Do you belive there will be an Impeachment 2.0?

[theprestige]

LOL! No you wouldn't. You don't even think they're assembling good evidence and arguments now. : rolleyes :

Bless your heart, Cabbage. I think they've made a couple strategic blunders, but I believe they're doing the work.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I understand perfectly well that a court of impeachment is a political one, but I also understand that The Prestige's claim was pure nonsense. To whit, the Dems would "have no trouble presenting evidence and arguments" that wrongly blaming Obama for a recession years after leaving office was impeachable and "that it was worth removing him over."

Like I said: IF the Dems wanted to try to impeach the president over misrepresenting the economy, THEN I think they'd definitely assemble some good evidence and arguments to that effect.

Just. Stop. It.

You made what you thought was a clever response to an obvious tongue in cheek post by me. There is no "good evidence" nor are there "good arguments" for impeaching a president over blaming Obama for a recession that occurred years after he left office. It's a ridiculous claim so just quit defending it. You're only digging the hole deeper. Stop digging.

 

[Stacyhs]

Try insulting her dead mother. That seemed to work for you last time.

And he tried defending that, too. Some people just don't know when to quit.

 

[Cabbage]

Bless your heart, Cabbage. I think they've made a couple strategic blunders, but I believe they're doing the work.

I don't know what the hell you think "doing the work" means, but it's not at all clear that it has any relevance to the point I was making. Bless your heart.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

TP wasn't using an analogy to emphasize a point. He was making what he thought was a clever response when I joked that, if there were a recession during a second Trump administration, he'd blame Obama.

He's made it pretty obvious at least twice... but alright, you do you if you want to argue without correcting that.

 

[Ladewig]

And clear analogies should be treated for what they are as well. Analogies to emphasize a point. If they were being used to push real world examples the way certain 9/11 truthers treat limit case models... I'd probably agree with you on your initial reaction... but stick with reality... please, and realize "limiting cases" aren't just found in engineering literature....


"One side" of the aisle already reached a verdict that he's committed an impeachable crime and a good number of them "expect" him to repeat it - so my bet is if given an opportunity, it'll happen. If you want me to be honestly realistic there are indeed qualifiers to whether or not it actually happens, and let's not sugar coat the fact that it could happen with bipartisan support if he went far enough.... but if he gets another 4 year term, at a minimum I expect we get another 5 years of this sort of talk coming... and it's not like I'd be surprised by it. It's been a thing for the last 20 years...

One would hope that such a situation could be resolved as it was with President Nixon: some party leaders strolling over the the WH and explaining that the best thing for everyone involved is a quiet exit.

But President Trump has gone on record as saying that the difference between himself and President Nixon is that “he won’t leave.”

I will leave others to speculate as to whether that means I won’t leave if I am asked to leave or if it means I won’t leave even if a supermajority says I am to be removed from office.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

And he tried defending that, too. Some people just don't know when to quit.

Or is paid not to quit. Probably not, but the behavior of certain posters around here makes me wonder...

 

[Belz...]

Enh. There's probably something.

One wonders what the hell that could be.

 

[Stacyhs]

He's made it pretty obvious at least twice... but alright, you do you if you want to argue without correcting that.

Then please present those quotes from Theprestige where he made it pretty obvious.

 

[Stacyhs]

Or is paid not to quit. Probably not, but the behavior of certain posters around here makes me wonder...

I think TP is a genuine poster and expresses his own views. However, there are a couple other posters I suspect are internet operatives for the Russians.

 

[Iamafalser]

I think TP is a genuine poster and expresses his own views. However, there are a couple other posters I suspect are internet operatives for the Russians.

Let me see if I have this straight. There's maybe 20-30 people who post on this site and you think Russia, Russia, Russia has operatives posting here? Take a rational step back and see how absolutely ridiculous your post is.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Let me see if I have this straight. There's maybe 20-30 people who post on this site and you think Russia, Russia, Russia has operatives posting here? Take a rational step back and see how absolutely ridiculous your post is.

Do I think this forum is a specific target? No. But they do pay people to troll internet forums in general, and it is not out of the question to think one might take a shine to this place.

 

[Cabbage]

Let me see if I have this straight. There's maybe 20-30 people who post on this site and you think Russia, Russia, Russia has operatives posting here? Take a rational step back and see how absolutely ridiculous your post is.

What's ridiculous about it? I'm sure individual trolls do not limit their production to a small board like this, but I find it quite believable that some paid trolls put some of their contributions into small boards like this here and there.

I'm a member of another board that's even smaller than this one. The owner of that board mentioned a few years ago how he had recently been swamped with registrations from Russians.

 

[Stacyhs]

Let me see if I have this straight. There's maybe 20-30 people who post on this site and you think Russia, Russia, Russia has operatives posting here? Take a rational step back and see how absolutely ridiculous your post is.

I think a couple people MIGHT be Russian trolls. I didn't say there ARE.
It's a fact they do exist on the internet so why not here? There may not be a huge amount of posters here, but who knows how many lurkers are reading it?
I bet there are a lot of people out there in Internetlandia who are reading Russian troll posts and are completely unaware of it. Maybe even you.

Do you have knowledge of exactly what sites the Russian trolls are hitting? No? Then take a step back and reconsider being so smug.

 

[Iamafalser]

I forget who the braniacs were but a few months ago somebody at Harvard or Yale or wherever came to the conclusion that the $100K Russia supposedly spent on Facebook ads was merely an act of bias confirmation and didn't materially change any vote totals. Did anything you've seen want to make you vote for Trump over Hillary?

Case closed.

 

[Cabbage]

I forget who the braniacs were but a few months ago somebody at Harvard or Yale or wherever came to the conclusion that the $100K Russia supposedly spent on Facebook ads was merely an act of bias confirmation and didn't materially change any vote totals. Did anything you've seen want to make you vote for Trump over Hillary?

Case closed.

Oh, a random comment about some uncited "brainiacs" who, even assuming they do exist, are presented as paying attention only to Facebook ads and evidently completely ignore other Russian interference (such as the DNC email hack) and you think it's "Case Closed"????

That is absolutely moronic.

QED

 

[Stacyhs]

I forget who the braniacs were but a few months ago somebody at Harvard or Yale or wherever came to the conclusion that the $100K Russia supposedly spent on Facebook ads was merely an act of bias confirmation and didn't materially change any vote totals. Did anything you've seen want to make you vote for Trump over Hillary?

Case closed.

Let me get this straight: you close the case by claiming "someone at Harvard or Yale" came to the conclusion that Russia didn't spend $100K on Facebook ads and didn't change any vote totals?

I forget who it was but someone at Columbia or Princeton came to the conclusion that Russia spend BILLIONS on FB ads and 6 million people changed their votes.

No, nothing I saw would have made me choose Trump over Hillary. But there were thousands of people who were on the fence because they disliked Hillary and had to choose between the two. I was not on the fence. Millions of people had not made up their minds who to vote for until just before the election. In the couple of weeks before the election, the swing went in Trump's favor:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-really-did-switch-to-trump-at-the-last-minute/

 

[Cabbage]

I forget who the braniacs were but a few months ago somebody at Harvard or Yale or wherever came to the conclusion that the $100K Russia supposedly spent on Facebook ads was merely an act of bias confirmation and didn't materially change any vote totals. Did anything you've seen want to make you vote for Trump over Hillary?

Case closed.

And another thing:

Your post literally claims that bias confirmation was why Russian spent $100K on Facebook ads. I don't think that's what you actually intended to say.

Learn proper English grammar, Comrade.

 

[Stacyhs]

Let me get this straight: you close the case by claiming "someone at Harvard or Yale" came to the conclusion that Russia didn't spend $100K on Facebook ads and didn't change any vote totals?

I forget who it was but someone at Columbia or Princeton came to the conclusion that Russia spend BILLIONS on FB ads and 6 million people changed their votes.

No, nothing I saw would have made me choose Trump over Hillary. But there were thousands of people who were on the fence because they disliked Hillary and had to choose between the two. I was not on the fence. Millions of people had not made up their minds who to vote for until just before the election. In the couple of weeks before the election, the swing went in Trump's favor:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-really-did-switch-to-trump-at-the-last-minute/

Ok...not millions, but thousands.

 

[The Don]

Are you assuming some sort of retaliation on the part of the Republicans?

Absolutely. The first step for any new Democratic president would be to start impeachment proceedings which would both taint their Presidency and normalise President Trump's impeachment.

The grounds don't matter because it comes down to "high crimes and misdemeanours", if the GOP decide that means wearing a tan suit, putting Dijon mustard on a hamburger or putting feet on the Resolute Desk then they can do that.