The Trump Presidency: Part 17

[Skeptic Ginger]

What's the reason for Trump wanting to intimidate Ukraine?

What would he gain by their comliance?

"Tangential" my left ass cheek...

No, what I said is nothing like your distorted analogy.

Trump would gain something for himself, things that might help him trash an opponent in 2020.

What do you think Trump was aiming at gaining?

 

[pgwenthold]

For pete's sake, democrats have been complaining from before Trump was elected that he was getting help from a foreign government in the election. The Mueller report said, yeah, the Russians were in the tank for Trump but he was too stupid to actually be actively seeking that help, so they didn't collude. Now we have the moron releasing a transcript showing that he actively sought assistance from a foreign state against a political rival.

Why go after him now? Because they finally have the piece that they didn't have before.

And yes, Democrats are concerned that the President of the US is seeking help from a foreign country to discredit a political opponent. The main question is, why aren't the Republicans?

 

[WilliamSeger]

Oh, there's a "faithful" way to improperly influence foreign countries.

It's not improper to insist that a country clean up its corruption before giving them aid. That's acting in our national interests, which is faithful execution of presidential duties. That's not what Trump did, which was to use the levers of power to further his own self-interest. Just what is it that you don't get about that?

Your resorting to insults schtick was never interesting to begin with.

The fact that no Trump apologists can address the issue honestly speaks volumes.

 

[Lurch]

You picked one variable when there were dozens of differences in your list. You can't just pick the one variable that suits your argument (pretending the impeachment is about Biden when it is about Trump).

You beat me to it.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Trump would gain something for himself, things that might help him trash an opponent in 2020. What do you think Trump was aiming at gaining?

Sure, when you go out of your way not to say Biden's name, then Biden is "just tangentially related" to the issue.

/facedesk

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Apparently Pelosi and the House disagree with you.

I'm aware Pelosi/The House and I disagree on whether the OSC report was valid grounds for impeachment.

But nice appeal to authority.

 

[kookbreaker]

In a different climate Pelosi might have tried for impeachment after the Mueller report. But with Fox News and other conservatives running interference for Trump for 18 months, combined with the rather anticlimactic ending of the report (with the WH releasing a misleading ‘summary’ that managed to take the wind out of the sails when the report was actually released it wasn’t going to happen.

And the Kids in cages? Sorry to say there are just too many folks who don’t care enough.

But now? Trump outright admitted what the whistleblower said and Fox has gotten at least somewhat tired of carrying water for him.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

You picked one variable when there were dozens of differences in your list. You can't just pick the one variable that suits your argument (pretending the impeachment is about Biden when it is about Trump).

All the things on the list are examples of Trump abusing his power.

All the things on the list that hurt average people but aren't that threatening to people in orbit of power have gotten a pass.

The thing on the list that Presidents do all the time and threatens someone who is on the ascent to power and has lots of powerful friends, that's the thing they act on.

I'll point out another inconsistency. Remember all the "we have to be careful, we have to dot our I's and cross our T's before we begin" stuff? Yeah, what happened to that? They've jumped on this thing awfully fast in comparison.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

This morning Trump actually retweeted a tweet from a joke twitter account that plays on his alleged fear of sharks by randomly inserting shark references in posts about him.

Seriously.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sure, when you go out of your way not to say Biden's name, then Biden is "just tangentially related" to the issue.

/facedesk

What's your hypothesis here, Biden is the Democrats darling?

He doesn't even have 50% support.

The other variables you are ignoring have been posted upthread by others.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

It's not improper to insist that a country clean up its corruption before giving them aid. That's acting in our national interests, which is faithful execution of presidential duties. That's not what Trump did, which was to use the levers of power to further his own self-interest. Just what is it that you don't get about that?

Other, even clearer instances of that exist. Which were not pursued this vigorously even after months-to-years of evidence piling up.

Sorry, I think this whistleblower thing is vapor thin right now compared to the other matters.

The fact that no Trump apologists can address the issue honestly speaks volumes.

Now I'm a Trump apologist?

 

[phiwum]

Sure, when you go out of your way not to say Biden's name, then Biden is "just tangentially related" to the issue.

/facedesk

No, you misunderstand.

The fact is that Trump's actions are terrible because they were purely motivated by self-interest. Why? Because they were intended to harm Trump's political opponent.

That they were directed at a political opponent is what made them bad. That the particular opponent was Biden or a Democrat or that the president was Trump is all fluff, mere details. The wrongness comes from a president pressuring a foreign nation to produce damaging information on one of his primary opponents.

Were it Obama and the opponent Romney or Trump or whoever, I would (I hope) feel the same way. Perhaps Dems in general wouldn't but I hope most of them would. They are a bit less blindly loyal than Republicans in my opinion and for whatever reason.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

All the things on the list are examples of Trump abusing his power.

All the things on the list that hurt average people but aren't that threatening to people in orbit of power have gotten a pass.

You really need to let go of this, no one but you is convinced.

The thing on the list that Presidents do all the time and threatens someone who is on the ascent to power and has lots of powerful friends, that's the thing they act on.

Biden? People are going to impeach Trump because they are standing up for Biden?

I'll point out another inconsistency. Remember all the "we have to be careful, we have to dot our I's and cross our T's before we begin" stuff? Yeah, what happened to that? They've jumped on this thing awfully fast in comparison.

See this is where you are having a problem. You don't seem to recognize how blatant Trump's action was.

No matter how the GOP spin machine tries to make Schiff's Godfather summary out to be an attempt to lie, it actually was a good summary of what was going on. And Trump is so over-confident he put it right out in plain sight for everyone to see. He seems to think if it doesn't look like he's trying to hide it that will be some magical evidence there was nothing wrong there.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

What's your hypothesis here, Biden is the Democrats darling?

He doesn't even have 50% support.

The other variables you are ignoring have been posted upthread by others.

What's his support in the caucus and the party committees?

What do the members of the caucus need from the party in order to survive?

Sorry, I've lived in a country where I haven't once seen a principled change of caucus attitude this fast without serious arm-twisting involved. That's not to say it isn't possible, I just find it highly improbable.

I want him gone. I'll celebrate like mad if it happens.

But I don't buy for one second it is for principle.

 

[Minoosh]

I'm not convinced that a significant portion of Congress is deeply disturbed that a President might attach conditionalities to American foreign policy.

I'm not convinced either but I suspect that this could indeed happen. I doubt if they'd publicly blame the break on Trump's continuous thwarting of U.S. policy objectives abroad, though.

Whatever's going on, it's a certainty that we don't know all of it.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs
If Mueller had not concluded that he saw no collusion, the Dems may well have impeached him. But, Mueller did say that.

I have no idea what '' means. Do you disagree that Mueller concluded that he saw no collusion with Russia by Trump?

Originally Posted by Stacyhs
So far, this is the strongest case for impeachment they've found.

No.

Thank you for you in depth rebuttal clearly detailing why you disagree.

Apparently Pelosi and the House disagree with you.

I'm aware Pelosi/The House and I disagree on whether the OSC report was valid grounds for impeachment.

But nice appeal to authority.

I'm not appealing to authority. I'm stating a fact; they are the authorities who make the decision of whether to impeach or not. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with them.

 

[Checkmite]

The request to the Ukraine president to initiate an investigation of the US president's political opponent was illegal regardless of whether it came with a carrot on a stick, or if the Ukraine president felt "intimidated" or not.

I just want to stress that fact, because it seems like the GOP's common talking points around the impeachment inquiry are designed to suppress or ignore it.

 

[Minoosh]

The wrongness comes from a president pressuring a foreign nation to produce damaging information on one of his primary opponents.

It would be great if he actually had a *literal* primary opponent so we could see if he would similarly target an 'R.'

I suspect he would.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

You really need to let go of this, no one but you is convinced.

Amusing considering the source.

Biden? People are going to impeach Trump because they are standing up for Biden?

How substantive.

See this is where you are having a problem. You don't seem to recognize how blatant Trump's action was.

Ah yes, the only way I could have arrived at my conclusion is by being ill-informed.

Good one.

No matter how the GOP spin machine tries to make Schiff's Godfather summary out to be an attempt to lie, it actually was a good summary of what was going on. And Trump is so over-confident he put it right out on plain sight for everyone to see. He seems to think if it doesn't look like he's trying to hide it that will be some magical evidence there was nothing wrong there.

I hope at some point we understand that being factually correct about it is maybe like 5% of what matters.

 

[a_unique_person]

No, you misunderstand.



The fact is that Trump's actions are terrible because they were purely motivated by self-interest. Why? Because they were intended to harm Trump's political opponent.



That they were directed at a political opponent is what made them bad. That the particular opponent was Biden or a Democrat or that the president was Trump is all fluff, mere details. The wrongness comes from a president pressuring a foreign nation to produce damaging information on one of his primary opponents.



Were it Obama and the opponent Romney or Trump or whoever, I would (I hope) feel the same way. Perhaps Dems in general wouldn't but I hope most of them would. They are a bit less blindly loyal than Republicans in my opinion and for whatever reason.

Then he sends his personal attorney off to do dirty work for him.

I agree that countries ethically unsound pressure to other countries all the time.