Gryzemuis on 25/9/2019 at 16:09
Trump attacks Clinton in vile and outrageous ways -> Democrats don't give a fuck.
Trump wins the elections -> Democrats don't give a fuck.
Trump steals billions for his buddies (tax breaks) -> Democrats don't give a fuck.
Trump locks up children in cages -> Democrats don't give a fuck.
Trump uses his position to enrich his private companies -> Democrats don't give a fuck.
Trump says and does terrible things -> Democrats don't give a fuck.
Trump goes after Joe Biden's son -> All hell breaks lose, the Democrats take off the gloves.
I find it weird. I don't understand the Democrats at all. I doubt they'll achieve anything with this. I've always said that I thought the whole situation with US/Europe/Ukrain/Crimea/Russia was weird. Mucky. Inconsequential. Without a plan (that we're allowed to see/know at least). Belligerent without reason. Amateurish even. I wonder if this investigation isn't going to backfire.
Vae on 25/9/2019 at 16:21
Quote Posted by demagogue
But the point is, if they get that House vote, then the "1st Term Impeachment" voters are going to win this poll.
This is incorrect.
The poll question is, "How long will Trump be President?"...Therefore the word "impeachment" refers to the President being impeached from office...
which will never happen.
Starker on 25/9/2019 at 18:40
What does "impeached from office" even mean? Impeachment has only one meaning in the context of the US, and it's basically an indictment. It's the Senate that then has to decide whether he's guilty or not.
Speaking of which, looks like there's a chance I might cash in on that bet I made way before it all started:
Quote Posted by Starker
If he does become president, though, I bet he'll be the first US president to be impeached and convicted.
Though I did not count on Republican spinelessness (at least to the current extent) when I wrote that.
Vae on 25/9/2019 at 20:08
Quote Posted by Starker
What does "impeached from office" even mean? Impeachment has only one meaning in the context of the US, and it's basically an indictment. It's the Senate that then has to decide whether he's guilty or not.
"Impeached from office" and "impeached, convicted, and removed from office"...are equivalent. "Impeached from office", is simply the concise version of saying the same thing.
Quote:
If he does become president, though, I bet he'll be the first US president to be impeached and convicted.
You're going to lose that bet.
Quote:
I did not count in Republican spinelessness (at least to the current extent) when I wrote that.
To expect the Senate to convict and remove a sitting President without clear, substantiated evidence of wrong-doing that meets the standards of "high crimes and misdemeanors", is an irrational desire based on political partisanship.
Starker on 25/9/2019 at 20:15
There is more than enough evidence on obstruction of justice alone. Also, who knows what comes to light when someone finally starts following the money.
Renzatic on 25/9/2019 at 20:28
Quote Posted by Vae
To expect the Senate to convict and remove a sitting President without clear, substantiated evidence of wrong-doing that meets the standards of "high crimes and misdemeanors", is an irrational desire based on political partisanship.
As opposed to the irrational desire to assume his innocence based upon political partisanship. Considering the evidence presented over the last 3 years, it's pretty well obvious that Trump has more than met the criteria necessary to justify an impeachment proceeding. The only reason he has yet to face congress is because the Republicans will back him no matter the circumstances, making a 2/3rds majority vote all but impossible to meet.
Vae on 25/9/2019 at 20:39
Quote Posted by Renzatic
As opposed to the irrational desire to assume his innocence based upon political partisanship.
In the U.S., one is "innocent until proven guilty"...which is the rational, neutral, and fair position.
On the other hand, only an irrational partisan would assume guilt without proof of guilt.
Nicker on 25/9/2019 at 20:45
Seems that (
https://theweek.com/speedreads/867482/trump-reportedly-asked-pelosi-deal-before-impeachment-launch-said-could-obey-law) Trump tried to bribe Pelosi with gun control legislation in return for
working something out over this pesky hoax whistelblower complaint, which he has already claimed, the transcript of the phone call has totally exonerated him (in the same way the Mueller report totally exonerated him...).
Quote:
Przybyla said on MSNBC's The Beat. "I got a readout on that, that the president actually said to Nancy Pelosi, 'Hey, can we do something about this whistleblower complaint, can we work something out?' And she said 'Yes, you can tell your people to obey the law.'
And no, this is not reporting by the Onion.
Renzatic on 25/9/2019 at 20:50
I remember well the Clinton trial. I noticed you never once stepped up to protest her innocence at any moment during that debacle.
And hey, there's plenty of proof to assume Trump's guilt based upon the prima facie evidence presented. I'm not saying he IS guilty 100%, but things do look pretty damn shitty for him at the moment, have looked shitty for him for awhile. Of course you can continue to deflect from this fact by proclaming that only "irrational partisans" are playing this as something bad, yet it's pretty obvious you're playing the other side of the same game as those you accuse, assuming his innocence simply because you like the guy.
Nicker on 25/9/2019 at 20:51
Quote Posted by Vae
In the U.S., one is "innocent until proven guilty"...which is the rational, neutral, and fair position.
It also presumes nobody is above the law and that there will be an unfettered and robust investigation of alleged crimes without interference by the investigators or the accused.
Quote Posted by Vae
On the other hand, only an irrational partisan would assume guilt without proof of guilt.
Or ignore the huge preponderance of existing and mounting evidence.