Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
Nah. My arguments tend to be several paragraphs long, usually laying out some assumptions or axioms, and then my conclusions from them. Sometimes they take the form of inquiry about the details, basis, or implications of someone else's arguments.

These brief posts are me just chatting a bit in between interesting ideas.
Click to expand...

Gosh, nostalgia. I do indeed recall fondly the days when you were able to present a cogent argument. Good times.
 
I Am The Scum said:
I think you're mostly right. There are some evangelical believers, such as BrooklynBaby. But others know what he did, and they're trying to dodge the conclusion. I've tried summarizing this into a simple test:

1. Did Trump solicit a bribe for personal gain?
2. Should soliciting a bribe for personal gain disqualify one holding public office?

The answer for both is really obvious. To my knowledge, not a single right-winger on this thread has answered the questions.
Click to expand...
Better question is given the apparent certainty in the charge why has the bribery aspect has been on a roller coaster ride in the impeachment inquiry itself? It seems to have been pushed by the leadership, dropped from the charges, brought up again, and then readded to the article of impeachment as a component of abuse of power. The democrats seem to be really screwing themselves with the inquiry as far as I can tell
 
theprestige said:
Given his stint as a New York real estate developer, I think Trump is more likely to pay bribes than solicit them.
Click to expand...



Except that in Donny's quid pro quo, zero-sum philosophy of life, now it's his turn to be on the receiving end for those bribes.
 
Remember that part where I said right-wingers are avoiding the conclusion, and not a single one has answered my two very easy questions?
 
theprestige said:
Given his stint as a New York real estate developer, I think Trump is more likely to pay bribes than solicit them.
Click to expand...
You are on the right track. Using previously observed statements and behaviors to predict psychological states.
Apply that process with more vigor and you may gain a better insight into your quandaries regarding Trumps' mental state as compared to the mental state some of his enemies assume he has.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Remember that part where I said right-wingers are avoiding the conclusion, and not a single one has answered my two very easy questions?
Click to expand...


Bush (both), Reagan, hell even Nixon; you can find people who actually liked and supported them and could articulate an argument as to why. It might have been across the board wrong even nonsensical, but supporters for those people could at least present a set of reasons within some mental framework well enough that I at least believed that they believed it.

But not Trump. Even the people who are slavishly devoted to Trump to an almost cult like level can't seem to find the words to say why.

Seriously when was the last time you heard anyone; here, in real life, in the public discourse, on the news, actually present an organic, honest, top to bottom reason why they liked Trump? I can't remember. Honestly I can't remember if it's ever happened.

Everyone who "likes" Trump seems to only be interested in Trump's role as the symbolic argument for some greater argument, be it sad nihilism or reflexive "You can't tell me what to do or think"-ism.
 
smartcooky said:
Really? You don't believe that a crooked real estate developer would pay bribes to city officials for things such as the issuing of building permits, to pass fire and health inspections? You don't believe that they would solicit bribes in return for favourable allocations in one of his buildings?

If so, then that must be some top class pair of blinders you're wearing!


Additionally, has anyone pointed out to you that indeed Trump is accused of offering to pay a bribe to Zelensky (the release of military funds and a White House meeting) in return for announcement of investigations into the Bidens?
Click to expand...

You somehow managed to convert my observation that he's likely to pay bribes into the idea that he's unlikely to pay bribes. I don't know how you did it. I don't think it's a problem I can help you solve. Good luck with that.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Bush (both), Reagan, hell even Nixon; you can find people who actually liked and supported them and could articulate an argument as to why. It might have been across the board wrong even nonsensical, but supporters for those people could at least present a set of reasons within some mental framework well enough that I at least believed that they believed it.

But not Trump. Even the people who are slavishly devoted to Trump to an almost cult like level can't seem to find the words to say why.

Seriously when was the last time you heard anyone; here, in real life, in the public discourse, on the news, actually present an organic, honest, top to bottom reason why they liked Trump? I can't remember. Honestly I can't remember if it's ever happened.

Everyone who "likes" Trump seems to only be interested in Trump's role as the symbolic argument for some greater argument, be it sad nihilism or reflexive "You can't tell me what to do or think"-ism.
Click to expand...

I see Trump’s “agenda” as being almost exclusively based on hate and revenge. And sadly that is a popular theme for a large minority’s of any population. “They’ (name some scapegoat) have been abusing you and now we are going to get them”. Immigrants, our allies, knowledgeable people in government, etc. All targets of the Twitter 2 minutes of hate vomit.

I disagreed with many of Reagan’s and Nixon’s policies, but at least they had legitimate policies and goals. They didn’t preach hate. And I fear my country will struggle for years due to this divisive turning of ourselves upon one another.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:


I see Trump’s “agenda” as being almost exclusively based on hate and revenge. And sadly that is a popular theme for a large minority’s of any population. “They’ (name some scapegoat) have been abusing you and now we are going to get them”. Immigrants, our allies, knowledgeable people in government, etc. All targets of the Twitter 2 minutes of hate vomit.
Click to expand...

I've in the past described Trump's greatest skill as being the rare kind of person who can stand in front of a crowd of 100 people, say "I'm gonna screw over 90 of you to benefit 10 of you" and somehow get all 100 people to hear "And you're one of the 10 people who is going to benefit" in the echo.

I think this is a horrible version of this same idea. Trump is a flaming bag of dog poop to be left on your enemy's porch... and somehow he's sold himself as the flaming dog poop for a lot of different groups.

Racists seems him as way to get back at the blacks; Republicans as a way to get back at the Democrats, the dying rust belt and farmbelt a way to get back at those uppity big city libruls, ect, etc, etc.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Seriously when was the last time you heard anyone; here, in real life, in the public discourse, on the news, actually present an organic, honest, top to bottom reason why they liked Trump? I can't remember. Honestly I can't remember if it's ever happened.
Click to expand...

The most sincere support for Trump tends to be overwhelmingly religious in nature - bordering on "second coming of Christ" rhetoric. It's completely absurd, but they mean it.
 
Giordano said:
I see Trump’s “agenda” as being almost exclusively based on hate and revenge...
Click to expand...
At the top of Trump's agenda, by far, is the glorification and enrichment of Trump. The hate and revenge serve that larger agenda, due to his skin being so thin it barely contains his internal organs.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Remember that part where I said right-wingers are avoiding the conclusion, and not a single one has answered my two very easy questions?
Click to expand...

If you really want a defense of Trumps action then legally he can argue that he campaigned on draining the swamp and that Biden and his son had a conflict of interest with the firm the son was with and said intent was to root out corruption.

Doesn't make what Trump did right, and timing of his inquiry doesnt help his case... so I DO understand that side of the argument. However if you're looking to make an argument that what he did was impeachable then the case democrats need to make is that his intent was solely for his personal gain and had nothing to do with an alternative motive related to rooting out corruption. (And most independent voters tend to lean that his methods were less than kosher, but do not rise to the level demanding his removal from office).

At the end of the day however this only matters to independent voters. I doubt this angle will change any minds if you already thought trump needs to be impeached. Which begs the question of why you would even ask for a defense.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
If you really want a defense of Trumps action then legally he can argue that he campaigned on draining the swamp and that Biden and his son had a conflict of interest with the firm the son was with and said intent was to root out corruption.

Doesn't make what Trump did right, and timing of his inquiry doesnt help his case... so I DO understand that side of the argument. However if you're looking to make an argument that what he did was impeachable then the case democrats need to make is that his intent was solely for his personal gain and had nothing to do with an alternative motive related to rooting out corruption. (And most independent voters tend to lean that his methods were less than kosher, but do not rise to the level demanding his removal from office).

At the end of the day however this only matters to independent voters. I doubt this angle will change any minds if you already thought trump needs to be impeached
Click to expand...

If Trump was President of Ukraine, he might have an argument ( not really).
 
The Great Zaganza said:
If Trump was President of Ukraine, he might have an argument ( not really).
Click to expand...

He was adamant that someone should offer an alternative perspective so I bit the bullet and gave an angle on it. Take it or leave it. Theres not really any argument that trump didnt do anything wrong. But the impeachability of what he did hinges on intent. And the inquiry has made no effort on that distinction.

It's on the democrats to make their case regardless. They're the ones handling the inquiry. They've spent several weeks going back and forth on the bribery issue. They've changed the nature of the charges several times while drafting their impeachment articles and have made the inquiry practically a circus.

That may not mean anything to you, but independents may think otherwise. On top of that, Nadler et al seem to hold the belief that they dont trust voters to make the 'right decision' to remedy the issue in the 2020 elections so theres that as well...

Messaging101... this is imo only going to hurt them. Even more so if trump is eventually acquitted
 
Grizzly Bear said:
It's on the democrats to make their case regardless....They've changed the nature of the charges several times while drafting their impeachment articles and have made the inquiry practically a circus.
Click to expand...
Actually no they haven't.

The people who have made the inquiry a circus are the Republicans, with their sit-in pizza party (to protest a closed hearing that they could have attended), demands to talk to witnesses that are at best irrelevant and at worse illegal (such as the whistleblower), Trump's regular barrage of tweets and lies, etc.

For the most part, the Democrats have been treating the proceedings with the required decorum... they haven't resorted to the bizarre rhetoric that the republicans have, or engaged in the stunts that the Republicans have. The fact that there was a question over what articles of impeachment to include is not some 'circus', but a rational debate over what charges were most relevant, what could stand the most scrutiny.

Sadly, it is true that some people have come away with the thought that "its both side's fault". Its wrong for them to think that, but sadly there is no easy way to eliminate that incorrect notion.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
It's on the democrats to make their case regardless. They're the ones handling the inquiry.
Click to expand...
I thought it was the House of Representatives that was handling the enquiry? It's surely the job of all of them to investigate to see if there's a case for the President to answer, not just the Democratic members.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom