• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Steve said:
I have noticed here that the most ardent supporters of Trump respond and write in a style very similar to the way Trump speaks and responds. The functioning filter system that most people develop as they mature seems to be in some ways deficient.
Click to expand...

You're right. It's "the best defense is a good offense" tactic. Sadly, insults and childish behavior aren't a 'good' offense, but it's all they've got.
 
theprestige said:
I phrased that badly.
Click to expand...

You seem to be doing that a lot lately. As if it's not an accident and you want to keep the discussion mired down in pointless semantics and hairsplitting about the terminology that nobody else cares about.

For all the hand-wringing over whether or not we are treating the removal of an elected President with your approved level of gravitas you seem reluctant to let the discussion go anywhere beyond the equivalent of a "Champagne/Sparkling Wine" discussion. And odder till you are the one that keeps calling California Sparkling Wine "Champagne."

You're invoking the "Well technically" when you're the one technically wrong but nobody else cares about the "technically."
 
Last edited:
TruthJonsen said:
...
Trump had taken a position early on that he did not want the US to be the world's policeman (this must have really ticked off John Bolton) or the world's unconditional candyman when it came to foreign aid. Using Quid Pro Quo for foreign aid is not a new idea.
Click to expand...
It's not, but the examples we're aware of have been done openly, and they've involved matters such as the quality of governance and human rights in the countries involved. In this case the quid pro quo was pursued covertly in pursuit of domestic political advantages for the US President personally.

Several current Democratic candidates have suggested using a Quid Pro Quo: military aid for stopping settlements in the West Bank.
Click to expand...
This concerns a matter of international law : the settlements are on expropriated land in militarily occupied territory, and such expropriation is illegal under the Geneva Conventions. Withholding military aid from a country until it stops breaking the Geneva Conventions is surely legitimate, and of course would occur in the light of day. Not withholding military aid in such circumstances is much more questionable. Any actual examples you have in mind can probably be as easily justified.

When it comes to governance in the Ukraine (about which there are legitimate concerns), Zelensky's government has already committed publicly to examining investigations which have been discontinued with a view to establishing why they were discontinued. That would include the Burisma investigation (but of course not an investigation into where George Soros has hidden the DNC server). Zelensky has done the right thing.

It seems it would have been an easier road trying to show the legitimacy of the object of the Quid Pro Quo.
Click to expand...
That would be impossible, since the object of the quid pro quo was an equivalent to Clinton's Emails to use against Biden.

Russian/Ukrainian corruption has been a long time concern of the State department and previous administrations.
Click to expand...
Why do you lump those together? Ukraine is not Russia and Russia is not Ukraine. (Best ignore the Crimea for simplicity's sake.)

Asking Ukraine to check out a specific situation in a known corrupt company to see if there was corruption was certainly better than asking for approval of one of his golf course resorts.
Click to expand...
Asking Ukraine to investigate a specific case because the investigation could be spuriously linked to Biden is not legitimate. It just isn't. Trump isn't concerned about corruption in Ukraine (nor in Russia, of course, nor, indeed, in the US).

Back to the West Bank example. What if Elizabeth Warren (who could be part Palestinian, who knows) was President and wanted to implement the military aid for stopping settlements in the West Bank Quid Pro Quo. If she had family or property interests in the West Bank would she have to stop and say: I'm sorry Palestinians, you will have to wait another 4 or 8 years for this action, it would not be proper for me to do it?
Click to expand...
She could divest herself of her own property interests and be open about her family's interests.

We don't know what Trump's property interests are in Ukraine, and as to him ever being open about his own or his family's financial interests anywhere ever, fuggedaboudit.
 
Steve said:
I have noticed here that the most ardent supporters of Trump respond and write in a style very similar to the way Trump speaks and responds. The functioning filter system that most people develop as they mature seems to be in some ways deficient.
Click to expand...

Remember that this sidebar started with a perfectly reasonable argument about the nature of impeachment and the role of House Republicans in the impeachment process. All the weird and wilful misunderstanding came later, and it didn't come from me. Try again.
 
Stacyhs said:
You're right. It's "the best defense is a good offense" tactic. Sadly, insults and childish behavior aren't a 'good' offense, but it's all they've got.
Click to expand...
Something my mother (90 years old and counting, thankfull) taught me long ago : "Always leave them knowing you have better manners than them." My mother can do icy politeness like you wouldn't believe. It chills me just to think about it.

Something my father (fondly remembered) taught me : "Get them to lose their temper and the fight is yours." He used to box a bit when he was a lad; pretty handy going by the medals he won for his squadron during National Service. No fatigues for him, but a cushy job in the payroll office and lots of time in the gym.

This advice has served me well in debate over the years, both with regard to winning and to not losing. One of my best memories is of someone yelling at me "It's easy for you! You've got all these facts!". :)
 
Listening to a caller on CSPAN right now: Besides repeating all the falsehoods that are the GOP impeachment talking points he went on to say Trump was the best POTUS in his lifetime, got us all jobs and things, and lastly said the Democrats want to kill babies because they want to take tax exemption away from churches.... That's where his call was cut off (normally they don't let anyone go on and on).

:rolleyes:

This is what the country is up against. Trump is a con and they are so easily conned.
 
I notice that the Trump supporters here are piling up the posts in an orgy of sound and fury just to make it seem like they're not afraid to engage. In reality, of course, they're just dancing round the edge of the ring, keeping out of range and never throwing a punch. And, by this empty activity, not having to think about the nightmare they're living through. A little bit of distraction and a huge amount of displacement.

Nunes and Gym Jordan (and, indeed, Mr. Trump) are doing much the same thing. All the gotchas they thought they'd get this week have turned to muck in their mouths. Perhaps the best incident was when Nunes warned Sondland "Get ready to be smeared" in his opening statement because he thought he was going to do Mr. Trump and the Republicans a solid, and meant smeared by Democrats. I wonder what went through Gordon's mind when he heard that, knowing what he was about to do? Which was not, of course, to risk anything for a man he's come to know as a POS.

But Lo!, Nunes was right and it came to pass, but Sondland knew exactly what to expect without that moron's help.
 
theprestige said:
Consistent in reasoning from my axioms, you mean.

Do you disagree that removing an elected official from office overturns their election?

Is the problem that you're reading implied arguments into that idea - arguments you imagine I'm making or about to make? Is this some form of preemptive rebuttal?
Click to expand...
In the USA system if he is removed from office via the impeachment process, the election is not held again, so it is not over turning the election as the VP takes over.
 
theprestige said:
My bad. Let me clarify my logic:



Opposing the president within the framework of checks and balances that comprises our system of government is not overturning an election. Removing an elected official from office is overturning an election. That's my logic. By this logic, removing the president from office is overturning the election. Most other negative things done towards the president are probably not (with some obvious exceptions like assassination).
Click to expand...
The constitution specifically provides for impeachment. You will have to take up your argument with the constitution.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
I absolutely did not support Trump. (Because he is a Former New York Democrat *******) But I am quite sure this witch hunt will harm the Democrats politically.

Unless they finally come up with something illegal in all this? Rather than just things that break diplomatic conventions? Or erm.. policy they don't like?
Because so far all I see is Trump doing exactly what the voters who elected him wanted him to do.
Click to expand...


Jesus H. Tap-dancing Christ!! What ******* planet are you living on? Have you paid any ******* attention to what has been going on?

1. Blocking people from testifying in, and blocking the release of documents to, a Congressional hearing. This is called obstruction of justice... it is a criminal offence under 18 USC § 1505

2. Blocking people from being interviewed in, and blocking the release of documents to, a Special Counsel investigation. This is called obstruction of justice... it is a criminal offence under 18 USC § 1510

3. Paying off a person to stay quiet in order to not have them affect an election campaign. This is a campaign finance violation, a criminal offence under 52 USC § 301

4. Soliciting a thing of value, to wit, trying to arrange a fake investigation of a political rival in order to try to smear his reputation. This is a campaign finance violation, a criminal offence under 52 USC § 301

5. Soliciting a thing of value from a foreign national. i.e. President Voldemyr Zelensky, in an attempt to arrange said fake investigation. This is campaign finance violation, a criminal offence under 52 USC § 30121.

6. Demanding said investigation by withholding official acts such as a White House meeting and military aid (such aid having been duly approved by Congress in a bipartisan manner). This is extortion, a criminal offence under 18 USC § 878​

Is this not enough for you?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
My bad. Let me clarify my logic:

Opposing the president within the framework of checks and balances that comprises our system of government is not overturning an election. Removing an elected official from office is overturning an election. That's my logic. By this logic, removing the president from office is overturning the election. Most other negative things done towards the president are probably not (with some obvious exceptions like assassination).
Click to expand...

It IS NOT "overturning" an election nor is it an "assassination". The office that this turd was loosely termed "elected to " has obligations and remedies for failing to fulfill those obligations are impeachment and removal. In no way the exercise of those Constitutional remedies is overturning the will of the electorate or is an assassination.

Trump just prepares his fecal frittatas and his supporters just eat them up and try to sell them to the rest of us.

With all respect. I don't eat **** even if it is served on fine china.
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
The constitution specifically provides for impeachment. You will have to take up your argument with the constitution.
Click to expand...

I have no argument with the constitution. Quite the opposite. If you read on, you'll come to the post where I make this clear to someone else who had a similar misunderstanding.

But you'll have to read back, to find my actual argument. You already overshot it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom