Impeachment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

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.

Carter isn’t acting. He lives his values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frugal-one

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?

Perhaps because he is so very evil?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

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:

Quote:

---

You need to find better crowds to run with.

---

See?

I welcome my hate :)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dado potato

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.

---

I don’t know dado, I don’t have strong faith that All my political opponents will defend my right to free speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CathyA

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

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. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Now, lying under oath, that's different.

---

That will get you disbarred in Arkansas.

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/th...e-rule-of-law/

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

Thanks for the pointer to that, Catherine.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

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;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

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.