House Impeachment Inquiry

[Skeptic Ginger]

I really wish we had automatically nestled quoting turned on here, because without it, everyone's always reading everyone else's words out of context, and it creates confusion.

Anyone should be free to jump in on a discussion, but when people weren't following the point originally being discussed, it turns into a rat's nest of lost trains of thought, and unnecessary ensuing drama.

Then you politely say, we were talking about X or whatever. Look at my exchange here with phiwum. I thought phiwum was talking about Trump but he was talking about Barr. He corrected me, I went on to discuss Barr.

It's not that hard. But some people play games like saying you missed something and accuse you of the sin of not going back to the beginning of a discussion when they could easily have just said what you missed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Usually you just have mods tell members to please start a new comment string after quotes get large, to not mess up view-ability. It becomes a matter of forum etiquette.

Even when they do get long because a member or two failed to follow etiquette, it's still superior to the viewability of a thread where people are bickering over literally nothing at all, as a result of the train of thought and original argument being lost, and new members chiming in, having no idea what other people are even talking about.

I absolutely prefer long scrolls to get to the newest comment over that nonsense.

You want to give the mods more work?

 

[kellyb]

Then you politely say, we were talking about X or whatever. Look at my exchange here with phiwum. I thought phiwum was talking about Trump but he was talking about Barr. He corrected me, I went on to discuss Barr.

It's not that hard. But some people play games like saying you missed something and accuse you of the sin of not going back to the beginning of a discussion when they could easily have just said what you missed.

When they're being bombarded by ad hominims?

It's fantastically difficult to remain perfectly polite when you're being attacked by numerous people, especially when you didn't do anything wrong. It really is.

 

[kellyb]

You want to give the mods more work?

I used to admin a HUGE forum. I was a mod there before becoming admin. It's not that much work to periodically remind people to please start new comment strings. It really does just naturally become a part of forum etiquitte and the forum's culture.

But to each their own.

 

[Craig4]

What are the odds that Trump or one of his Trumptrash didn't back channel to Lunchbox in North Korea to attack Biden this weekend? The Mooch was right yesterday, Ukraine can't be the only country where Trump did this.

If Erdogan says anything bad about Biden, Gulen should go into hiding.

 

[Belz...]

I didn't say the tweet was fine. I said it wasn't libel.

Would you venture to say it was the wrong thing to do, then?

 

[Ziggurat]

Would you venture to say it was the wrong thing to do, then?

Yes.

 

[Belz...]

People keep pointing out that this isn't a trial, which is why Trump's lawyers can't cross examine.

Oh, I would love to see Trump participate in the proceedings. Have him testify and hang himself.

Yes.

Thank you. It's a least that.

 

[Segnosaur]

What are the odds that Trump or one of his Trumptrash didn't back channel to Lunchbox in North Korea to attack Biden this weekend? The Mooch was right yesterday, Ukraine can't be the only country where Trump did this.

I have to admit, the attack on Biden by North Korea did seem to be out of nowhere. I know Biden has criticized Trump's meetings with North Korea, but then so have other democratic candidates.

 

[Segnosaur]

You can prioritize points however you want to, but I don't agree with this at all.

Trump is crude, and I'd prefer it if he didn't constantly attack anyone who criticizes him on twitter. But I think you're making a grave mistake here. Namely, what the hell does the length of her job have anything to do with anything? Diplomats, no matter how long they serve, are still just people. They aren't holy. They aren't above criticism. And working for the government doesn't invest people with virtue, not even after decades of doing so. Were Trump's attacks unwarranted? The basis for evaluating that should have nothing to do with the fact that she "served her country for 30+ years".

The fact that an individual served in a particular role for multiple decades (and under presidents from both parties) is significant because it shows that the individual is likely both competent at their job, and is capable of fulfilling their role in a non-biased manner. (It also suggests that the individual may have a certain amount of dedication and willingness to sacrifice in order to fulfill their role.)

While the president may have the authority to fire or replace such an individual, doing so should raise questions about why such firing is warranted.

Thus, when Stubby McBonespurs both fired her and attacked her reputation on Twitter, it could be seen as intimidation, since his attacks could (in theory) affect her reputation, and/or impact her ability to find employment in the future.

 

[Segnosaur]

Here's an interesting bit of polling:

From: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/70-...ons-tied-ukraine-wrong-poll/story?id=67088534
An overwhelming 70% of Americans think President Donald Trump’s request to a foreign leader to investigate his political rival, which sits at the heart of the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry, was wrong...A slim majority of Americans, 51%, believe Trump’s actions were both wrong and he should be impeached and removed from office.... another 19% think that Trump's actions were wrong, but that he should either be impeached by the House but not removed from office, or be neither impeached by the House nor convicted by the Senate.

Why is this relevant? Well the way I see it, Trump has an approval rating around 40%. But here 70% of the people think he did at least something wrong (even if it doesn't rise to the level of "impeachable".) That suggests that approximately one quarter of Trump's base do agree that he is culpable with regards to the Biden/Ukrainian incident. That's not good for a president that is trying to portray this as a "witch hunt" and is heading into what could be a very tight election.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I have to admit, the attack on Biden by North Korea did seem to be out of nowhere. I know Biden has criticized Trump's meetings with North Korea, but then so have other democratic candidates.

Trump himself may be the only person outside of North Korea who imagines being slandered by North Korea is actually a negative for an American politician.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which is funny because we spend 50% of the time discussing Trump, who wouldn't last a day on this forum himself.

If Trump joined the forum, the whole politics section would crash. 90% of the posters here wouldn't be able to avoid violating the membership agreement.

 

[lobosrul5]

Here's an interesting bit of polling:

From: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/70-...ons-tied-ukraine-wrong-poll/story?id=67088534
An overwhelming 70% of Americans think President Donald Trump’s request to a foreign leader to investigate his political rival, which sits at the heart of the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry, was wrong...A slim majority of Americans, 51%, believe Trump’s actions were both wrong and he should be impeached and removed from office.... another 19% think that Trump's actions were wrong, but that he should either be impeached by the House but not removed from office, or be neither impeached by the House nor convicted by the Senate.

Why is this relevant? Well the way I see it, Trump has an approval rating around 40%. But here 70% of the people think he did at least something wrong (even if it doesn't rise to the level of "impeachable".) That suggests that approximately one quarter of Trump's base do agree that he is culpable with regards to the Biden/Ukrainian incident. That's not good for a president that is trying to portray this as a "witch hunt" and is heading into what could be a very tight election.

That poll doesn't seem to have a breakdown based on party membership. Another older one I saw, did have such a breakdown. A fair number of Democrats were against impeachment but nearly all thought Trump did something wrong. I assume because they deem it unnecessary or a distraction. Thats probably where a lot of the difference between the two numbers comes from.

 

[kellyb]

If Trump joined the forum, the whole politics section would crash. 90% of the posters here wouldn't be able to avoid violating the membership agreement.

I'm not sure the UA is enforced in the politics section, since none of us are snitches.

Anarchy FTW!

 

[plague311]

I just skim past when the discission turns to the discussion itself rather than the topic of discussion. It's too meta and gives me a headache to read posts talking about other posts. Although it is somewhat amusing when people are demanding others "admit your error" because it sounds like the Inquisition bullying heretic theology. I imagine all the voices in such a conversation are very, very shrill, and full of manic energy. Like Daleks screeching!

You nailed this one on the head. When I logged in and saw that I had 6 unread pages on this thread I immediately knew that there was a sidetrack going on LoL. I don't login much on the weekends, but yeah.

I'm sure people have done it to my posts a thousand times. I get sidetracked pret....is that a ******* squirrel?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Giuliani Tweeted

Rudy Giuliani
@RudyGiuliani
3 witnesses so far and no evidence has been presented of any offense.
The first 2 (permanent) diplomats had no direct knowledge, just overhearing things.
The 3rd one had no knowledge, not even hearsay!
This is a travesty.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Which is funny because we spend 50% of the time discussing Trump, who wouldn't last a day on this forum himself.

If Trump joined the forum, the whole politics section would crash. 90% of the posters here wouldn't be able to avoid violating the membership agreement.

Then whoever is left afterward could just speak in Russian.

 

[Dr. Keith]

You can prioritize points however you want to, but I don't agree with this at all.

Trump is crude, and I'd prefer it if he didn't constantly attack anyone who criticizes him on twitter. But I think you're making a grave mistake here. Namely, what the hell does the length of her job have anything to do with anything? Diplomats, no matter how long they serve, are still just people. They aren't holy. They aren't above criticism. And working for the government doesn't invest people with virtue, not even after decades of doing so. Were Trump's attacks unwarranted? The basis for evaluating that should have nothing to do with the fact that she "served her country for 30+ years".

I agree that the basis for determining if she was doing her job should be something more than how long she had been doing it. That is why she discussed the fact that her career shows a steady climb through the ranks and that she was just recently asked to extend her time in Ukraine. By all accounts other than Trump and Giuliani she was excellent at her job and was doing very well.

Which leads to the real question: When did it become so easy to play the President of the US to the point of getting an actual Ambassador fired?

Let that sink in. A couple of corrupt thugs hired Rudy and were successful in getting the President to fire the US Ambassador to their country.

The President is doubling down about her being a bad hombre because otherwise he has to admit that he was played by a couple of corrupt Ukrainian con-men and his own gullible-as-a-new-fawn-on-wobbly-legs personal attorney. He got played and his only defense is I can fire her if I don't like her and I DON'T LIKE HER!!

Right, that is why they played you. You had the power they wanted to wield, so they played you to use your power to their personal benefit.

To me, this is far more embarrassing than getting caught trying to use a foreign government as a part of your campaign strategy. This is weak ****. This is bully getting bullied. This is damaging to the reputation of the US in every country. This is undermining the diplomatic corp at every turn. This is Trump failing as only a Trump brand can fail. Bigly.

 

[plague311]

*snipped for brevity*

I can't remember where I was reading it, but it was mentioned that Marie getting canned is going to ripple through foreign relations for a long time. If foreign countries think the POTUS can be so easily manipulated then it will give them hesitation to sign things they don't like. If they think they can just get the Ambassador fired and put someone more friendly to them in their place, then why wouldn't they do that?