Impeachment Hearings

[GMDino]

None of these people are very good at this.

Fox & Friends searches for a sequitur... Finds none. https://t.co/tew7k4b5Nx

— techweenie ? (@techweenie) November 22, 2019

 

[BmorePat87]

(11-22-2019, 11:24 AM)Goalpost Wrote: So an initial poll shows that the Dems message isn't being received well so far.  Trump's approval has gone up.  And those in favor of impeachment has gone down, in particular among independents.

That's not really an "initial poll" since there has been polling going on during the entire process

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/


All in all, there's net approval for impeachment and net disapproval for Trump that's pretty consistent when you average it out. 

[GMDino]

Nixon would call this guy paranoid.

Steve Doocy: You said we know the name of the whistleblower, but we have no idea.

Donald Trump: I don't believe you.

Brian Kilmeade: OK.

Doocy: We've seen names online but we have no verification.

Trump: You don't need verification. You know exactly who it is. pic.twitter.com/qUPHi3DX0p

— Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) November 22, 2019

 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-22-2019, 04:05 AM)Dill Wrote: However, you sign off this issue, it won't be by specifying exactly which statement I can't "comprehend." 

I.e., the line where you actually said Trump's actions were "bad for democracy" or actually abuse of power.

How many posts went past your original before someone coaxed you into finally, directly, saying what you claimed to say from the start? So easy to fix; but you had to pin your fault of clumsy expression on others' understanding.

I don't enjoy nitpicking the gaslighting. But I also don't feel like letting it slide when people count on others letting it slide. It's like our little board mirrors political discourse at the national  level, where personal attack and deflection replace the "nit picky" attention to evidence and integrity of argument. Eventually people stop questioning and just let it go.

You are correct, our board does resemble the national discourse.  The smarmy, faux intellectual nitpicker who misuses words is well represented here.  

[GMDino]

(11-22-2019, 12:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You are correct, our board does resemble the national discourse.  The smarmy, faux intellectual nitpicker who misuses words is well represented here.  

As are the people who name call and rely on what they "know" versus any kind of citations or sources.

We're a well rounded group!  

[hollodero]

(11-22-2019, 09:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: DJT has worse moral failings (he robbed from his own charity for example) AND used his personal lawyer to run a separate foreign policy that only benefited him and his campaign...not the US.

It should not be forgotten that he ordered security clearances for people that do not deserve one, he had Roger Stone cooperate with Wikileaks, blocked sanctions against Russian oligarchs, he tried to obstruct the Mueller investigation multiple times, he violated emolument clauses, never cut ties with his business, revealed classified information to the Russians, intimidated witnesses, had Qatar buy a failing Kushner scyscraper to get out of the doghouse, let Turkish forces beat up american protesters on american soil, suggested Putin can help with the investigations in exchange for investigating the former US ambassador and some other US folks Russia doesn't like, took Putin's word over his own intelligence agencies, lied to the public about the important national security matter of Russian meddling and did a bunch of other stuff only authoritarian leaders would normally get away with.

And when he gets away with this one now, God knows what else he will feel emboldened to do. At this point, I wonder if he would leave office if he were voted out. Or just claim voter fraud and try to have his republican buddies confirm that with their senate majority.

Says the guy that represents the world in here, looking at all that in shock and disarray. Where is Arturo, I feel alone.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-22-2019, 12:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: As are the people who name call and rely on what they "know" versus any kind of citations or sources.

We're a well rounded group!  

We also have the smarmy, obfuscating poster of lame gifs and jpegs.  Well rounded indeed.

[GMDino]

(11-22-2019, 12:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: As are the people who name call and rely on what they "know" versus any kind of citations or sources.

We're a well rounded group!  

(11-22-2019, 01:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We also have the smarmy, obfuscating poster of lame gifs and jpegs.  Well rounded indeed.

[GMDino]

(11-22-2019, 12:50 PM)hollodero Wrote: It should not be forgotten that he ordered security clearances for people that do not deserve one, he had Roger Stone cooperate with Wikileaks, blocked sanctions against Russian oligarchs, he tried to obstruct the Mueller investigation multiple times, he violated emolument clauses, never cut ties with his business, revealed classified information to the Russians, intimidated witnesses, had Qatar buy a failing Kushner scyscraper to get out of the doghouse, let Turkish forces beat up american protesters on american soil, suggested Putin can help with the investigations in exchange for investigating the former US ambassador and some other US folks Russia doesn't like, took Putin's word over his own intelligence agencies, lied to the public about the important national security matter of Russian meddling and did a bunch of other stuff only authoritarian leaders would normally get away with.

And when he gets away with this one now, God knows what else he will feel emboldened to do. At this point, I wonder if he would leave office if he were voted out. Or just claim voter fraud and try to have his republican buddies confirm that with their senate majority.

Says the guy that represents the world in here, looking at all that in shock and disarray. Where is Arturo, I feel alone.

Agreed.  Trump is what he always was...a crook and a conman.

Even when he has been caught (Trump U) and forced to pay (to many to mention) he continues being a conman and a crook.  It is who he is.

Some people just like it and endorse it because of politics.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-21-2019, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then you clearly don't know what ambiguous means. 



Yes, QPQ is normal, but that doesn't mean certain forms of it wouldn't be wrong.  Your gestalt thinking on this issue is insane.




Which is the exact point I made in the post.  Jesus Christ, you're thicker than pancake batter.


I'm not really interested in writing my points in crayon.  If Trump's intent was to exploit aid for leverage against a political opponent that would be wrong.  I said that in my OP, I'm stating it again now for the less than capable users of the English language among us.

(11-20-2019, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but having requirements on our aid is not extortion.  The issue, again correct me if I'm wrong, is the assertion that Trump asked for assistance in investigating a rival with the intent of hurting them politically.  Putting conditions on receiving our aid is rather normal.  The idea that quid pro quo is inherently unethical or a "high crime and misdemeanor" is simply not true.

Your original statement reads like Trump attached conditions to the aid, but conditions or quid pro quos are normal and not unethical. When you included the word “wrong” with your follow up statement that conveys a different impression than “normal.”

[GMDino]

He can't quite seem to manage to not say things that sound like high crimes and misdemeanors...

Trump claims that if he hadn't fired Comey, "I would have been in some trouble right now, because they were coming after me ... turned out to be the best move I ever made -- firing Comey. Because they were looking to take down the president."

Sounds like obstruction! pic.twitter.com/bt9iqyQj5p

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 22, 2019

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-22-2019, 11:34 AM)GMDino Wrote: Trump is also still insisting Russia did NOT interfere in the 2016 elections and claiming it was Ukraine.

"They gave the server to CrowdStrike ... that's what the word is" -- here's Trump pushing the absolutely insane, debunked conspiracy theory that the DNC's server is in Ukraine and that Russia was framed for interfering in the 2016 election pic.twitter.com/PXClTXfJhd

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 22, 2019

 

Trump is literally carrying Putin’s water for him. This shut all leads back to Russia/Putin being sanctioned by the Obama administration for Ukraine aggression.

Who benefits from the US withholding aid to Ukraine? Russia. Who benefits from blaming Ukraine for US election meddling? Russia. Who was involved in sanctioning Russia? Hillary and Biden. Who has relaxed sanctions against Russia? Trump. Who has and would benefit from a Trump presidency? Russia. What presidency wouldn’t benefit Russia? Hillary or Biden. What did the Russian sanctions include? A ban on provision of technology for oil and gas exploration and provision of credits to Russian oil companies. Trump wants the Bidens investigated for their involvement with Burmisa. What’s Burmisa? An energy exploration company. Huh, that’s rather coincidental.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-22-2019, 01:42 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Your original statement reads like Trump attached conditions to the aid, but conditions or quid pro quos are normal and not unethical. When you included the word “wrong” with your follow up statement that conveys a different impression than “normal.”

QPQ are normal and not inherently unethical.  Stating that is factual.  Pointing that out is not exculpatory.  You want to mince and parse words, fine, but it doesn't detract from what I actually posted, that the issue was attaching QPQ for political gain.  Several people completely understood my point, I'm sorry you did not.  That doesn't mean I didn't make the point I made.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-22-2019, 02:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: QPQ are normal and not inherently unethical.  Stating that is factual.  Pointing that out is not exculpatory.  You want to mince and parse words, fine, but it doesn't detract from what I actually posted, that the issue was attaching QPQ for political gain.  Several people completely understood my point, I'm sorry you did not.  That doesn't mean I didn't make the point I made.

And by several you mean three.

(11-20-2019, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The issue, again correct me if I'm wrong, is the assertion that Trump asked for assistance in investigating a rival with the intent of hurting them politically.  Putting conditions on receiving our aid is rather normal. 

(11-21-2019, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If Trump's intent was to exploit aid for leverage against a political opponent that would be wrong.

Yeah, guess I’m going to parse words like normal and wrong. Guilty as charged.

[hollodero]

EDIT OK, obviously I made a comprehension mistake here.

[GMDino]

"wrong" quid pro quo.

Q Mr. President, what exactly did you hope Zelensky would do about the Bidens after your phone call? Exactly.

TRUMP: Well, I would think that, if they were honest about it, they’d start a major investigation into the Bidens. It’s a very simple answer. https://t.co/6znWTqDnt9

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) November 22, 2019

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-22-2019, 02:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: And by several you mean three.

Actually four, as michaelsean should be included as well.  I'd also add that these four include some of our least partisan and more reasonable posters.  I do include you as one of those types as well, which is why I'm confused by your perception of my post.

Quote:Yeah, guess I’m going to parse words like normal and wrong. Guilty as charged.

I'm staring to get your issue.  You'd prefer me to use more heavily charged words like egregious and corruption.  I suppose being accused of not being outwardly outraged enough shouldn't surprise me in this day and age.

[Dill]

(11-22-2019, 12:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You are correct, our board does resemble the national discourse.  The smarmy, faux intellectual nitpicker who misuses words is well represented here.  

Yes, our national discourse is loaded with speakers who cannot move beyond name calling to rational, evidence-based political argument--much more so than on our message board, I'd say. 

A few more "smarmy faux intellectual nitpickers" might help right the ship.    But they can't do it alone.

In Washington as well as here, that requires that citizens as a body commit to turning public discourse back to pre-Gingrich standards. 

--a return to civility and to accountability for truth claims.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-22-2019, 05:26 PM)Dill Wrote: A few more "smarmy faux intellectual nitpickers" might help right the ship.   

I'll go on record right now and state that smarmy faux intellectual nitpickers have never helped anything, ever.  But don't break your arm patting yourself on the back either. :andy:

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-22-2019, 04:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually four, as michaelsean should be included as well.  I'd also add that these four include some of our least partisan and more reasonable posters.  I do include you as one of those types as well, which is why I'm confused by your perception of my post.



I'm staring to get your issue.  You'd prefer me to use more heavily charged words like egregious and corruption.  I suppose being accused of not being outwardly outraged enough shouldn't surprise me in this day and age.

You could have used the same words, but just be more clear in your meaning then I wouldn't have been confused.

(11-20-2019, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but having requirements on our aid is not extortion.  The issue, again correct me if I'm wrong, is the assertion that Trump asked for assistance in investigating a rival with the intent of hurting them politically.  Putting conditions on receiving our aid is rather normal.  The idea that quid pro quo is inherently unethical or a "high crime and misdemeanor" is simply not true.

Where did you state Trump's conditions were wrong?  Because I don't see it.  I don't even see where you implied his conditions were wrong.

(11-20-2019, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but having requirements on our aid is not extortion.  The issue, again correct me if I'm wrong, is the assertion that Trump asked for assistance in investigating a rival with the intent of hurting them politically.  Putting conditions on receiving our aid is rather normal.  The idea that quid pro quo is inherently unethical or a "high crime and misdemeanor" is simply not true.

Now in the very next sentence after Trump's conditions you state putting conditions on receiving aid is normal.  When you put those two sentences back to back it gives the impression Trump's conditions were normal.

(11-21-2019, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If Trump's intent was to exploit aid for leverage against a political opponent that would be wrong. 

If you had stated this from the beginning I wouldn't have been confused.

(11-20-2019, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but having requirements on our aid is not extortion.  The issue, again correct me if I'm wrong, is the assertion that Trump asked for assistance in investigating a rival with the intent of hurting them politically.  Putting conditions on receiving our aid is rather normal.  The idea that quid pro quo is inherently unethical or a "high crime and misdemeanor" is simply not true.  If Trump's intent was to exploit aid for leverage against a political opponent that would be wrong. 

Now when you combine those two I know what you mean without using "heavily charged words."  Same words, but now I understand what you mean.  Because as originally written it seemed like you acknowledge Trump's conditions and then in the very next sentence you seemed to state those conditions were normal, not wrong.  Because without that last sentence it seems you're saying what Trump did is normal and not unethical.

So at current count, seems like four people understood your point and about four people didn't and I don't think the misunderstanding is due to partisanship or knee jerk reactions.