|
Post by Chesapeake on Sept 26, 2019 14:02:59 GMT -5
I'll make this point again; there are a large number of people that have never liked Trump, asserted that he was not their president, and, without evidence as the networks tend to say, have called for his impeachment from day one. Now they are getting their wish. This is what used to be called "frontier justice" . . . give Trump a fair trial and then hang him. Much as I think Trump may well be a scummy human being there's no law against that and there are plenty of other scummy human beings running loose in D.C. He may well have done something that is truly impeachable. If so, then let's prove it and hang him high. This stinks of politics at it's worst and regardless of whether Trump gets what he deserves or not, the country deserves, and should demand, a lot better from it's elected representatives. However, there are laws against obstruction of justice, and the other nine counts the Mueller team cited in their report as indictable offenses. I have a catch-all, aka universal, theory about Trump. It certainly isn't novel, but I think it explains just about everything we need to know. Trump truly has no moral compass. His morality is to do or say whatever he thinks will serve his selfish interests at the moment, regardless of moral principle. If it suits his purpose, it's okay. It probably doesn't even occur to him to consult lawyers in advance, because he sees nothing wrong. It's the way he was brought up, or maybe it's a DNA issue. In other words, it is entirely possible that Trump actually doesn't know he's committing a crime, or saying something stupid that his staff will have to scramble to justify, or have to invent tortured reasonings to explain, every time he wanders down one of his dark paths. Is ignorance of moral principles, the basis for our entire structure of laws and government, a mitigating factor in cases of lawlessness? Now there's an interesting thought.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 26, 2019 14:12:58 GMT -5
As long as he's supporting my policies, I don't give a shit what you guys on the other side think. I don't have to give a shit unless you elect another commie.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Sept 26, 2019 14:13:55 GMT -5
The whistleblower said about a dozen White House officials were on the president's July 25 call and that White House officials later intervened to "lock down" records of the call. That's a lot of witnesses. Good luck with the whole witch hunt narrative, now that the damn has broken. No, that's a lot of hearsay accusations. Legally, that's all it is. Multiple officials told the whistleblower they were "directed" by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization and distribution to Cabinet-level officials. All of these officials will be potential witnesses. I am not a lawyer, but when half a dozen or so concur with this account, I suspect it will be hard to call it hearsay, and a lot easier to call it obstruction of justice. The GOP Senators may continue to call it the former. The voters will see it as the latter. Not a great look for a reelection campaign. Nor is calling for the execution of the whistle blower's sources. And it's only Thursday. Happy infrastructure week!
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Sept 26, 2019 14:18:19 GMT -5
No, that's a lot of hearsay accusations. Legally, that's all it is. Multiple officials told the whistleblower they were "directed" by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization and distribution to Cabinet-level officials. All of these officials will be potential witnesses. I am not a lawyer, but when half a dozen or so concur with this account, I suspect it will be hard to call it hearsay, and a lot easier to call it obstruction of justice. The GOP Senators may continue to call it the former. The voters will see it as the latter. Not a great look for a reelection campaign. Nor is calling for the execution of the whistle blower's sources. And it's only Thursday. Happy infrastructure week! If the "multiple officials" actually existed they'd probably have the balls to back up their claims themselves. The fact that we still don't know who they were pretty much proves they're the typical DC hypocrites.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Sept 26, 2019 14:20:26 GMT -5
As long as he's supporting my policies, I don't give a shit what you guys on the other side think. I don't have to give a shit unless you elect another commie. That noble sentiment is much heard among Trump supporters. My question to those who say that is, what are you going to do when a Democrat with similar principles finds him or herself in the White House. For all the high-minded talk among conservatives about honoring the Constitution, I don't see much awareness that precedents are being set here that they may come to regret. EDIT: Btw, you can spare me the snarky remarks about Obama et al. trashing the Constitution during their time in power. I've heard them all, and Obama can't hold a candle to Trump in that department.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 26, 2019 14:26:37 GMT -5
As long as he's supporting my policies, I don't give a shit what you guys on the other side think. I don't have to give a shit unless you elect another commie. That noble sentiment is much heard among Trump supporters. My question to those who say that is, what are you going to do when a Democrat with similar principles finds him or herself in the White House. For all the high-minded talk among conservatives about honoring the Constitution, I don't see much awareness that precedents are being set here that they may come to regret. A Democrat with similar principles would be the 2nd coming of Christ. Democrats are pledged to fundamentally change the U.S. Trump is trying to reverse the progress they've made on that recently. No one with Trumpish policies could survive a day in the Democrat party anymore. Incidentally, I got the "Fundamentally change" thing from your lord Obama.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 26, 2019 14:27:42 GMT -5
I have a catch-all, aka universal, theory about Trump. It certainly isn't novel, but I think it explains just about everything we need to know. Trump truly has no moral compass. His morality is to do or say whatever he thinks will serve his selfish interests at the moment, regardless of moral principle. If it suits his purpose, it's okay. It probably doesn't even occur to him to consult lawyers in advance, because he sees nothing wrong. It's the way he was brought up, or maybe it's a DNA issue. It's the new American religion. At some point even the religion substitute "Utilitarianism" lost its "...if it serves the majority" that kept it at least somewhat non-threatening socially. Americans substituted "...if it serves me". Even religion (or maybe principally religion) adopted the change so that it doesn't even accept moral absolutes, rather, it accepts cultural dictates.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 26, 2019 14:34:13 GMT -5
As long as he's supporting my policies, I don't give a shit what you guys on the other side think. I don't have to give a shit unless you elect another commie. That noble sentiment is much heard among Trump supporters. My question to those who say that is, what are you going to do when a Democrat with similar principles finds him or herself in the White House. For all the high-minded talk among conservatives about honoring the Constitution, I don't see much awareness that precedents are being set here that they may come to regret. It's been the danger I've feared in a Trump presidency all along. I've encountered an equal threat that arose from the Trump phenomenon -- that it is not possible to defend a principle if it involves an accusation being thrust at Trump. If you try to defend the principle you are "supporting Trump". Sort of the flip side of what you're talking about. But in large part, the reason I find most people cheering Trump on, even when they don't agree with what he is doing, is because they understand that the battle is with the unholy alliance of national press and the Democratic Party. It's a pipe dream, but many would like to see that exposed evermore and an opposition party to arise that, like Trump, finally understands that the national press is their principle foe. It doesn't mean they have to be anything but statesmanlike and gentlemanly and cordial when addressing them, but they do have to at some point understand the game. Republicans have, up until Trump became one, thought they could be friends with the press and maybe even win them over to their point of view. That is never going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by John B on Sept 26, 2019 14:41:37 GMT -5
You'd think that would be obvious to anyone. Both bases need to turn out, and the Democrats base is bigger than Trump's. Democrats would be pretty pissed if they won the House in 2018 only to dither and have Trump play them for chimps. That part of the game ended Tuesday afternoon. Independents? They never liked Trump much, and will like him even less after they figure out he's trying to influence the 2020 election via foreign heads of state. I wish I had your optimism.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Sept 26, 2019 14:43:51 GMT -5
That noble sentiment is much heard among Trump supporters. My question to those who say that is, what are you going to do when a Democrat with similar principles finds him or herself in the White House. For all the high-minded talk among conservatives about honoring the Constitution, I don't see much awareness that precedents are being set here that they may come to regret. A Democrat with similar principles would be the 2nd coming of Christ. Democrats are pledged to fundamentally change the U.S. Trump is trying to reverse the progress they've made on that recently. No one with Trumpish policies could survive a day in the Democrat party anymore. Incidentally, I got the "Fundamentally change" thing from your lord Obama. 1. Obama ain't my lord. 2. Pence would become president if Trump were removed. Would that allay concerns about fundamentally changing the U.S.? (Unless it would be in a direction you guys would approve of?)
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 26, 2019 14:47:53 GMT -5
A Democrat with similar principles would be the 2nd coming of Christ. Democrats are pledged to fundamentally change the U.S. Trump is trying to reverse the progress they've made on that recently. No one with Trumpish policies could survive a day in the Democrat party anymore. Incidentally, I got the "Fundamentally change" thing from your lord Obama. 1. Obama ain't my lord. 2. Pence would become president if Trump were removed. Would that allay concerns about fundamentally changing the U.S.? (Unless it would be in a direction you guys would approve of?) Don't now Pence. He seems to scare Democrats so I like him but I don't know anything about him.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Sept 26, 2019 15:02:29 GMT -5
As long as he's supporting my policies, I don't give a shit what you guys on the other side think. I don't have to give a shit unless you elect another commie. That noble sentiment is much heard among Trump supporters. My question to those who say that is, what are you going to do when a Democrat with similar principles finds him or herself in the White House. For all the high-minded talk among conservatives about honoring the Constitution, I don't see much awareness that precedents are being set here that they may come to regret. EDIT: Btw, you can spare me the snarky remarks about Obama et al. trashing the Constitution during their time in power. I've heard them all, and Obama can't hold a candle to Trump in that department. I've answered this question probably a million times here in varying degrees of detail. So once again, there can't be a Democratic equivalent of Trump. Trump is a product of a unique combination of time and necessity. He's one Supreme Court decision away from breaking the DC establishment for good. As noted earlier in this thread: Perhaps not a bad thing. To be honest, this may be the fruit that those such as our dear Aquaduct have been waiting to see drop from the tree; now that his Trumpness has disrupted to the max, he exits stage left, and a real Republican gets to run the ship. If you think about it, the man is so seriously stained at this point in time, who knows whether he’ll be re-elected or not. But.... it’s very possible that he’ll either be impeached, or, when it comes time to select the candidate for the next go round, he gets dumped. I dunno. Got the popcorn and my sixpack out. We have our own election coming up with Trump lite vs. Trudeau, and Trudeau is a bit light in the loafers. Going to be interesting. No Rick, to understand the Trump phenomena I think there's way more wisdom to be found here... My assumption is that there is knowledge inside the Democratic caucus that RBG is not long for the world. This is about pre-loading a "No President under impeachment investigation should be allowed to nominate a SCOTUS candidate" narrative. Folks might want to spend some time chewing on that rather than lame partisan excuses.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Sept 26, 2019 15:07:21 GMT -5
Multiple officials told the whistleblower they were "directed" by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization and distribution to Cabinet-level officials. All of these officials will be potential witnesses. I am not a lawyer, but when half a dozen or so concur with this account, I suspect it will be hard to call it hearsay, and a lot easier to call it obstruction of justice. The GOP Senators may continue to call it the former. The voters will see it as the latter. Not a great look for a reelection campaign. Nor is calling for the execution of the whistle blower's sources. And it's only Thursday. Happy infrastructure week! If the "multiple officials" actually existed they'd probably have the balls to back up their claims themselves. The fact that we still don't know who they were pretty much proves they're the typical DC hypocrites. "Multiple officials," especially of they work voluntarily for Trump, may very well be weenies. Why more people who work for him have not previously spoken out is, indeed, a mystery. The whistleblower, however, is a CIA spook who has risked his life and career to do what whistleblowers do. Hardly a weenie-like action. More like brass balls, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Sept 26, 2019 15:08:33 GMT -5
Both bases need to turn out, and the Democrats base is bigger than Trump's. Democrats would be pretty pissed if they won the House in 2018 only to dither and have Trump play them for chimps. That part of the game ended Tuesday afternoon. Independents? They never liked Trump much, and will like him even less after they figure out he's trying to influence the 2020 election via foreign heads of state. I wish I had your optimism. Dreams will not be thwarted. Faith will be rewarded. - Springsteen
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Sept 26, 2019 15:09:48 GMT -5
I'm going to disagree with you slightly here. You've been to South Dakota. You and I and everybody else in the world knows that the correct pronunciation of Pierre is "pee-ayr." Only it's not. The people of SoDak, who live there, are the ones who get to decide, and they've decided that the correct pronunciation is "peer," however stupid it may look and sound to the rest of us. The Republicans are the ones who get to decide what is Republican, and they have decided - through their votes and their support (either loud vehemence or silent acquiescence) - that Trump Yeasis Republican and Republican is Trump, however stupid it may look and sound to the rest of us. Well, ok. Your point holds water. If you don't disown him, you own him. But, it's just that ... um, well that .. ah, well... um... OH! Yeah! OK! Ok, just imagine, say, that you are some guy living a happy life out in Montana somewheres. Things are going good. It's good on the home front and doors are flying out the windows. But then, your wife "gives" you a couple damn horses. You didn't want any damn horses. But now you got two of them shitting all over the place and just fucking up your feng shui. What do you do? You can't abide them, you can't shoot them. What do you do? Easy for other people to tell you what you should do, but they aren't laced to your shoe straps. No consequences for them. About all you can do is hope you outlive the damn things and that some peace and normalcy returns at some point. It's called an unwinnable dilemma. Damed if you do, damned if you don't. It's the human condition.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Sept 26, 2019 15:10:55 GMT -5
1. Obama ain't my lord. 2. Pence would become president if Trump were removed. Would that allay concerns about fundamentally changing the U.S.? (Unless it would be in a direction you guys would approve of?) Don't now Pence. He seems to scare Democrats so I like him but I don't know anything about him. Look him up. It just mystifies me why Republicans are so blindly loyal to Trump when they could have a decidedly right-wing guy in there if they wanted, just without all the drama and head-spinning. Of course Pence would be an even worse nightmare for Democrats for that very reason. Much harder target.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 26, 2019 15:11:17 GMT -5
If the "multiple officials" actually existed they'd probably have the balls to back up their claims themselves. The fact that we still don't know who they were pretty much proves they're the typical DC hypocrites. "Multiple officials," especially of they work voluntarily for Trump, may very well be weenies. Why more people who work for him have not previously spoken out is, indeed, a mystery. The whistleblower, however, is a CIA spook who has risked his life and career to do what whistleblowers do. Hardly a weenie-like action. More like brass balls, IMO. Didn't know you knew who the whistle-blower was.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Sept 26, 2019 15:15:32 GMT -5
"Multiple officials," especially of they work voluntarily for Trump, may very well be weenies. Why more people who work for him have not previously spoken out is, indeed, a mystery. The whistleblower, however, is a CIA spook who has risked his life and career to do what whistleblowers do. Hardly a weenie-like action. More like brass balls, IMO. Didn't know you knew who the whistle-blower was. Divined it from the Tarot cards, don't you know.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 26, 2019 15:18:15 GMT -5
Don't now Pence. He seems to scare Democrats so I like him but I don't know anything about him. Look him up. It just mystifies me why Republicans are so blindly loyal to Trump when they could have a decidedly right-wing guy in there if they wanted, just without all the drama and head-spinning. Of course Pence would be an even worse nightmare for Democrats for that very reason. Much harder target. 'cause Trump has balls, doesn't owe Washington anything, doesn't need the job and is therefore free to do what he thinks is right to save what's left of the U.S. That's what he's doing, America First, and those with close Washington ties hate him for it regardless of which party they claim to represent. The people wanted someone who would represent them for a change. He's not a politician, in case you haven't noticed. He's a proud American, no apologies.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Sept 26, 2019 15:20:47 GMT -5
My primary concern about the whistle blower report is that it's full of hearsay and the admission that the writer has no first-hand knowledge of what happened. That's not to say that the report is either inaccurate or false. It is un-vetted, however, and the meat of the report is based on communications with people who are as of yet unnamed. I'll be a lot more confident about the report's contents when the sources are identified and go on the record with their first-hand information.
Unfortunately, the report is being circulated as if it's the Holy Grail evidence of Trump's misdeeds. It's not. How is this news or even a good topic for conversation when nothing has been verified except for Trump's admission that the conversation with the president of Ukraine happened?
The feeding frenzy of people who are excited about the possibility that they've finally found Trump's "smoking gun" are the same people who have complained over and over about the Trump White House failing to properly vet appointees. Without anything that could be called evidence in court, this topic has been discussed over and over by so called experts for a week now. The rush to judgement includes a complete disregard for the idea of a person's innocence prior to being proved guilty. As a society is the best we can do?
I feel about this much as I felt about Trump's insistence that Barack Obama wasn't born in the U.S.; it's bulls**t until someone provides verifiable facts. Sort of ironic that Trump is being hoist by his own petard at this point.
|
|