Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump

[hollodero]

(10-10-2019, 12:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're not fully grasping the point I'm making.  The constant cries for impeachment have created a chorus that prevent an actual legitimate claim from actually being heard and discerned from the others.  Not only that, but it paints the current effort with the exact same brush used on all the other efforts, some for laughable reasons.  If I call the police every day and say there's an intruder in my house and every day they show up and there isn't one do you think they're going to treat the next call I make as seriously as the first, even if this time there actually is an intruder?  I get that the evidence is stronger in this case, but that doesn't matter to most people because they've been beat over the head with impeachment talk the past three years.  To them this is merely the latest call of an intruder in my house.

I'd rather say I disagree with the premise here. Or say with the applicability of the example you gave.
"The Dems" did not cry for impeachment constantly. Some members did, not the most influential ones. Also, they (I guess) did not do it over "nothing" too. But over telling the squad to "go home" and things like these. Which might not amount to being impeachable, some might have indeed jumped the gun, but it's not comparable to a mere prank call to the police either.
If the Dem leadership in house and senate, the speakers and whips and whatnot, or the DNC bosses and other bigshots, had put out the goal to remove Trump from inauguration day on, I'd see your point. But it wasn't so. And calling Maxine Waters "the Dems" overall is just as fair as calling Steve King "the GOP".

And putting that aside, I still argue that no matter the history of Dem impeachment calls, this case deserves to be regarded on its own merits, independently from what Maxine had to say in days past. And I don't think that's too much to ask of a citizen to separate those things.

(10-10-2019, 12:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've said this from the beginning.  Based on past actions, whether they be by a minority of the Democratic party of not, you're going to need a real smoking gun to make impeachment stick on Trump now.  Whether this issue is it or not remains to be seen. 

Since this leaves me so bewildered, I'll repeat the point that I'd argue the stonewalling alone looks very much impeachable to me, and this gun is in Trump's hand, very much smoking. It is blatantly disregarding laws and the constitution.
And the transcript leaves no real questions open either. To me. If the US claims it is ok for their president to behave that way, then well, you deserve to be deemed untrustworthy and a rogue nation. (Which to me was already true after the Qataris got out of the corner by buying a Kushner scyscraper, but obviously that just bewildered me.)

(10-10-2019, 12:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: True, which I why I voted for Ross Perot in the first national election in which I could vote, I wanted a viable third party.  I still do.

I think a pro-EC and pro-winner takes all stance is incongruous with wanting a third party. The way it is now, they will never ever stand a chance against the money and media machinery the two parties have at their disposal.
The only way to get a viable third party would be them having the opportunity to send two or three congressman, preferably more, to Congress and build momentum/garner attention from there on. But this will never happen as it is right now. And if you want a viable third party, I do not get how you can also support the status quo of your election system that effectively rules that out for good.

(10-10-2019, 12:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have more faith in our institutions than that.  The US can easily survive a eight year Trump presidency.  W. Bush caused infinitely more damage than Trump has to date and now many view him as a lovable goof.

Survive, sure. But I do think Trump does irreparable damage to the US. Globally by tearing up deals and betraying allies that effectively defeated ISIS for him (which he bragged about), making it all that more difficult to forge alliances in the future. Who would possibly ever trust something the US says ever again - especially when the electorate deems what Trump does just fine and reelects him? I sure would not, and I was a big fan, even after Bush. But heck, it is not unthinkable anymore that Trump's deeds will indeed lead to the destruction of NATO and to strengthened authoritarian nations all over the world. Which comes with a toll, a political one, a humanitarian one, an economic one, pick your poison.
Domestically, I still find it astonishing how reckless and fiscally irresponsible the US puts a momentarily economic growth on the credit card for future generations by letting the deficits explode, leaving no wiggle room for the next depression that certainly will come. This will fall on your head eventually and I do not get how anyone can see that differently (especially from the right, that used to call Obama's economy in shatters solely because of the deficit - which he had to raise, for times back then were actually dire). I also think Trump does irreparable damage regarding the fight against destroying the environment and climate change. He also creates a climate of hate and distrust and is the kind of politician that relies on bringing out the worst impulses in people. There is a movement forming under Trump, one ready to overthrow democratic principles, human rights and basic decency. I've seen that back home, and I see it now in the US, and I think that is waaay more dangerous than AOC ever will be. But granted, that's just my take, still wanted to park it here.

(10-10-2019, 12:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   I look around this country and I do not like the trend towards shifting away from hard won basic principles of our country such as freedom of speech.  I view this trend, and it currently emanates from the left, as far more dangerous long term to the United States than a second Trump term.  Honestly, if Trump got one more SCOTUS nominee then I'd be satisfied because I think we're going to need a conservative leaning SCOTUS to stave off the worst excesses of the far left that are coming down the pipe.

While I don't think it's more dangerous, as stated, I cannot really say too much against that. I know you deem Europe as a place without free speech, but I have a different perspective - but regarding the extreme left, I am fully on par with your stance. I lost my political home largely due to that culture of forbidding or shouting down different opinions and slander, boycott, shitstorm and ruin those who express them. It is an awful trend.

Then again, what Trump suggests about freedom or democracy from time to time is even way more cringeworthy. But I guess the idiocy excuse can be applied to some of his more egregious suggestions (like calling the media the enemy of the people or trying Schiff, the old FBI leadership and folks who don't clap for him for treason - please don't tell me the left is on par with those statements).

(10-10-2019, 12:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: True, but that's the system as it's been for a very long time.  I still support the EC as I very much prefer the individual states having their say in who is elected POTUS.  One need only look at the disdain people like AOC have for "flyover country" to see why this is a good thing.

And I think AOC has nothing to do with it. I guess I heard all the points against the "one person, one vote"-principle and in the end, I deem all of them to be tainted by partisanship.
I really do wonder how you as a Californian resident can be fine with you getting two senators and the Dakotas getting four, but that's another point. But that is so blatantly unfair to me, as is the whole EC; but granted, although my tiny country is federalistic as well I am used to having my vote counted for the party or person I voted for, no matter where I lived. And I cannot shake the feeling that the century-old US approach is undemocratic, as it weighs votes differently. That is discimination based on residence. But ok, I get it :) that's just me.