Impeachment Hearings

[Dill]

(12-13-2019, 10:08 AM)GMDino Wrote: . Trump even cut funding for programs to deal with corruption in countries like Ukraine."

I am a bit disappointed the Dems didn't coordinate their message better, so there was less talking past the Repubs who were already talking past Dems. The only way to control the Repub repetition of deflective topics and statements is to make sure deflection always triggered an immediate return to the facts/specifics.

Whatever set speech a Dem had prepared ahead of time, whenever s/he heard a Repub say "no fact witness" and "thin evidence," then whoever was up next should have repeatedly referenced, in sequence,

1. Cohen's Stormy Daniels fix, with allusion to the new fixer, Rudy,
2. Trump's affirmation he would take negative info on an opponent from a foreign government,
3. The obstruction finding in the Mueller Report--especially the order to create a false record,
4. the firing of Yovanavitch and the replacement of that official in the OMB who didn't want to sign off on witholding Ukraine aid.
5. Trump CUTTING funding targeted at the corruption problem,
6. placing speech transcripts on a classified server,
7. PUBLICLY calling on China, not to check corruption, but to investigate Biden, and
8. withholding of documents and witnesses--especially transcripts of other phone calls e.g. with Putin and MbS.

They needed to keep the thuggish and secretive behavior front and center. And keep waving the statement signed by 500 prosecutors who think Trump committed an impeachable offense.

Anytime a Repub mentioned "unqualified" Hunter Biden, a Dem should have referenced Ivanka and Jared. "We aren't here to impeach Hunter Biden because his political connections got him a job any more than we are here to impeach Ivanka and Jared."

Too many just repeated claims of "overwhelming evidence" without reminding people of it. When Repubs claim there was thin or no evidence, the claims just balance out without the addition of specifics, which the Dems, not Repubs, have. Undecided voters will come away thinking "both sides do it" regarding the heated rhetoric with little memory of the specifics which should impartially ground impeachment.

[GMDino]

DJT will do "whatever he wants" for the trial.


Seems fair.

Trump on the Senate impeachment trial: "I'll do whatever I want ... I'll do long or short." (McConnell told Hannity last night he'll do whatever Trump's lawyers want him to do.) pic.twitter.com/34JhPBF4TQ

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 13, 2019

[ballsofsteel]

(12-13-2019, 05:49 PM)Dill Wrote: I am a bit disappointed the Dems didn't coordinate their message better, so there was less talking past the Repubs who were already talking past Dems. The only way to control the Repub repetition of deflective topics and statements is to make sure deflection always triggered an immediate return to the facts/specifics.

Whatever set speech a Dem had prepared ahead of time, whenever s/he heard a Repub say "no fact witness" and "thin evidence," then whoever was up next should have repeatedly referenced, in sequence,

1. Cohen's Stormy Daniels fix, with allusion to the new fixer, Rudy,
2. Trump's affirmation he would take negative info on an opponent from a foreign government,
3. The obstruction finding in the Mueller Report--especially the order to create a false record,
4. the firing of Yovanavitch and the replacement of that official in the OMB who didn't want to sign off on witholding Ukraine aid.
5. Trump CUTTING funding targeted at the corruption problem,
6. placing speech transcripts on a classified server,
7. PUBLICLY calling on China, not to check corruption, but to investigate Biden, and
8. withholding of documents and witnesses--especially transcripts of other phone calls e.g. with Putin and MbS.

They needed to keep the thuggish and secretive behavior front and center. And keep waving the statement signed by 500 prosecutors who think Trump committed an impeachable offense.

Anytime a Repub mentioned "unqualified" Hunter Biden, a Dem should have referenced Ivanka and Jared. "We aren't here to impeach Hunter Biden because his political connections got him a job any more than we are here to impeach Ivanka and Jared."

Too many just repeated claims of "overwhelming evidence" without reminding people of it. When Repubs claim there was thin or no evidence, the claims just balance out without the addition of specifics, which the Dems, not Repubs, have.  Undecided voters will come away thinking "both sides do it" regarding the heated rhetoric with little memory of the specifics which should impartially ground impeachment.

I was thinking the pretty much the same same thing Dill. I thought the Dems should of screamed outrage while stating thier facts liked those Repub
turds Collins and Gaetz. The closest the Dems got into the Repubs face was Eric Swalwell.

[BmorePat87]

(12-13-2019, 05:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: Melania, of course, could not be bothered to comment herself.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/melania-justifies-trumps-bullying-of-greta-thunberg-shes-an-activist-who-travels-the-globe/

What’s worse, the previously outraged conservatives who blame Greta for Trump’s bullying or those who won’t even comment on it?

[CJD]

(12-13-2019, 10:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What’s worse, the previously outraged conservatives who blame Greta for Trump’s bullying or those who won’t even comment on it?

The argument I've heard from the right for why people are okay with Greta being bullied but against Baron's name even being mentioned is that Greta has made herself a public figure and is, hence, subject to criticism.

I can't really disagree with them, to be honest. I think their outrage about Baron being mentioned was insincere and meant only to drive home that that legal scholar was a "Never Trumper" but I do think anyone who exposes themselves to the public is subject to criticism. The question is when does criticism turn to bullying?

The sexualization of Greta, especially, in memes shared by righties on their little T_D subreddits and 4chan sites is quite disgusting. Criticism is understandable, but she's still a minor.

[hollodero]

(12-16-2019, 12:20 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The argument I've heard from the right for why people are okay with Greta being bullied but against Baron's name even being mentioned is that Greta has made herself a public figure and is, hence, subject to criticism.

I can't really disagree with them, to be honest. I think their outrage about Baron being mentioned was insincere and meant only to drive home that that legal scholar was a "Never Trumper" but I do think anyone who exposes themselves to the public is subject to criticism.

Sure, that is probably true. Criticism is one thing though. Being outright offensive is another thing. Trump was offensive.

[CJD]

(12-16-2019, 12:32 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure, that is probably true. Criticism is one thing though. Being outright offensive is another thing. Trump was offensive.

I updated my post to address it. Trump and his cronies are definitely crossing the line.

[BmorePat87]

(12-16-2019, 12:20 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The argument I've heard from the right for why people are okay with Greta being bullied but against Baron's name even being mentioned is that Greta has made herself a public figure and is, hence, subject to criticism.

I can't really disagree with them, to be honest. I think their outrage about Baron being mentioned was insincere and meant only to drive home that that legal scholar was a "Never Trumper" but I do think anyone who exposes themselves to the public is subject to criticism. The question is when does criticism turn to bullying?

The sexualization of Greta, especially, in memes shared by righties on their little T_D subreddits and 4chan sites is quite disgusting. Criticism is understandable, but she's still a minor.

Unfortunately their message was that Barron was "bullied" and children should not be bullied.

Greta's politics can be criticized, but Trump didn't do that. He mocked her. They have remained silent, solidifying the fact that they were completely insincere in why they were outraged about Barron. 

Anyone who cried outrage over Barron and cannot comment on Greta is a clown. 

[hollodero]

(12-16-2019, 12:40 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I updated my post to address it. Trump and his cronies are definitely crossing the line.

Ah... I drew too quickly then. 

Them crossing the line happens quite regularly, doesn't it. As is frantically diminshing the awful things Trump spouts out. But then at the same time being outraged over someone mentioning Barron's name was just the kind of disingenious that finally really rubs me the wrong way.

Which has nothing to with critizism of Greta. I myself am not too happy about the idea of making a minor the face of climate change. I also do not fancy her style of messaging. So, yeah saying that seems ok to me and not akin to bullying.

[*bfine32*]

(12-16-2019, 12:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Unfortunately their message was that Barron was "bullied" and children should not be bullied.

Greta's politics can be criticized, but Trump didn't do that. He mocked her. They have remained silent, solidifying the fact that they were completely insincere in why they were outraged about Barron. 

Anyone who cried outrage over Barron and cannot comment on Greta is a clown. 

Your not so veiled insults aside.

My response is unchanged. Greta has as much business being the center of Global Warming discussions as Barron does being part of the impeachment hearings. POTUS would be better served just to ignore her, much as Barron should have been ignored in these hearings.

The key difference is one child entered the spotlight willingly and the other was drug into it.

[GMDino]

(12-16-2019, 01:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your not so veiled insults aside.

My response is unchanged. Greta has as much business being the center of Global Warming discussions as Barron does being part of the impeachment hearings. POTUS would be better served just to ignore her, much as Barron should have been ignored in these hearings.

The key difference is one child entered the spotlight willingly and the other was drug into it.

...and a 73 year old "man", who holds the highest office in the land, insulted HER...not her policy stance, not the issue.  Donald J Trump, President of the United States insulted a 16 year old girl via twitter because she got what he wanted: a REAL Time Magazine Cover.

He's a jealous, small man and no one on the right will criticize that.  They simply make excuses for it.

Sad and pitiful.

[*bfine32*]

(12-16-2019, 02:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: ...and a 73 year old "man", who holds the highest office in the land, insulted HER...not her policy stance, not the issue.  Donald J Trump, President of the United States insulted a 16 year old girl via twitter because she got what he wanted: a REAL Time Magazine Cover.

He's a jealous, small man and no one on the right will criticize that.  They simply make excuses for it.

Sad and pitiful.

Anyone making excuses for POTUS insulting a child is sad and pitiful.

[fredtoast]

(12-16-2019, 01:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Greta has as much business being the center of Global Warming discussions as Barron does being part of the impeachment hearings. 

I think it is very important to have someone from Greta's generation speak up.  They are the ons who will have to deal with the mess being created right now.

[Dill]

(12-16-2019, 01:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your not so veiled insults aside.

My response is unchanged. Greta has as much business being the center of Global Warming discussions as Barron does being part of the impeachment hearings. POTUS would be better served just to ignore her, much as Barron should have been ignored in these hearings.

The key difference is one child entered the spotlight willingly and the other was drug into it.

Makes sense.

Some folks think the real problem here is the leader of the free world mocking a 16-year-old who got attention he wanted, thus behaving like another 16-year-old.

But children can't know much about climate change, so if they step forward to warn that something must be done it, no one should be surprised if they get their come comeuppance from knowledgeable adults.   

[*bfine32*]

(12-16-2019, 02:18 PM)Dill Wrote: Makes sense.

Some folks think the real problem here is the leader of the free world mocking a 16-year-old who got attention he wanted, thus behaving like another 16-year-old.

But children can't know much about climate change, so if they step forward to warn that something must be done it, no one should be surprised if they get their come comeuppance from knowledgeable adults.   

Some will get the point others won't. Guess which category you fall in.

[Dill]

(12-16-2019, 02:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Some will get the point others won't. Guess which category you fall in.

I get it. People won't stop attacking our Dear Leader any way they can.

[GMDino]

(12-16-2019, 01:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your not so veiled insults aside.

My response is unchanged. Greta has as much business being the center of Global Warming discussions as Barron does being part of the impeachment hearings. POTUS would be better served just to ignore her, much as Barron should have been ignored in these hearings.

The key difference is one child entered the spotlight willingly and the other was drug into it.

(12-16-2019, 02:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Anyone making excuses for POTUS insulting a child is sad and pitiful.

[*bfine32*]

(12-16-2019, 02:31 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Of course anyone with greater than a 3rd grade level of reading comprehension understood the difference was how they came to be in the spotlight and in no way mitigates the insulting of either.

[*bfine32*]

(12-16-2019, 02:24 PM)Dill Wrote: I get it. People won't stop attacking our Dear Leader any way they can.

Nah, you were in the other group.

[hollodero]

(12-16-2019, 01:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your not so veiled insults aside.

My response is unchanged. Greta has as much business being the center of Global Warming discussions as Barron does being part of the impeachment hearings. POTUS would be better served just to ignore her, much as Barron should have been ignored in these hearings.

The key difference is one child entered the spotlight willingly and the other was drug into it.

So, that's the key difference then. Meaning, the Barron scandal was actually worse than POTUS insulting Greta Thunberg. Do I read that correctly, since that key difference aside, it is "much as"...?

Of course I still argue ridiculing and insulting a child is actually way worse than bringing up a child's name and then apologizing for it, but these differences don't seem to be key to you.

(12-16-2019, 02:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course anyone with greater than a 3rd grade level of reading comprehension understood the difference was how they came to be in the spotlight and in no way mitigates the insulting of either.

Case in point, you argue both childs were "insulted". Strange to me, since I do not think mentioning that Trump has a son named Barron is actually any kind of insult. Why is it an insult?