• 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.

Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

Belz...

Fiend God
Belz...
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
96,875
Location
In a post-fact world
Again, why does Moscow Mitch have so much power if Republicans disagree with him? Or are they just paying lip service to the idea of a fair process?

Thread continued from here.
Posted By: kmortis
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Norman Alexander said:
No. Quite the opposite.

They are TRYING, despite all the opposition from Trump, to give him a fair trial. That includes the opportunity to bring refutations, his evidence, his witnesses and even to step up and attempt to refute the accusations in person should he so wish. Is that not fair?

But the people who are attempting to prevent this happening are NOT the Dems or the Senate. It's the GOP and specifically The Turtle, who has already proudly stated he is taking his marching orders from the White House, i.e. Donny himself.

So Donny is bitching about a situation that he himself is creating. Nobody else. It's almost like he is trying to get sympathy for "Look what you made me do!"
Click to expand...

Bingo. GOP 101. Make a mess, then use the mess you made to argue that the system is broken and against you.
 
alfaniner said:
I get the distinct impression that some of the Republican Senators are hearing the details of this case for the first time. "Holy ****, he did that? I'm going to have to think about this some more..."
Click to expand...

But they're still voting to support McConnell's whitewash.
 
Regarding “Being Bobbed”...

I appreciate a well-rounded and appropriate “Argumentum ad Adsurdum.” They have their time and place to show the possible implications of a flawed position. I’ve used them myself when appropriate.

But they should be used as a scalpel, not a bludgeon. Absurdity for the sake of absurdity accomplishes little, which is what I think we see in Bob’s case.
 
It's off-topic, but i've never liked the accusation being made about a thread being 'bobbed'. it's personal by definition. my view is that BTC's arguments are sometimes confusing because we make assumptions about his base logic that are wrong. He is always civil and that counts for far more, in my view, than anything else. I've felt frustrated in arguments with him, only to realise that it was my own misunderstanding that caused it. [/o-t]
 
Belz... said:
Again, why does Moscow Mitch have so much power if Republicans disagree with him? Or are they just paying lip service to the idea of a fair process?
Click to expand...

Gut feeling?

Because "disagree" is not purely binary. Very few if any Senators are actually going to come down as against McConnell, but I think at least some (no I can't put anything resembling a X percent of Republican Senators kind of number to it) at least recognize that this could still go bad for them so are... softening their blows a little bit?

We will get some token resistant from some Republicans, most probably never on any thing that actually matters, never in a way that's actually going to effect the final outcome.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Regarding “Being Bobbed”...

I appreciate a well-rounded and appropriate “Argumentum ad Adsurdum.” They have their time and place to show the possible implications of a flawed position. I’ve used them myself when appropriate.

But they should be used as a scalpel, not a bludgeon. Absurdity for the sake of absurdity accomplishes little, which is what I think we see in Bob’s case.
Click to expand...

Umm,I'm not making argumentum as absurdum. I'm staring my positions. But my conclusions are normally the ends themselves, and not means to an end. So,y positions result in what you would regard as absurd outcomes that I'm indifferent to.
 
TofuFighter said:
It's off-topic, but i've never liked the accusation being made about a thread being 'bobbed'. it's personal by definition. my view is that BTC's arguments are sometimes confusing because we make assumptions about his base logic that are wrong. He is always civil and that counts for far more, in my view, than anything else. I've felt frustrated in arguments with him, only to realise that it was my own misunderstanding that caused it. [/o-t]
Click to expand...

You are right, of course, and thank you for pointing that out.

However, we have to pull back and ask if his input actually moves a discussion forward or tends to drag it off on a tangent. I don’t think it’s necessarily intentional or inspired by suspect motives, but the end result is the same.
 
Bob wouldn't be problem if he would just start threads for all the basic human things he doesn't understand instead of demanding everyone explain to him that water is wet in the middle of every discussion about showering.

But I notice when people like Bob can't use their amazing ability to not understand things to ruin discussion, they suddenly don't have nearly as much problem understanding things. As if they only can't understand things when they don't want a discussion to happen. Funny that.

And I will continue to use "Bobbing" until such a time as the term is no longer necessary.
 
Last edited:
Get it back on topic, and not about other posters.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/1219981403120644103?s=20

In an incredible exchange at Davos,
@realdonaldtrump
admits he is comfortable with the status of the impeachment trial because the White House is withholding evidence. "Honestly, we have all the material. They don't have the material." As always, he says the quiet part out loud.
Click to expand...

Video embedded in tweet.

I do have to grudgingly give Trump one thing, though - "Shifty Shiff" is a good nickname. Trips off the tongue. I wonder if he came up with it himself?
 
An intriguing theory I heard on Michael Smerconish's show - If Republicans "trade" witnesses, like allowing Bolton in trade for allowing Hunter Biden, it could be a net win for Democrats, because Hunter Biden could be a great witness.

I'm skeptical about this affecting the general public because of the crap TV quality, but could it sway 4 senate votes? You never know.
 
carlitos said:
An intriguing theory I heard on Michael Smerconish's show - If Republicans "trade" witnesses, like allowing Bolton in trade for allowing Hunter Biden, it could be a net win for Democrats, because Hunter Biden could be a great witness.

I'm skeptical about this affecting the general public because of the crap TV quality, but could it sway 4 senate votes? You never know.
Click to expand...

No bad idea. The Republicans already want to turn this into the Hunter Biden Impeachment. Officially involving him in it in basically does just that. It's buying into their "Well what Trump did was okay because he thought Biden was dirty" argument which they could probably do.

Don't put them into a scenario where they can sell the narrative that Trump didn't do anything wrong if they can get Hunter Biden on the stand and get a soundbite that can sound a little guilty of something if you stand on your head, close one eye, and squint at it.

Even if Hunter Biden was building an army of cloned mecha-Hitlers in the Ukraine to march on the United States, Trump was not in the right for what he did.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
No bad idea. The Republicans already want to turn this into the Hunter Biden Impeachment. Officially involving him in it in basically does just that. It's buying into their "Well what Trump did was okay because he thought Biden was dirty" argument which they could probably do.

Don't put them into a scenario where they can sell the narrative that Trump didn't do anything wrong if they can get Hunter Biden on the stand and get a soundbite that can sound a little guilty of something if you stand on your head, close one eye, and squint at it.

Even if Hunter Biden was building an army of cloned mecha-Hitlers in the Ukraine to march on the United States, Trump was not in the right for what he did.
Click to expand...

The questioning process is different in the Senate than in the House, isn't it? Legit question, I'm not sure. In the House they just got to scream at the witness repeatedly, I don't think they get to do that in the Senate, do they?

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Documents may show Schiff mischaracterised a text exchange in the Parnas documents
Click to expand...

The part that sucks is people will actually look at that as if it's a big deal instead of a fairly minuscule oversight that doesn't actually make any difference in the grand scheme.
 
plague311 said:
The questioning process is different in the Senate than in the House, isn't it? Legit question, I'm not sure. In the House they just got to scream at the witness repeatedly, I don't think they get to do that in the Senate, do they?
Click to expand...

I think the Senate Republicans will be given enough leeway (or just take it and dare someone to stop them which amounts to the same thing) to, if Hunter Biden is called to testify, throw enough "When did you stop beating your wife" style questions at him to get a soundbite they can use to drive home their "See? See? Trump was in the right to investigate Biden, therefore this whole thing is a sham/nothingburger" narrative better then... whatever the Democratic narrative would be.

Again nothing Hunter Biden did matters, so putting him on the stand can't possibly make the narrative clearer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom