|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Nov 6, 2019 18:36:45 GMT -5
Here's what I think. What's happening in the house right now is an abomination to me. I'm angry as hell at both the Democrats and the Republicans. We deserve better than this and we've certainly paid for better than this. But what I'm really ashamed of is that this country has become so entirely divided that intelligent people cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that someone with different views might at least have a point. We're in a winner-take-all fight and we're fighting ourselves. Just thought of a deal that should be made, and if it did would go a long way toward healing the country: - Republicans agree to impeach and remove Trump if Democrats agree to... - Prosecute and jail Obama/Clinton/Lynch/Brennan, etal....its a long list....everyone who manipulated the levers of state to fabricate the "Russian Collusion" narrative. This might make sense if there were a scintilla of evidence that Obama/Clinton/Lynch/Brennan did anything remotely nefarious. Such a scintilla, alas, does not exist.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 6, 2019 18:40:09 GMT -5
All of this is pretty much inarguable at this point. It's clearly arguable. The fact that you continue to argue it proves it. It doesn't become fact simply because you declare it to be.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 6, 2019 18:46:21 GMT -5
Just thought of a deal that should be made, and if it did would go a long way toward healing the country: - Republicans agree to impeach and remove Trump if Democrats agree to... - Prosecute and jail Obama/Clinton/Lynch/Brennan, etal....its a long list....everyone who manipulated the levers of state to fabricate the "Russian Collusion" narrative. This might make sense if there were a scintilla of evidence that Obama/Clinton/Lynch/Brennan did anything remotely nefarious. Such a scintilla, alas, does not exist. Not yet. We'll see what Durham has to say about that soon enough.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 6, 2019 18:59:05 GMT -5
This might make sense if there were a scintilla of evidence that Obama/Clinton/Lynch/Brennan did anything remotely nefarious. Such a scintilla, alas, does not exist. Of course not. Such a thing would be impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Nov 6, 2019 19:03:31 GMT -5
Lar, what caught my attention was " the Democrats." That definite article implies the totality of the group and is not the same thing as "some Democrats." I know, it seems picky, but that's the way language works. Some others on the forum are fond of assigning to all Democrats anything that any Democrat or sub-group of Democrats say or do, and I call them on it as well. And you actually did write this: The Democrats have never made a secret of the fact they want Trump out of office and they don't care much how they accomplish it. . . . Although the Democrats may be following the Constitution with regard to impeachment the entire effort seems to me to be nothing but a transparent attempt to remove a sitting president just because they don't like him. That seems tawdry to me and beneath the dignity of the Congress. "That" would seem to be "just because they don't like him," which strikes me as dismissive of serious questions about Trump's fitness for office and his propensity for defying conventions and traditions (opening tax records, for example) that anybody could see coming even before the inauguration--for example, the issue of ownership/control his business empire and the possibility of conflict of interest and/or running afoul of the emoluments clause. Now, Maxine Waters doesn't like Trump (he called her "low IQ"), and she was probably the first Congressman to call for his impeachment, and not for simple personal dislike--you can read her catalogue of reasons he's unfit here: www.essence.com/feature/maxine-waters-trump-impeachment-interview/But she did not get a lot of public support for that. As far as I can tell, the first formal effort to get impeachment rolling was in the summer of '17, and that didn't get far, either. If the Democrats "don't care much how they accomplish it," why did the House leadership not move until the Ukraine matter surfaced? Because, I suspect, there was finally something concrete and actionable--and that could not be shoved aside because it's an uphill effort that will almost certainly be stymied by the McConnell's Senate.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 6, 2019 19:28:05 GMT -5
I recall the qualifications for President are being a natural born citizen over 35 years old. Trump qualifies. Everything else is your opinion and it doesn't count in this context.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Nov 6, 2019 20:36:50 GMT -5
Gee, if you were on the ticket with trump, would the bumper sticker be brump, or truce?
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Nov 6, 2019 22:13:28 GMT -5
This might make sense if there were a scintilla of evidence that Obama/Clinton/Lynch/Brennan did anything remotely nefarious. Such a scintilla, alas, does not exist. Of course not. Such a thing would be impossible. Not impossible. Just a didn’t happen. If you seriously believe it did, please elaborate.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 6, 2019 23:43:44 GMT -5
Of course not. Such a thing would be impossible. Not impossible. Just a didn’t happen. If you seriously believe it did, please elaborate. I don't think you understand the nature of the impossibility I'm talking about.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Nov 7, 2019 7:45:53 GMT -5
Not impossible. Just a didn’t happen. If you seriously believe it did, please elaborate. I don't think you understand the nature of the impossibility I'm talking about. OK. But I have a keen sense of the difference between baseless assertions and observable reality. So, I’m good. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Nov 7, 2019 9:13:43 GMT -5
Lar, the foundation of just about all of your observations and arguments is that this whole thing is only about Democrats trying to "get" Trump for political and partisan reasons. There's no question that partisanship tends to motivate politicians. What I think most of you fail to acknowledge is that Trump is a special case. There are dozens and dozens and dozens, into the hundreds, of prominent conservatives on national and state levels, and in the conservative media, who have come out against Trump, not because of his political philosophy (insofar as he has a coherent one), but because of moral, ethical, and character issues. It shouldn't surprise us that an individual with no moral compass can't differentiate between right and wrong. In Trump's case we're left to argue that he might have done something wrong, but it wasn't illegal, or it was illegal but it wasn't impeachable. You certainly don't see a Mitt Romney attacking Trump on policy issues. Or any of the other GOP members of the House and Senate who've announced their retirements and now seem to have come unshackled, free to say the Emperor is a deeply flawed man, if not unfit for office. The objections didn't suddenly start on inauguration day. They date from the early days the campaign, when we were all were just getting to know Trump through his own words and actions. Obviously a lot of die-hard Trump supporters - probably most - cling to the belief that it's just more partisan politics. Which, to me, is like putting on blinders. You've hit on the reason that I'm really torn over what's happening. You are right, Trump is a special case. I believe every thing you wrote about him to be true. And that has backed me into a moral and ethical corner. Is it moral and/or ethical to remove Trump from office because we don't like the way he acts or the way he combs his hair? Isn't that something Trump might do and be criticized for? Do we want to stoop to his level to be rid of him? Trump has been under siege from the beginning. After nearly 3 years the Democrats in Congress have come up with something they believe they can hang him for. I don't think it's unreasonable to question what's driving the impeachment. Is it the offense or is it political retribution?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 7, 2019 10:12:14 GMT -5
Trump has been under siege from the beginning. After nearly 3 years the Democrats in Congress have come up with something they believe they can hang him for. I don't think it's unreasonable to question what's driving the impeachment. Is it the offense or is it political retribution? For me it goes just a little bit further. In politics, as with certain sciences, and even claims made by theology, I am left with the obvious problem: They contain a great number of things I cannot and will never be able to know. Certainly not empirically. So there are any number of approaches we all seem to have to resort to to figure out what is the closest we can come to truth on a given issue. From that point, we respond according to the degree of certainly we might have concluded. I can't know everything about the Trump situations from Russia to Ukraine and beyond. But I do know with 100% certainty that some of acts to which the left points to prove Trump's guilt are simply not as they portray them. Therefore, I am left to question all the other accusations that I'll never be able to know with that same certainty. It's the reason that approaching a debate with a list that proves your point is only as good as its worst point. Yes, all the other points in the list may be true. But one is left wondering why the false one was added. And if there is no way to check on all the other points, the known false will always trump the unknown true.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 7, 2019 10:45:09 GMT -5
Trump has been under siege from the beginning. After nearly 3 years the Democrats in Congress have come up with something they believe they can hang him for. I don't think it's unreasonable to question what's driving the impeachment. Is it the offense or is it political retribution? For me it goes just a little bit further. In politics, as with certain sciences, and even claims made by theology, I am left with the obvious problem: They contain a great number of things I cannot and will never be able to know. Certainly not empirically. So there are any number of approaches we all seem to have to resort to to figure out what is the closest we can come to truth on a given issue. From that point, we respond according to the degree of certainly we might have concluded. I can't know everything about the Trump situations from Russia to Ukraine and beyond. But I do know with 100% certainty that some of acts to which the left points to prove Trump's guilt are simply not as they portray them. Therefore, I am left to question all the other accusations that I'll never be able to know with that same certainty. It's the reason that approaching a debate with a list that proves your point is only as good as its worst point. Yes, all the other points in the list may be true. But one is left wondering why the false one was added. And if there is no way to check on all the other points, the known false will always trump the unknown true. <tutu>
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 7, 2019 10:51:47 GMT -5
It's the reason that approaching a debate with a list that proves your point is only as good as its worst point. Yes, all the other points in the list may be true. But one is left wondering why the false one was added. And if there is no way to check on all the other points, the known false will always trump the unknown true. That's a good point. Everybody wants to Pile On the stuff to support their argument. It takes thoughtful consideration to stick to the known facts/points for one's argument. Because many times in the effort to Bring-it-all-home we can add in squishy points that expose the truth of our prejudices. Thus negating the effectiveness of our strong argument. Trump's an asshole.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Nov 7, 2019 12:01:18 GMT -5
Lar, what caught my attention was " the Democrats." That definite article implies the totality of the group and is not the same thing as "some Democrats." I know, it seems picky, but that's the way language works. Some others on the forum are fond of assigning to all Democrats anything that any Democrat or sub-group of Democrats say or do, and I call them on it as well. And you actually did write this: The Democrats have never made a secret of the fact they want Trump out of office and they don't care much how they accomplish it. . . . Although the Democrats may be following the Constitution with regard to impeachment the entire effort seems to me to be nothing but a transparent attempt to remove a sitting president just because they don't like him. That seems tawdry to me and beneath the dignity of the Congress. "That" would seem to be "just because they don't like him," which strikes me as dismissive of serious questions about Trump's fitness for office and his propensity for defying conventions and traditions (opening tax records, for example) that anybody could see coming even before the inauguration--for example, the issue of ownership/control his business empire and the possibility of conflict of interest and/or running afoul of the emoluments clause. Now, Maxine Waters doesn't like Trump (he called her "low IQ"), and she was probably the first Congressman to call for his impeachment, and not for simple personal dislike--you can read her catalogue of reasons he's unfit here: www.essence.com/feature/maxine-waters-trump-impeachment-interview/But she did not get a lot of public support for that. As far as I can tell, the first formal effort to get impeachment rolling was in the summer of '17, and that didn't get far, either. If the Democrats "don't care much how they accomplish it," why did the House leadership not move until the Ukraine matter surfaced? Because, I suspect, there was finally something concrete and actionable--and that could not be shoved aside because it's an uphill effort that will almost certainly be stymied by the McConnell's Senate. I'm done. I thought, apparently erroneously, that talking about, planning, and looking for cause for an impeachment was part of the entire impeachment process. It's been brought to my attention more than once now that I'm wrong. The impeachment effort started in the summer of 2017 and that's just the way it is. Whatever transpired between Trump's inauguration and the summer 2017 is of no consequence. My conclusion that what I see as a nearly 3 year effort to bring Trump down is of no importance. The current impeachment inquiry stands on it's own and is unconnected to anything else. Trump lies. We all know that. And if lies are told about him, those are his just deserts. He deserves no better. We all read the damned transcripts. I saw it in black and white. Trump asked Zelensky to investigate the Bidens. Despite that, every account I've read recently and every newscast (my apologies for not having read every article that's been written or every newscast that has been broadcast) I've heard says the same thing; Trump asked Zelensky to dig up dirt on Biden. I freely recognize the inadequacies of my education. I'm not sure how I missed that "investigate" and "dig up dirt" are synonymous, but there you have it. My hope has been to bring some sort of moderation to this thread. I've failed. Conservatives and liberals (or whatever you want to call yourselves) seem irrevocably stuck on Trump being either completely guilty or completely innocent. I don't believe either of those points of view is entirely accurate although I do acknowledge that there are good reasons for the views on either side of the issues. It seems to me that the deafening silence about the idea of investigating either of the Bidens isn't something the the left side of the aisle here wants to discuss. I do get it. Biden is running for president and if it turned out that he had done something he shouldn't have done it could affect the election. On the other hand, wouldn't we all want to know about it before casting our votes? Donald Trump got a lot of well deserved flack for saying that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and never be called to account for it. One of his lawyers made the same idiotic statement while trying to convince a judge that a sitting president can't be investigated or prosecuted while in office. At the risk of being vilified for a making a false equivalency, I'm going to suggest that Joe Biden is hereby exonerated of anything he may have done because he's running for president. What a world . . .
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 7, 2019 12:09:39 GMT -5
Wish in one hand, shit in the other. Either way you're wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Nov 7, 2019 12:11:01 GMT -5
Lar, the foundation of just about all of your observations and arguments is that this whole thing is only about Democrats trying to "get" Trump for political and partisan reasons. There's no question that partisanship tends to motivate politicians. What I think most of you fail to acknowledge is that Trump is a special case. There are dozens and dozens and dozens, into the hundreds, of prominent conservatives on national and state levels, and in the conservative media, who have come out against Trump, not because of his political philosophy (insofar as he has a coherent one), but because of moral, ethical, and character issues. It shouldn't surprise us that an individual with no moral compass can't differentiate between right and wrong. In Trump's case we're left to argue that he might have done something wrong, but it wasn't illegal, or it was illegal but it wasn't impeachable. You certainly don't see a Mitt Romney attacking Trump on policy issues. Or any of the other GOP members of the House and Senate who've announced their retirements and now seem to have come unshackled, free to say the Emperor is a deeply flawed man, if not unfit for office. The objections didn't suddenly start on inauguration day. They date from the early days the campaign, when we were all were just getting to know Trump through his own words and actions. Obviously a lot of die-hard Trump supporters - probably most - cling to the belief that it's just more partisan politics. Which, to me, is like putting on blinders. You've hit on the reason that I'm really torn over what's happening. You are right, Trump is a special case. I believe every thing you wrote about him to be true. And that has backed me into a moral and ethical corner. Is it moral and/or ethical to remove Trump from office because we don't like the way he acts or the way he combs his hair? Isn't that something Trump might do and be criticized for? Do we want to stoop to his level to be rid of him? Trump has been under siege from the beginning. After nearly 3 years the Democrats in Congress have come up with something they believe they can hang him for. I don't think it's unreasonable to question what's driving the impeachment. Is it the offense or is it political retribution?That seems to be the ultimate fallback position of never-say-die Trump supporters. And I don't see what earthly difference it makes. If a cop busts a red-haired bank robber, should the prosecution be dropped if the cop is a well-known hater of guys with red hair? Either Trump is unfit for office or he is not. That is the only issue that matters. For the core believers who refuse to face that fact simply because they think expulsion would give Democrats something to crow about: By what stretch of the imagination a victory for them if Mike Pence winds up in the Oval Office? My fear is it is only a matter of time before Trump seriously compromises American interests, domestic or abroad, in a way that cannot be undone. Either deliberately, by putting his personal interests ahead of that of our country, or through some colossal unintended blunder. Korea is a disaster waiting to happen, to name one grim possibility. The longer he stays in office, the greater the odds of a Trump-caused clusterfuck. How I wish I were wrong.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 7, 2019 12:12:33 GMT -5
That seems to be the ultimate fallback position of never-say-die Trump supporters. Seems to me that this is at least part of the problem. Maybe it even reflects just a bit of what has Lar so frustrated. You've built a very high, very impenetrable wall around your false dichotomy that unless you are for impeachment you are a "Trump supporter". Present company should dispel this to at least some degree. Lar, Jeff, and I are not Trump supporters. None of us voted for him and I don't know about Jeff, but I doubt that Lar or I will be voting for him in 2020. And yet, your go-to argument is this false dichotomy.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Nov 7, 2019 12:22:46 GMT -5
Lar, what caught my attention was " the Democrats." That definite article implies the totality of the group and is not the same thing as "some Democrats." I know, it seems picky, but that's the way language works. Some others on the forum are fond of assigning to all Democrats anything that any Democrat or sub-group of Democrats say or do, and I call them on it as well. And you actually did write this: The Democrats have never made a secret of the fact they want Trump out of office and they don't care much how they accomplish it. . . . Although the Democrats may be following the Constitution with regard to impeachment the entire effort seems to me to be nothing but a transparent attempt to remove a sitting president just because they don't like him. That seems tawdry to me and beneath the dignity of the Congress. "That" would seem to be "just because they don't like him," which strikes me as dismissive of serious questions about Trump's fitness for office and his propensity for defying conventions and traditions (opening tax records, for example) that anybody could see coming even before the inauguration--for example, the issue of ownership/control his business empire and the possibility of conflict of interest and/or running afoul of the emoluments clause. Now, Maxine Waters doesn't like Trump (he called her "low IQ"), and she was probably the first Congressman to call for his impeachment, and not for simple personal dislike--you can read her catalogue of reasons he's unfit here: www.essence.com/feature/maxine-waters-trump-impeachment-interview/But she did not get a lot of public support for that. As far as I can tell, the first formal effort to get impeachment rolling was in the summer of '17, and that didn't get far, either. If the Democrats "don't care much how they accomplish it," why did the House leadership not move until the Ukraine matter surfaced? Because, I suspect, there was finally something concrete and actionable--and that could not be shoved aside because it's an uphill effort that will almost certainly be stymied by the McConnell's Senate. I'm done. I thought, apparently erroneously, that talking about, planning, and looking for cause for an impeachment was part of the entire impeachment process. It's been brought to my attention more than once now that I'm wrong. The impeachment effort started in the summer of 2017 and that's just the way it is. Whatever transpired between Trump's inauguration and the summer 2017 is of no consequence. My conclusion that what I see as a nearly 3 year effort to bring Trump down is of no importance. The current impeachment inquiry stands on it's own and is unconnected to anything else. Trump lies. We all know that. And if lies are told about him, those are his just deserts. He deserves no better. We all read the damned transcripts. I saw it in black and white. Trump asked Zelensky to investigate the Bidens. Despite that, every account I've read recently and every newscast (my apologies for not having read every article that's been written or every newscast that has been broadcast) I've heard says the same thing; Trump asked Zelensky to dig up dirt on Biden. I freely recognize the inadequacies of my education. I'm not sure how I missed that "investigate" and "dig up dirt" are synonymous, but there you have it. My hope has been to bring some sort of moderation to this thread. I've failed. Conservatives and liberals (or whatever you want to call yourselves) seem irrevocably stuck on Trump being either completely guilty or completely innocent. I don't believe either of those points of view is entirely accurate although I do acknowledge that there are good reasons for the views on either side of the issues. It seems to me that the deafening silence about the idea of investigating either of the Bidens isn't something the the left side of the aisle here wants to discuss. I do get it. Biden is running for president and if it turned out that he had done something he shouldn't have done it could affect the election. On the other hand, wouldn't we all want to know about it before casting our votes? Donald Trump got a lot of well deserved flack for saying that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and never be called to account for it. One of his lawyers made the same idiotic statement while trying to convince a judge that a sitting president can't be investigated or prosecuted while in office. At the risk of being vilified for a making a false equivalency, I'm going to suggest that Joe Biden is hereby exonerated of anything he may have done because he's running for president. What a world . . . If Trump's pattern were that he searches high and low routing out corruption around the world ("Get me the Saudis on the phone! I am not going to tolerate murdering journalists! Call Putin! Tell him I want answers to the shenanigans he is engaged in with Assad!" And tell Ivanka to knock it of with the Chinese trademarks!"), his obsession with Biden, even absent any actual evidence, might be something that could be taken seriously. But that's not how he operates, is it? "If it turned out that he had done something wrong," isn't what Trump was looking for. He was looking for an announcement that there was going to be an investigation. That was all he wanted, and it would have been, in his words, "perfect," just to have that. You seem to be as even handed as they come. But, imo, you are assuming a rope where, in fact, there is not even a slender thread, relative to any evidence that the Bidens engaged in anything illegal that requires "investigation."
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Nov 7, 2019 12:28:27 GMT -5
That seems to be the ultimate fallback position of never-say-die Trump supporters. Seems to me that this is at least part of the problem. Maybe it even reflects just a bit of what has Lar so frustrated. You've built a very high, very impenetrable wall around your false dichotomy that unless you are for impeachment you are a "Trump supporter". Present company should dispel this to at least some degree. Lar, Jeff, and I are not Trump supporters. None of us voted for him and I don't know about Jeff, but I doubt that Lar or I will be voting for him in 2020. And yet, your go-to argument is this false dichotomy. Thanks for that reassurance that you-all aren't among the never-say-dies. But my point remains: either you believe Trump is unfit or you don't. If you believe the former, you must be for impeachment - how can you not be? May I ask, are you for impeachment?
|
|