

So “the threat to our democracy” did not warrant months of effort to combat?

But I agree this is first and foremost a political process, or perhaps rarefied political theater. If the intent was to drive up Trump’s disapproval numbers, the effort so far seems to be ineffective. Especially in the swing states.

I think when the Senate Republicans are running the process, we will hear a lot of pontificating about letting voters decide and the conflict between an elected president the bureaucracy. When the Durham report comes out, they may have ammunition to claim the previous administration abused law enforcement to affect the 2016 election. It will give the punditocracy something to chatter about until the primaries start.

gimmethesimplelife

12-14-19, 10:46am

I don’t think there’s much question that Donald J Trump will be impeached. That doesn’t mean he’ll be removed from office.IL, USA Today meant the whole enchilda including removal from office. I do agree that it's not likely the Senate will impeach. My question is - what is the price tag to America if The Unfit One Ic Orange is not kicked to the curb? Let me be more clear: If 70% if working Americans are checked out of their jobs, how long is it until 70 percent of Americans have checked out of their citizenship? Either way this goes, there will be long term negative consequences for America. Rob

Alan

12-14-19, 10:52am

now that’s funny. The Trump tactic of gaslighting. Don’t address the question, try to turn it back to the democrats. Anything but telling the truth.
I think that gaslighting term is overused, often incorrectly. Some may even consider it gaslighting to point that out.

JaneV2.0

12-14-19, 11:49am

"Donald Trump is so accustomed to bribery and extortion as a way of business that he thinks it is normal operating procedure, and can’t believe he’s done something wrong. So Republicans, who fear his base, are going to make bribery and extortion acceptable for Republican presidents." --John Dean, on Twitter @JohnWDean

jp1

12-14-19, 12:15pm

I think that gaslighting term is overused, often incorrectly. Some may even consider it gaslighting to point that out.

While that may be true the term seemed apt in this particular case. Another phrase that would have been accurate would be bothsiderism. When Warren or Sanders goes on tv and openly states their intention to act as inappropriately as Moscow mitch feel free to come back and share it with us.

And since you didn't address my concern about him purjuring himself when he takes the impeacgment oath I guess that means you are cool with it.

Alan

12-14-19, 12:27pm

And since you didn't address my concern about him purjuring himself when he takes the impeacgment oath I guess that means you are cool with it.I only know that if he does, you'll blame me and I'm cool with that, well, if you confuse cool with accustomed. ;)

flowerseverywhere

12-14-19, 12:27pm

While that may be true the term seemed apt in this particular case. Another phrase that would have been accurate would be bothsiderism. When Warren or Sanders goes on tv and openly states their intention to act as inappropriately as Moscow mitch feel free to come back and share it with us.

And since you didn't address my concern about him purjuring himself when he takes the impeacgment oath I guess that means you are cool with it.

he could shoot someone on fifth avenue, you know. And they would still love him.

Alan

12-14-19, 12:30pm

he could shoot someone on fifth avenue, you know. And they would still love him.Who are 'they'? The deplorables, the bitter clingers, the great unwashed masses? Or are 'they' all one and the same?

JaneV2.0

12-14-19, 12:54pm

Who are 'they'? The deplorables, the bitter clingers, the great unwashed masses? Or are 'they' all one and the same?

Those, plus the oligarchs. Most of them, anyway.

LDAHL

12-14-19, 1:29pm

When you think the people you disagree with are foolish and misinformed, it’s politics.

When you think the people you disagree with are evil and willfully ignorant, it’s tribalism.

When you operate on the assumption that you are intellectually and morally superior to the people you disagree with, it’s snobbery.

When you base your politics on snobbery, you probably need to look into maintaining a secret police capability or get used to losing elections to unsavory demagogues.

jp1

12-14-19, 1:51pm

I only know that if he does, you'll blame me and I'm cool with that, well, if you confuse cool with accustomed. ;)

It'll not be your fault when he does but assuming that you react with unconcern over the event it'll be clear that your motivations regarding perjury aren't upholding the rule of law but the simple base politics of IOKIYAR.

kib

12-14-19, 1:59pm

When you operate on the assumption that you are intellectually and morally superior to the people you disagree with, it’s snobbery.

When you base your politics on snobbery, you probably need to look into maintaining a secret police capability or get used to losing elections to unsavory demagogues. I find it difficult to argue for the moral and intellectual parity of people who would support a greed-driven, partisan megalomaniac as the official guardian and representative of The People - all of us. There's a difference between snobbery and egalitarianism.

flowerseverywhere

12-14-19, 2:04pm

Who are 'they'? The deplorables, the bitter clingers, the great unwashed masses? Or are 'they' all one and the same?
It’s what he calls his base.

LDAHL

12-14-19, 2:23pm

I find it difficult to argue for the moral and intellectual parity of people who would support a greed-driven, partisan megalomaniac as the official guardian and representative of The People - all of us. There's a difference between snobbery and egalitarianism.

But when you suffer defeats at the hands of those inferior types, wouldn’t a degree of humility be in order? I can understand the temptation to blame your failures on racism, misogyny or the Electoral College, but wouldn’t a willingness to learn from your mistakes serve your interests better in the long term?

kib

12-14-19, 2:33pm

... are you saying Trump supporters would abandon their position and vote for someone more reasonable, if only the democrats would apologize for expecting it?

Alan

12-14-19, 2:45pm

... are you saying Trump supporters would abandon their position and vote for someone more reasonable, if only the democrats would apologize for expecting it?
No, speaking for myself I think many would vote for someone more reasonable if the opposition could find one.

Welcome back by the way.

kib

12-14-19, 2:55pm

Thank you for the welcome - and the website. I'm sorry.

While I get excited about the extremist left candidates I don't think they have a chance in hell of coming through on promises, and having another eight years of stagnation due to partisan bickering sounds like something the country can't afford. I'm not entirely opposed to Biden, I think he'd be a calming bowl of oatmeal for a few years.

gimmethesimplelife

12-14-19, 3:33pm

LDAHL

12-14-19, 4:04pm

... are you saying Trump supporters would abandon their position and vote for someone more reasonable, if only the democrats would apologize for expecting it?

No, I’m saying that if you lose an election in great part due to arrogantly insulting a big chunk of the electorate, then doubling down on the arrogance would not seem to be the response of a superior mind.

Alan

12-14-19, 4:18pm

jp1

12-14-19, 4:30pm

No, I’m saying that if you lose an election in great part due to arrogantly insulting a big chunk of the electorate, then doubling down on the arrogance would not seem to be the response of a superior mind.

Considering that he only got 46% of the votes I’m not sure I’d call it a large chunk of the electorate. And surely not all of his supporters fall into the four categories of deplorable, although I’ve seen plenty of attempts by non-deplorables to expand the original categories because republicans are all about victim culture these days.

kib

12-14-19, 5:24pm

Has Trump actually done things you, as an intellectually gifted person, find to be of benefit to anyone but himself and a handful of his pets? Or was revenge for being insulted enough to justify having this rotten tangerine sitting in the oval office.

I'm really not kidding, I believe the people on this board arguing for Trump are just as smart as anyone else, but I don't understand you. I can't think of one reason I'd want Trump in office, but I hate the man. Is there a reason for the greater good that I ought to consider voting for him that I've missed in my aggravation?

Alan

12-14-19, 6:04pm

herbgeek

12-14-19, 6:21pm

Is there a reason for the greater good that I ought to consider voting for him that I've missed in my aggravation?

Not for the greater good at all, but the major driving forces keeping him there (my understanding):

1) he's stuffing the judiciary with right leaning picks. Meaning well after he's gone, he'll be indirectly responsible for conservative policy. 2) for some its all about abortion, and anything that can stymie abortion or outright make it illegal is a good thing. 3) the rest of the agenda is specific groups wanting less regulations (eg dumping waste into our waterways for coal producers).

Plus Russia. Moscow Mitch isn't going to do anything to secure elections or sanction Russians, because he got a Russian oligarch to invest 200 million into an aluminum mill in Kentucky.

Alan

12-14-19, 6:39pm

Plus Russia. Moscow Mitch isn't going to do anything to secure elections or sanction Russians, because he got a Russian oligarch to invest 200 million into an aluminum mill in Kentucky.Well, at least McConnell's constituents will get something out of it, the Clintons got a Russian oligarch to give 145 million to their foundation and an additional 500,000 to Bill for an hour long speech. It must have hurt their pocketbook when all that money dried up after Hillary lost the election.

I often find myself smiling when people bring up Russia in the Public Policy Forum, it seems like only yesterday when Mitt Romney mentioned Russia as a threat to this country in a presidential debate and Barack Obama snickered and suggested that the 1980's called and wanted their foreign policy back. Romney was then roasted in the media as well as here for being so out of touch. Good times!

LDAHL

12-14-19, 7:20pm

Considering that he only got 46% of the votes I’m not sure I’d call it a large chunk of the electorate.

Clearly it was large enough.

iris lilies

12-14-19, 7:23pm

Has Trump actually done things you, as an intellectually gifted person, find to be of benefit to anyone but himself and a handful of his pets? ...?

srsly? I mean, you have seen the stock market, right? You’ve see the unemployment rate, right?

I know you have been gone from this website for a while, so you may not know that I cashed in on some gains of the Tump bump in the markets and bought a red sports car for cash. But perhaps I’m just one of his “pets. “

I didn’t vote for him then I doubt I’ll vote for him next fall. But it is not productive to say there is nothing for the greater good that has come about with him in office because a strong economy is very much for the greater good.

bae

12-14-19, 7:41pm

But it is not productive to say there is nothing for the greater good that has come about with him in office because a strong economy is very much for the greater good.

I don't typically credit Presidents with responsibility for the stock market, economy or the unemployment rate.

kib

12-14-19, 7:52pm

srsly? I mean, you have seen the stock market, right? You’ve see the unemployment rate, right?

I know you have been gone from this website for a while, so you may not know that I cashed in on some gains of the Tump bump in the markets and bought a red sports car for cash. But perhaps I’m just one of his “pets. “

I didn’t vote for him then I doubt I’ll vote for him next fall. But it is not productive to say there is nothing for the greater good that has come about with him in office because a strong economy is very much for the greater good. I wasn't really saying that nothing good has come, what I was saying was that I probably don't see it because I find him so offensive. I'm not comfortable with the volatility he brings to the market with his tweeting and meaningless innuendo, but it is true that the market has been on an upward trajectory since he showed up. It's nice you could buy a fab car. And no, I don't think you're one of his pets, I'm talking about sweeties like Putin and Kim Jong Un.

jp1

12-14-19, 9:40pm

Clearly it was large enough.

But barely. And since the last election a significant number of suburban women have apparently found him, and republicans in general, to be not worthy of their vote. Since he's done nothing to try and attract anyone to vote for him that didn't vote for him last time it'll be interesting to see how the election plays out, assuming of course that the senate republicans follow Moscow Mitch's lead and completely ignore the evidence when deciding whether he needs to be removed.

jp1

12-14-19, 9:42pm

I wasn't really saying that nothing good has come, what I was saying was that I probably don't see it because I find him so offensive. I'm not comfortable with the volatility he brings to the market with his tweeting and meaningless innuendo, but it is true that the market has been on an upward trajectory since he showed up. It's nice you could buy a fab car. And no, I don't think you're one of his pets, I'm talking about sweeties like Putin and Kim Jong Un.

Actually the market has been on an upward trajectory since Obama showed up. But I tend to agree with bae that the president has little more influence on the market than I do.

jp1

12-14-19, 9:45pm

a strong economy is very much for the greater good.

Obviously this is a reasonable statement. I guess the only question is how one defines strong economy. I vaguely remember trump promising to bring back lots of manufacturing jobs for all the people suffering in the rustbelt. I wonder how those voters define "strong economy", and whether their definition would match with yours.

kib

12-14-19, 9:56pm

Actually the market has been on an upward trajectory since Obama showed up. But I tend to agree with bae that the president has little more influence on the market than I do. I've been doing some day trading, and if I could spend the ten minutes before a chinese/mexican/canadian/north korean negotiations tweet as a fly on the wall, I could make millions. And I'm sure someone is. "Maybe sooner than you think." Zooommm!!! "Might wait til I get re-elected." Keeeee-rash!! This nonsense may not have a long term bearing on the market, but his pressure on the fed, the instability he's causing in the overall reliability of foreign trade, and his continuing efforts to loosen fiscal regulation standards almost certainly will.

Teacher Terry

12-15-19, 12:43am

Farmers in Wisconsin are committing suicide at a high rate and food stamps are being cut which will effect the working poor, disabled and seniors. I have stocks like many here and of course am happy when they go up. However, I am concerned about the greater good. If people vote against their own interests again there is nothing I can say.

catherine

12-15-19, 1:57am

Some of us are simply suspect because we don't actively hate him as much as others think we should.

I don't hate him. I'm Catholic. I pray for him.
I do believe that his policies are doing irreparable damage to everything BUT the stock market. Is a high Dow for the 50% of the people who have money in the stock market enough to make up for everything else his administration has done? Yeah, it's the economy, stupid, but if you read behind the numbers, you see a lot of people left behind, and more to follow once the deregulations continue to benefit only the companies and their stockholders.

jp1

12-15-19, 9:42am

Well, at least McConnell's constituents will get something out of it, the Clintons got a Russian oligarch to give 145 million to their foundation and an additional 500,000 to Bill for an hour long speech. It must have hurt their pocketbook when all that money dried up after Hillary lost the election.

You seem to have a trumpian understanding of what foundations spend their money on.

Alan

12-15-19, 9:54am

You seem to have a trumpian understanding of what foundations spend their money on.Or conversely, I may just have a Clintonian understanding of how to sell influence to bad actors.

LDAHL

12-15-19, 11:07am

But barely. And since the last election a significant number of suburban women have apparently found him, and republicans in general, to be not worthy of their vote. Since he's done nothing to try and attract anyone to vote for him that didn't vote for him last time it'll be interesting to see how the election plays out, assuming of course that the senate republicans follow Moscow Mitch's lead and completely ignore the evidence when deciding whether he needs to be removed.

Makes you wonder what might have happened with a bit less self-satisfied sneering, doesn’t it?

The 2020 contest will in large part depend on whether the Democrats can produce a candidate less odious than Trump, or whether they once again snatch defeat from victory.

jp1

12-15-19, 11:27am

Or conversely, I may just have a Clintonian understanding of how to sell influence to bad actors.

If any other president's foundation had been found by a court to be as scammy of a fraud as trump's it would have dominated the news for months. But it barely even made the news for a day and was mostly ignored because absolutely no one is surprised by this.

jp1

12-15-19, 11:28am

The 2020 contest will in large part depend on whether the Democrats can produce a candidate less odious than Trump, or whether they once again snatch defeat from victory.

Define odious.

JaneV2.0

12-15-19, 11:33am

I don't hate him. I'm Catholic. I pray for him.
I do believe that his policies are doing irreparable damage to everything BUT the stock market. Is a high Dow for the 50% of the people who have money in the stock market enough to make up for everything else his administration has done? Yeah, it's the economy, stupid, but if you read behind the numbers, you see a lot of people left behind, and more to follow once the deregulations continue to benefit only the companies and their stockholders.

You're a better woman than I, Catherine. American economies have traditionally done better under Democrats, but even if they hadn't, I'd take my chances to purge the country of this suppurating sore of a man, whose policies are notable for their cruelty, whose advisers are criminals and neo-Nazis, and whose avid supporters, howl their approval of crude vulgarity at his rallies. I've endured oafs and warmongers--looking at you, W--but this is orders of magnitude worse.

Alan

12-15-19, 11:50am

If any other president's foundation had been found by a court to be as scammy of a fraud as trump's it would have dominated the news for months. But it barely even made the news for a day and was mostly ignored because absolutely no one is surprised by this.
You think it was ignored? It was investigated by state Attorney's General and eventually shut down under court supervision and all its assets were distributed to court approved charities and Trump paid a $2M judgement.

I think what was ignored was the hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign government donations made to the Secretary Of State's family foundation in violation of State Department rules. The New York Times even opined that it was unclear where the foundation ended and the State Department began. Judicial Watch diligently investigated and the FBI attempted to make a case against the foundation but the investigation was shut down by the Obama Justice Department and everyone chose to forget all about it.

All that aside though, I think the most telling thing was the fact that pretty much all donations foreign and domestic dried up within days of the 2016 election. In it's day, that operation dwarfed the Trump foundation in size and scope and yet no one will take a closer look. Weird huh?

catherine

12-15-19, 12:20pm

You're a better woman than I, Catherine.

I'm hoping you got the reference to Nancy Pelosi... although I also don't hate anyone and I'm actually a lapsed Catholic, that quote was used in a tongue-in-cheek way, and seems a little strange if you didn't hear her response to that reporter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar0yjBm2HTU

JaneV2.0

12-15-19, 12:32pm

I'm hoping you got the reference to Nancy Pelosi... although I also don't hate anyone and I'm actually a lapsed Catholic, that quote was used in a tongue-in-cheek way, and seems a little strange if you didn't hear her response to that reporter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar0yjBm2HTU

I got it. I'm a CINO--on the rolls somewhere, but never practiced. I admire her forbearance.

flowerseverywhere

12-15-19, 2:15pm

Anybody read the new poll from Fox State run news?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-trump-job-approval-ticks-up-views-on-impeachment-steady

even they are reporting 50% are in favor of impeachment and removal. You really should read the rest of the polling results. Despite trying every which way to skew the results and public opinion you can’t deny many people are worn out and disgusted.
Then there are these guys, who threaten a civil war if he is impeached

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/474192-trump-supporter-says-his-removal-could-lead-to-the-second-civil

not the first time we have heard this.

i also don’t hate him. I do feel he has brought out the worst in some people. When he shouts at his rallies and points to the press and screams “they are the enemy of the people” it should frighten everyone. Because you see, in any election the tables could turn. Dems could get a presidential, house and senate majority. Or not. But With the precedent to no accountability, lying, declaring he is above the law, defying subpoenas, hiding information including private phone calls with foreign leaders, bullying and so on, civility and democracy has gone down the toilet .

He had lots of problems with bankruptcies and lawsuits against him for non payment before the Oval Office. His university defrauded students.
If he was was willing to cheat on his “charitable” foundation to enrich himself, what makes anyone think he won’t cheat the American people to enrich himself and those who are loyal to him??

frugal-one

12-15-19, 4:37pm

LDAHL

12-15-19, 5:45pm

Define odious.

Firstly, insulting voters, whether basket of deplorable style, or the more Trumpian style attack on anyone who crosses you at the moment. Hold them in contempt, if you like, but have the wit to keep your mouth shut even if your true believers lap it up.

Second, insulting the voters’ intelligence by uttering ridiculous promises. Building a wall that Mexico will pay for, or sending everybody’s kids to college and sending Jeff Bezos the bill. And don’t compound the error by telling the voters they don’t comprehend their own interests.

Finally, I would say openly lusting for the power to bring low your designated enemies, whether they are rapacious border-crashers or wicked billionaires. It plays well with the zealots, but people of sense pick up a whiff of authoritarianism from that. Not the crazed folks who see Nazis behind every tree, but the ones who prefer an unedited version of the Bill of Rights.

flowerseverywhere

12-15-19, 9:05pm

Not the crazed folks who see Nazis behind every tree, but the ones who prefer an unedited version of the Bill of Rights.

i am one of the crazed ones. I’ve been attending a weekly history group at my community center run by a history professor. On the anniversary of D day we honored a 95 YO WW2 vet who parachuted into Normandy. He also fought in the battle of the bulge, and helped liberate a smaller concentration camp. He was a dynamic speaker. Through the year I’ve learned so much about the lead up to the war, how Hitler gained power, the Hitler youth, the resistance and concentration camps. Ive figured out much of what my dad did during the war. He died when I was young and we struggled to put the pieces in the puzzle. I’ve read books and watched many movies too. Plus DH and I visited the New Orleans WW2 museum, the Bedford memorial, and the group had some great speakers. Knowing how the unthinkable happened does tend to make me suspicious of some of trumps tactics. Steve Miller especially gives me the creeps.

In the new new year we will be doing the colonial American period onwards. Since I had relatives here in the 1620’s I’m anxious to learn more. My sibs and I do a lot of genealogy and are trying to figure out how we got to be a mix of French, British, Portuguese, African American and Native American. We have figured a lot of it out. We have had some interesting DNA matches, to be sure.

gimmethesimplelife

12-15-19, 9:16pm

Where I live Trump has no support whatsoever and the thought of impeachment makes most smile. This sentiment is only getting stronger. I'm wondering if the Pro Trump side us getting stronger? Funky times we live in. Rob

Alan

12-15-19, 10:01pm

Where I live Trump has no support whatsoever and the thought of impeachment makes most smile. This sentiment is only getting stronger.It's too bad the Democrats rushed this through without hard charges and had to settle for generic abuse of power and obstruction of congress articles which won't stand up in a trial. Those smiles are bound to turn upside down, especially since the entire effort is likely to guarantee a second term. I wonder if the anti-Trump zealots have any idea what they've done?

jp1

12-15-19, 11:10pm

It's too bad the Democrats rushed this through without hard charges and had to settle for generic abuse of power and obstruction of congress articles which won't stand up in a trial. Those smiles are bound to turn upside down, especially since the entire effort is likely to guarantee a second term. I wonder if the anti-Trump zealots have any idea what they've done?

It will be interesting to see if your pessimism about the intelligence of the voting public is warranted.

Rogar

12-15-19, 11:22pm

It's too bad the Democrats rushed this through without hard charges and had to settle for generic abuse of power and obstruction of congress articles which won't stand up in a trial....

It has just seemed bizarre to me how the White House has blocked key witnesses from testifying, and then claims as a defense that the allowed witnesses only have second or third hand accounts. But regardless, the vote will not be evidence based.

The most recent polls I've seen say 50% support impeachment and removal from office and there has been a shift of independents moving towards impeachment. My take so far is that the proceedings won't have any significant effects on the 2020 election. The lines have been already drawn, but those numbers are probably enough to vaguely forecast a Trump defeat.

LDAHL

12-16-19, 9:03am

It will be interesting to see if your pessimism about the intelligence of the voting public is warranted.

I think that assessment will be better made when we know the options the voters are confronted with.

jp1

12-16-19, 12:15pm

I think that assessment will be better made when we know the options the voters are confronted with.

I suppose you're right. Some people don't think that a sitting present attempting to extort an ally into helping with his reelection effort by holding up military aid that country needs is a particularly big deal.

LDAHL

12-16-19, 12:53pm

I suppose you're right. Some people don't think that a sitting present attempting to extort an ally into helping with his reelection effort by holding up military aid that country needs is a particularly big deal.

I am of the school of thought that no matter how bad things are they can always get worse. I don’t happen to think it’s outside the realm of possibility that an equally dreadful or worse alternative to Trump may emerge from the Democrat’s national convention.

If the Democrat is reasonably superior to Trump, I will vote for that candidate.

If the Democrat is clearly worse, I will hold my nose and vote for Trump.

If the two choices seem about equally awful, I will do what I did last time and vote Libertarian.

I try not to allow moralistic fervor to interfere with rational calculation.

jp1

12-16-19, 1:01pm

I am of the school of thought that no matter how bad things are they can always get worse. I don’t happen to think it’s outside the realm of possibility that an equally dreadful or worse alternative to Trump may emerge from the Democrat’s national convention.

Especially once that pesky "high crimes and misdemeanors" wording from the constitution has been rendered meaningless.

Teacher Terry

12-16-19, 1:11pm

I don’t think things could get any worse so nothing could persuade me to vote for the orange moron.

LDAHL

12-16-19, 1:15pm

Especially once that pesky "high crimes and misdemeanors" wording from the constitution has been rendered meaningless.

I think the problem with putting a veneer of legal phrasing on what is essentially a political crusade that commenced prior to the last inauguration is that people tend to begin believing their own propaganda in terms of who is being stonily objective and who is grinding an axe. It tends to trivialize the process down to another item in the partisan bag of tricks.

Alan

12-16-19, 2:38pm

Especially once that pesky "high crimes and misdemeanors" wording from the constitution has been rendered meaningless.Has it's meaning changed since 1998 when the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines on President Clinton's articles of impeachment? Or maybe since 1999 when every Senate Democrat voted 'Not Guilty' on each of the two articles coming out of the House?

That seemed to be a pretty partisan trial so I think justice was best served by an acquittal. I think the same applies this time, don't you?

jp1

12-16-19, 3:11pm

That seemed to be a pretty partisan trial so I think justice was best served by an acquittal. I think the same applies this time, don't you?

I'm impressed at how consistently republicans have avoided trying to actually defend trump's (admittedly indefensible) actions and have stuck with the "it's just a partisan witchhunt" defense.

Alan

12-16-19, 3:15pm

I'm impressed at how consistently republicans have avoided trying to actually defend trump's (admittedly indefensible) actions and have stuck with the "it's just a partisan witchhunt" defense.It only works because the Democrats jumped the gun and started working on impeachment before he actually assumed the office, 'partisan witch hunt' just seems to fit.

gimmethesimplelife

12-16-19, 3:50pm

It only works because the Democrats jumped the gun and started working on impeachment before he actually assumed the office, 'partisan witch hunt' just seems to fit.Alan, I can accept that you are a Conservative and support Trump. Such is indeed your right and you owe no one any justification for your choice here. Given all the proceeding, and given that you.support Trump, here's an honest, non-snarky question for you. How do you justify Trump's now infamous call with the President of the Ukraine? I find it utterly fascinating that Conservatives are willing to overlook this BOTOH are OK with holding citizenship in the one country on this planet that locks up more of it's citizens than any other. My point here is even application of the standard. Trump breaks the law? There need to be consequences otherwise the Constitution is but toilet paper. Seriously. Rob

Alan

12-16-19, 3:51pm

Alan, I can accept that you are a Conservative and support Trump. Such is indeed your right and you owe no one any justification for your choice here. Given all the proceeding, and given that you.support Trump....
What makes you think that?

LDAHL

12-16-19, 4:02pm

gimmethesimplelife

12-16-19, 4:05pm

I see a recent poll indicates 50% of voters now favor impeachment. Up from 49% in October. All the sturming and dranging on both sides of the issue doesn’t seem to have had much impact.

Is the whole thing being tuned out by most Americans?Half of Americans favoring impeachment is no small matter. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

12-16-19, 4:08pm

What makes you think that?You are very quick to defend Trump. As quick as I am to engage in anti police brutality activism. Seriously. If you are not a Conservative my vote is that you deserve an academy award for your performance. Rob

jp1

12-16-19, 4:22pm

It only works because the Democrats jumped the gun and started working on impeachment before he actually assumed the office, 'partisan witch hunt' just seems to fit.

So we should ignore the facts that have come out?

iris lilies

12-16-19, 4:26pm

Half of Americans favoring impeachment is no small matter. Rob

falling into party lines.

LDAHL

12-16-19, 4:46pm

Half of Americans favoring impeachment is no small matter. Rob

That’s not all that different from a year or three years ago.

What is a small thing is the number of voters influenced by the House hearings. Positions for the great majority of voters seem not to have budged much, despite the relentless media drumbeat. When the Senate stages it’s production, it seems unlikely we will see much movement in the opposite direction.

gimmethesimplelife

12-16-19, 4:53pm

So we should ignore the facts that have come out?This seems to be a mantra of Conservatives, at least from what I am seeing in Urban Arizona. It's all about granting Donald Trump a free pass while ignoring his transgressions.....but yet hypocritically supporting "law and order"which locks up a higher percentage of American citizens than any other country on the Earth locks up their citizens. I honestly don't understand how Conservatives can look at themselves in the mirror and live with themselves and their hypocracy (sp?) but then I've been lower income for long enough in my life to understand that much of Conservatism doesn't work unless you are upper income.

At least the rest of the world is seeing America as it really is via the Trump Presidency and more and more of the world will hopefully kick the American way to the curb. This last does give me some hope. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

12-16-19, 4:55pm

falling into party lines.Likely, yes, IL, but look at it this way. Would you want to be President if half the country supported your being kicked to the curb? Rob

Alan

12-16-19, 4:58pm

You are very quick to defend Trump. As quick as I am to engage in anti police brutality activism. Seriously. If you are not a Conservative my vote is that you deserve an academy award for your performance. Rob
I don't think I've ever defended Trump, personally I think he's an ass. What I will defend is fairness and I'll always attempt to counter the goofy stuff some of you come up with. And as an aside, being conservative is apparently an ideology beyond your reckoning. It has nothing to do with supporting a particular politician.

JaneV2.0

12-16-19, 4:59pm

This seems to be a mantra of Conservatives, at least from what I am seeing in Urban Arizona. It's all about granting Donald Trump a free pass while ignoring his transgressions.....but yet hypocritically supporting "law and order"which locks up a higher percentage of American citizens than any other country on the Earth locks up their citizens. I honestly don't understand how Conservatives can look at themselves in the mirror and live with themselves and their hypocracy (sp?) but then I've been lower income for long enough in my life to understand that much of Conservatism doesn't work unless you are upper income.

At least the rest of the world is seeing America as it really is via the Trump Presidency and more and more of the world will hopefully kick the American way to the curb. This last does give me some hope. Rob

Republicans have long ago abdicated the "law and order" position, IMO. Unless it involves making money off of for-profit prisons, or punishing other people's transgressions. They've flouted the rule of law from beginning to end where Trump's concerned.

iris lilies

12-16-19, 5:02pm

I don't think I've ever defended Trump, personally I think he's an ass. What I will defend is fairness and I'll always attempt to counter the goofy stuff some of you come up with. And as an aside, being conservative is apparently an ideology beyond your reckoning. It has nothing to do with supporting a particular politician.

I wish our current President was a conservative.

But then maybe not because – what if he was an ass and also conservative, i.e. steering the ship according to conservative principles? But then, if he was doing that he wouldn’t be an ass. So I talked myself out of this idea.

Alan

12-16-19, 5:03pm

Likely, yes, IL, but look at it this way. Would you want to be President if half the country supported your being kicked to the curb? Rob
In your lifetime, what Republican President haven't you and Democrats at large wanted to kick to the curb?

iris lilies

12-16-19, 5:04pm

Likely, yes, IL, but look at it this way. Would you want to be President if half the country supported your being kicked to the curb? Rob

Barak Obama was elected with only 51% of the vote, one more percentage point.

Should he have turned down the presidency on that basis?

obama’s 12th quarter approval rating on the Gallup poll is the same as President Trump’s 12 quarter approval rating: 43%

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

Should Republicans have been scouring the earth to find reasons to impeach President Obama?

Numbers can be a problem if you don’t relate them to something to provide meaning.

gimmethesimplelife

12-16-19, 5:55pm

In your lifetime, what Republican President haven't you and Democrats at large wanted to kick to the curb?I actually liked Reagan when I was very young until I understood how evil his policies were for the Underclass. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

12-16-19, 5:57pm

I don't think I've ever defended Trump, personally I think he's an ass. What I will defend is fairness and I'll always attempt to counter the goofy stuff some of you come up with. And as an aside, being conservative is apparently an ideology beyond your reckoning. It has nothing to do with supporting a particular politician.Thank You, Alan. I can respect you for the fact that you are willing to publicly admit that Donald J Trump is an ass. Just curious, what is about him and/or his actions that made that clear to you? Rob

Alan

12-16-19, 6:14pm

Thank You, Alan. I can respect you for the fact that you are willing to publicly admit that Donald J Trump is an ass. Just curious, what is about him and/or his actions that made that clear to you? RobHe thinks more of himself than Obama did, and I didn't think that was possible. But remember, being an ass doesn't mean everything he does is bad.

LDAHL

12-16-19, 6:15pm

To be fair, conservatives argue a lot among themselves about what it means to be a conservative. You find a lot of lively debates in the pages of National Review about various aspects of what the proper conservative position should be on any number of issues. They ran an “Against Trump” issue back before the last election that outlined a number of objections to calling him a conservative.

I have found it more difficult in recent years to think of the GOP as a purely Conservative party. They seem to be more like what the Democrats have been since Jackson: more a collection of interest groups and ethnic identity groups than a party built around a cohesive political philosophy.

But I suppose the other side is going through much the same thing, with the socialist wing contesting with the “moderates” for control. They also need to reconcile all those race/gender/class-based ideologies and a virulent cancel culture.

I don’t think it’s easy for anyone right now except the outrage addicts on both sides.

catherine

12-16-19, 6:27pm

In your lifetime, what Republican President haven't you and Democrats at large wanted to kick to the curb?

Going back through my lifetime:
Eisenhower, I was too young to judge at the time, but I would have liked him. He wasn't afraid to raise taxes and try to balance the budget, unlike other Republicans, and he coined the term military-industrial complex in order to warn us about its dangers--a warning we have yet to heed and therefore we do, in fact suffer under its undue influence half a century later.

Nixon--well, he kicked himself to the curb

Reagan--He was charming and witty as he sold us on the myth of trickle-down economics. I didn't want to kick him to the curb, despite his oversight of the ballooning of the national debt. At least I believe he was a fundamentally decent human being.

Bush 41--Again, he didn't represent my politics, but Democrats didn't have to kick him to the curb--- he did himself in by the end of his first term

Bush 43--Well, what can I say about a man who started a war under false pretenses and allowed the financial industry to build a house of cards that took a big chunk of prosperity and stability right out of the back end of the early years of the millennium. But even with that said, he didn't come across as pathological.

So, for me, Trump really is the one who's the scariest. I find CNN's relentless mission to get rid of him before 2020 very tiresome, and the Democrats mission to impeach him misguided, but I can't say I wouldn't love to see him kicked to the curb.

ETA: I really would have liked Teddy Roosevelt. He was a progressive Republican, and his love for nature and his achievements as a conservationist were directly in contrast to the policies of our president who would sell out the whole planet for 30 pieces of silver.

gimmethesimplelife

12-16-19, 7:09pm

He thinks more of himself than Obama did, and I didn't think that was possible. But remember, being an ass doesn't mean everything he does is bad.It's interesting to me how different people can have such widely divergent takes. I didn't perceive Obama as thinking a lot of himself....I saw a man with his ego in check for the most part. I don't see such in Donald J Trump. Rob

Teacher Terry

12-16-19, 8:25pm

Obama was confident.

gimmethesimplelife

12-16-19, 8:51pm

I wonder if the GOP realizes that it's saving pennies but spending dollars by refusing to impeach? People I have spoken to in my zip code say they will not forgive it forget a GOP acquittal. Neither will I. How this helps the GOP I don't understand. Were it only the 85006 who sees it this way it would be no big deal - problem is, this take here is far from being isolated. The GOP would be best served by impeaching and letting Pence take the Presidency. Though I still do worry about Trump supporter violence/domestic terrorism and about economic fallout as a result thereof. These are the consequences if voting in incompetence to this level.....will America learn from this fiasco? Stay tuned....Rob

gimmethesimplelife

12-16-19, 8:52pm

Obama was confident.Agreed. Confident but not arrogant/cocky like 45 is. Rob

jp1

12-16-19, 9:07pm

I see a recent poll indicates 50% of voters now favor impeachment. Up from 49% in October. All the sturming and dranging on both sides of the issue doesn’t seem to have had much impact.

Is the whole thing being tuned out by most Americans?

Not if one believes this study.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/upshot/impeachment-biggest-issue-voters-poll.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Alan

12-16-19, 9:14pm

Not if one believes this study.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/upshot/impeachment-biggest-issue-voters-poll.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Can you give us a synopsis, I'm too cheap to get behind the paywall.

jp1

12-17-19, 12:51am

TLDR. people consider impeachment more important than any of the other things they consider important.

ApatheticNoMore

12-17-19, 2:16am

TLDR. people consider impeachment more important than any of the other things they consider important.

wow do people even follow the news, they do know the UN climate conference completely failed right, by like everyone's admission. No impeachment only helps if it gets rid of Trump somehow, otherwise, it matters not.

The poll may be limited to what congress can actually do though, as long as Trump is president, that's not much. I mean one could prioritize Medicare For All for instance all they want, but that's not going anywhere under Trump. So the poll seems to suffer from having basically confused premises, or at least that's how it is presented: you can't combine a set of policies that exist if Trump is president (which is the only case in which impeachment is relevant) with a set of policies that could exist only if he is not president (which is the only context in which many other priorities are relevant). Which hypothetical are we even asking about? Because they don't overlap in reality. One of these things is not like the other ...

jp1

12-17-19, 6:32am

The point of the poll was that whether you want impeachment to succeed or fail doesn’t matter. Most people care more about THAT then anything else. In other words republicans care more that impeachment fails than anything else and democrats care that it succeeds more than anything else.

jp1

12-17-19, 6:51am

You think it was ignored?

I think if any other president in US history had had to admit that their charity was a total fraud and had to pay a $2m fine the news about it would have been the cause of screaming headlines for months and the opposing party would have been calling for their resignation over this one thing.

But because trump is so absurdly corrupt in everything he does this news was basically about as interesting as Davis Muir saying ‘and today was Tuesday.’ It came and went without a whiff of shock or outrage from anyone on either side of the aisle.

jp1

12-17-19, 7:08am

LDAHL

12-17-19, 7:49am

Not if one believes this study.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/upshot/impeachment-biggest-issue-voters-poll.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The point wasn’t that voters don’t care one way or another. The point was that the House hearings have done little to change minds on the issue.

gimmethesimplelife

12-17-19, 7:49am

Ok. I’m convinced. The latest republican argument finally got to me. Apparently newt gingrinch is worried that impeachment will ruin people’s christmases. I have to admit, it’s about the best, and most logical, reason anyone has put forward for why the dude shouldn’t be impeached and removed.

https://americanindependent.com/impeachment-donald-trump-christmas-fox-news-matthew-whitaker-newt-gingrich-bill-clinton/Well then.....that's a valid reason to establish a precedent whereby the President can get away with impeachable offenses, no? (Sarc fully on, folks). Rob

JaneV2.0

12-17-19, 9:37am

Ok. I’m convinced. The latest republican argument finally got to me. Apparently newt gingrinch is worried that impeachment will ruin people’s christmases. I have to admit, it’s about the best, and most logical, reason anyone has put forward for why the dude shouldn’t be impeached and removed.

https://americanindependent.com/impeachment-donald-trump-christmas-fox-news-matthew-whitaker-newt-gingrich-bill-clinton/

Wasn't Gingrich among those howling loudest for Clinton's impeachment? Gingrich, for his part, said on Fox News Friday morning, "This whole thing is a joke."

Newt Gingrich is a joke.

What a buncha flaming hypocrites.

Alan

12-17-19, 10:11am

Wasn't Gingrich among those howling loudest for Clinton's impeachment?Was he? I believe he resigned from Congress just before the impeachment hearings began didn't he?

LDAHL

12-17-19, 10:26am

Well, so far the process seems to be the gift that keeps on giving.

The GOP is getting a new congressman by defection.

The country got a new spending bill because the players were too distracted for the usual brinksmanship.

The public is being spared a lot of media coverage of Democratic presidential candidates maneuvering for position. How long since we’ve seen a new Warren plan for taxing and rationing and generally regulating us?

A lot of senators will be getting a lot of sound bites in their stockings.

The media can stay in DC over the holidays. Home for Christmas!

The twitter people will be getting a cornucopia of traffic.

I think Newt is wrong. The whole thing has a sort of Christmasy feel to it.

JaneV2.0

12-17-19, 11:40am

Was he? I believe he resigned from Congress just before the impeachment hearings began didn't he?

"Gingrich himself has in the past voted to impeach a president over such charges. While speaker of the House, Gingrich voted in 1998 to impeach President Bill Clinton on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury.

Now, with a Republican in power, Gingrich has changed his tune. On Friday he called the investigation into Trump a "witch hunt."" --CNN

Alan

12-17-19, 11:54am

"Gingrich himself has in the past voted to impeach a president over such charges. While speaker of the House, Gingrich voted in 1998 to impeach President Bill Clinton on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury.

Now, with a Republican in power, Gingrich has changed his tune. On Friday he called the investigation into Trump a "witch hunt."" --CNN
I stand corrected. Gingrich resigned after voting for impeachment in the House but before the trial started in the Senate. Memories are often imperfect.

kib

12-17-19, 12:41pm

The thing that's turned my hair white this weekend is realizing that apparently, the people running the impeachment proceedings think they can act with impunity to achieve whatever outcome they want. How can Mitch McConnell possibly not recuse himself if his publicly stated position is that he's going to represent the president?

In what court of law would I be chosen for a jury if I said, "I passionately want to be a juror because I believe this man is innocent and I'm going to vote him not guilty no matter what evidence is presented to me? Not only that, as a person of significant power and superiority, I will pressure everyone else on the jury to vote him not guilty and to ignore any evidence that might have been presented." WHAT?

gimmethesimplelife

12-17-19, 12:47pm

I wish Newt Gingrich would shrivel up and blow away. I remember his face off with Bill Clinton, was it in 1994 or 1995? The government was shut down - I was living in Portland, OR, at the time, far from the Mexican border. Though I will say I was living in a more upscale area at the time - the 97206 - and politics there did not have the seemingly life and death significance that they do here.

But that said, Newt Gingrich was considered a moron by those I spoke to in the Portland neighborhood. Rob

Alan

12-17-19, 1:12pm

In what court of law would I be chosen for a jury if I said, "I passionately want to be a juror because I believe this man is innocent and I'm going to vote him not guilty no matter what evidence is presented to me? Not only that, I will pressure everyone else on the jury to vote him not guilty and to ignore any evidence that might have been presented." WHAT?
I'm watching the Rules Committee hearings now and the Democratic Rep, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, is currently going well out of his way to remind us that this is not a court of law so we should not expect the sort of conduct we'd expect in a legal proceeding to carry over to this political proceeding.

kib

12-17-19, 1:23pm

I'm watching the Rules Committee hearings now and the Democratic Rep, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, is currently going well out of his way to remind us that this is not a court of law so we should not expect the sort of conduct we'd expect in a legal proceeding to carry over to this political proceeding.Right, we should expect an entirely debased and pointless waste of taxpayer money by allowing a kangaroo court. - I'm not arguing with you, Alan, da rules is da rules, but if deese is da rules, we're approaching a new low in governmental corruption.

LDAHL

12-17-19, 2:21pm

It appears that the Senate acting as the jury will be every bit as “objective” as the House acting as the grand jury that handed down the indictment.

I see the process continuing with the same level of dignity as recent Supreme Court “job interviews”.

jp1

12-17-19, 4:51pm

It appears that the Senate acting as the jury will be every bit as “objective” as the House acting as the grand jury that handed down the indictment.

So you don't think the evidence we've seen so far warrants impeachment and removal?

kib

12-17-19, 5:42pm

... sigh. maybe by publicly announcing he has no intention of upholding the law, McConnell is just laying cards on the table. It just seemed to represent a new low in partisanship on a bar that's already too low to limbo under - for either side.

Did you happen to catch a little soundbite the other day? Some reporter asked Trump if he wanted the hearing to be long and thorough or quick and over, and he murmured, more or less sotto voce, "I can do whatever I want", and then, in his recognizable Hale And Hearty 'Here's The Story You Should Believe Today, BELIEVE ME' voice, said he wants it as long as it has to be to bring out all the facts. It was truly bizarre, like his real self just had to tell the truth before his Public Persona could take over.

LDAHL

12-17-19, 6:21pm

So you don't think the evidence we've seen so far warrants impeachment and removal?

Honestly, I’m not sure whether or not it rises to that level. If it does, I think most modern presidents could have been removed for various misdemeanors. It’s hard for me to imagine any recent president not guilty of obstruction of congress at some time or other, for instance. My belief that in this case, and probably Clinton’s the process has been somewhat trivialized for partisan purposes. It has become more political than legal in character. One side can talk about coordinating with the White House. The other has members who ran for office on an “Impeach the MFer” platform. There are no clean hands here.

My preference, short of a much more extreme situation than this one, is to leave the decision to the voters.

kib

12-17-19, 6:58pm

bae

12-17-19, 8:48pm

I know this is naive, but is there a reason we don't turn over impeachment hearings solely to the Supreme Court?

You'd have to change the Constitution for that.

iris lilies

12-17-19, 8:55pm

I know this is naive, but is there a reason we don't turn over impeachment hearings solely to the Supreme Court? Aren't they elected for life precisely because that should grant them the ability to be impartial? Wouldn't this be about the most important place imaginable for an impartial ear?

Gosh, you (and Donald Trump) are just not lawyers now, are you? You two are not “law trained.”

This was Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s response today when President Trump also inquired about involving the Supreme Court.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/17/ruth-bader-ginsburg-trump-impeachment-president-not-lawyer/2679145001/

But the real answer is that our constitution is very clear how impeachment is handled:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_5:_Speaker_and_other_officers;_Impeachment) provides:
The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_6:_Trial_of_Impeachment) provide:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

Teacher Terry

12-18-19, 12:44am

She is a awesome justice and I hope she lives long enough to see Trump gone.

JaneV2.0

12-18-19, 10:22am

So you don't think the evidence we've seen so far warrants impeachment and removal?

Since we're allowing people to ignore subpoenas, evidence is limited--though I think what has been presented by the witnesses so far is convincing.
(Why are we allowing Trump et al to stonewall? Remember Susan McDougall? There's that double standard again.)

JaneV2.0

12-18-19, 10:24am

...
I see the process continuing with the same level of dignity as recent Supreme Court “job interviews”.

Yeah--Kavanaugh blubbering and blathering about beer was pretty pathetic.

LDAHL

12-18-19, 10:33am

Gosh, you (and Donald Trump) are just not lawyers now, are you? You two are not “law trained.”

This was Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s response today when President Trump also inquired about involving the Supreme Court.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/17/ruth-bader-ginsburg-trump-impeachment-president-not-lawyer/2679145001/

But the real answer is that our constitution is very clear how impeachment is handled:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_5:_Speaker_and_other_officers;_Impeachment) provides:
The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_6:_Trial_of_Impeachment) provide:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

I thought I had read that the Chief Justice presided over the impeachment trial phase.

LDAHL

12-18-19, 10:37am

Since we're allowing people to ignore subpoenas, evidence is limited--though I think what has been presented by the witnesses so far is convincing.
(Why are we allowing Trump et al to stonewall? Remember Susan McDougall? There's that double standard again.)

I was curious as to why the Democrats didn’t pursue that more vigorously. They seemed to elect speed over exhausting all the legal tools available to them.

LDAHL

12-18-19, 10:43am

Yeah--Kavanaugh blubbering and blathering about beer was pretty pathetic.

My impression was that there was plenty of blathering and blubbering to go around, what with all the inconsistencies and paucity of evidence. Big chunks of the country seemed to treat it as an opportunity for a sort of primal scream therapy session.

gimmethesimplelife

12-18-19, 11:45am

Alan

12-18-19, 12:25pm

is it truly appropriate for Trump to remain President? It is until the people decide otherwise, there's an election coming up in less than a year so we'll see.

jp1

12-18-19, 12:54pm

My impression was that there was plenty of blathering and blubbering to go around, what with all the inconsistencies and paucity of evidence. Big chunks of the country seemed to treat it as an opportunity for a sort of primal scream therapy session.

The only screaming was on the republican side of the aisle.

LDAHL

12-18-19, 12:55pm

I realize that Trump was elected into office and has the right to be sitting there. My question is this - given all the drama and the controversy and shady behaviors/lack of ethics/alienation of allies/deaths of migrants under US custody that has taken place - is it truly appropriate for Trump to remain President? Such us not serving the majority of Americans well. Rob

I agree with Alan. The voters should be the authority on what’s “appropriate”. If we allow the impeachment process for anything but the most dire situations, we effectively hand the political class a sort of veto power over elections.

I read one analysis that posits one of the major reasons our politics are the way they are is that we are essentially being governed by two minority parties rather than one dominant party with a loyal opposition. That tends to create a more shrill, desperate climate. Both within and between the major parties.

LDAHL

12-18-19, 1:00pm

The only screaming was on the republican side of the aisle.

I’m pretty sure the shrieking maenads pounding on the courthouse doors weren’t Republicans. I’m very sure the people insisting we believe accusations because they felt so right weren’t from the right side of the aisle.

JaneV2.0

12-18-19, 1:11pm

From Newsweek:

Rossiya 1, a Russian TV channel, aired a news segment entitled, "Puppet Master and 'Agent'—How to Understand Lavrov's Meeting With Trump," according to The Daily Beast.

On the Russian program Sunday Evening With Vladimir Soloviev, Mikhail Gusman, first deputy director of ITAR-TASS, Russia's largest news agency, said, "Sooner or later, the Democrats will come back into power. The next term or the term after that, it doesn't matter... I have an even more unpleasant forecast for Trump. After the White House, he will face a very unhappy period."

"Should we get another apartment in Rostov ready?" asked host Vladimir Soloviev, as translated by The Daily Beast.

Joking (?) aside, Trump is clearly a Russian asset, if not an agent (where are those notes from his Helsinki meeting with Putin?), and that alone should be enough grounds for removal from office.

LDAHL

12-18-19, 1:27pm

Trump is clearly a Russian asset, if not an agent (where are those notes from his Helsinki meeting with Putin?), and that alone should be enough grounds for removal from office.

Apparently not clearly enough that his enemies thought they could impeach him for it.

Where was the American Left when the Russians were crushing rebellions in occupied countries, killing millions of their own citizens and promising to bury us? When a smirking Obama told Mitt Romney that “the eighties want their policy back” when he expressed concern about Russia?