Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

Cabbage said:
Of course I'm not impressed. To the contrary, I'm wondering what kind of logical hoops you must jump through to justify voting for a president that you don't even trust as a cited source.
Click to expand...

He thinks Trump is "godly". America's King David.

I'm sure if like King David, Trump kills some guy to sleep with his wife, in his mind, it's ok.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
If he can tell them not to pettifog, why can't he point out leaving is disruptive?
Click to expand...

How disruptive is it, really? If I were a Democratic senator I sure as heck would need a break from the Republicans when they start their own uninterrupted presentation. If Roberts treats the sides equally maybe it's not such a huge deal.

It's interesting that this issue is smacking GOP senators across the face because it's probably the one thing that they agree with the House on. They could almost stipulate that yes,Trump did everything the House said he did; but they are still not going to remove him for it.

ETA: It may be what they're *already* saying. They could spend their 24 hours reading from the telephone book or simply say, "The defense rests," then proceed with their predetermined vote.
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
How disruptive is it, really? If I were a Democratic senator I sure as heck would need a break from the Republicans when they start their own uninterrupted presentation. If Roberts treats the sides equally maybe it's not such a huge deal.

It's interesting that this issue is smacking GOP senators across the face because it's probably the one thing that they agree with the House on. They could almost stipulate that yes,Trump did everything the House said he did; but they are still not going to remove him for it.

ETA: It may be what they're *already* saying. They could spend their 24 hours reading from the telephone book or simply say, "The defense rests," then proceed with their predetermined vote.
Click to expand...

The point was not how disruptive it is or isn't. The point is they are supposed to stay in the hearing. Why can't Roberts point that out? There is no rule he can't. He cited the pettifogging was disrespectful of this important court. So is walking out.

BTW, the argument being echoed by the GOP in their press interviews is denial the wrongdoing was established. Not, it was established but not significant.

Nope. The GOP has learned there is no downside to pure gaslighting.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
The point was not how disruptive it is or isn't. The point is they are supposed to stay in the hearing. Why can't Roberts point that out? There is no rule he can't. He cited the pettifogging was disrespectful of this important court. So is walking out.

BTW, the argument being echoed by the GOP in their press interviews is denial the wrongdoing was established. Not, it was established but not significant. Nope. The GOP has learned there is no downside to pure gaslighting.
Click to expand...

At this point, Trump could tweet a confession admitting he did exactly what the Dems have shown he did and the GOP would claim he was just kidding or the media is misrepresenting what the confession said.
 
Cabbage said:
Of course I'm not impressed. To the contrary, I'm wondering what kind of logical hoops you must jump through to justify voting for a president that you don't even trust as a cited source.
Click to expand...

I didn't vote for him because of his subject matter expertise.

Anyway, I'm just amused by how often I present my sincere and considered opinion, and the knee jerk rebuttal is "but Trump says!" by people who don't actually buy what Trump says.

What's the end game, there? Are you trying to convince me that I'm not supposed to dissent from Donald Trump?
 
theprestige said:
I didn't vote for him because of his subject matter expertise.

Anyway, I'm just amused by how often I present my sincere and considered opinion, and the knee jerk rebuttal is "but Trump says!" by people who don't actually buy what Trump says.

What's the end game, there? Are you trying to convince me that I'm not supposed to dissent from Donald Trump?
Click to expand...

If you didn't vote for him because of his subject matter expertise, why did you vote for him? What was it about him that attracted you? Just curious.:confused:
 
theprestige said:
I've covered this ad nauseum elsewhere. I'm sorry you missed it, but I'm not going to cover it again here.
Click to expand...

Guess I missed it but going back through thousands of your posts to find this particular topic isn't exactly an easy task. I can only assume, then, that you like his policies so will overlook that he's a lying, misogynistic, bullying, childish, corrupt, racist malignant narcissist who cares only about himself. Gotcha.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I didn't vote for him because of his subject matter expertise.

Anyway, I'm just amused by how often I present my sincere and considered opinion, and the knee jerk rebuttal is "but Trump says!" by people who don't actually buy what Trump says.

What's the end game, there? Are you trying to convince me that I'm not supposed to dissent from Donald Trump?
Click to expand...


A far more preferable end game would be for you to realize the folly of voting for Trump to begin with.

And, you know, not buying what Trump says does not magically make what Trump says irrelevant. I don't buy what Trump says but that doesn't change the fact that I would be alarmed if he threatened to nuke North Korea, for example. You seem to be comparing apples with oranges.
 
Cabbage said:
A far more preferable end game would be for you to realize the folly of voting for Trump to begin with.

And, you know, not buying what Trump says does not magically make what Trump says irrelevant. I don't buy what Trump says but that doesn't change the fact that I would be alarmed if he threatened to nuke North Korea, for example. You seem to be comparing apples with oranges.
Click to expand...

If I say we shouldn't nuke North Korea, and your rebuttal is, "but Trump says we should!", what's your point?
 
Is anyone else a bit nervous about how often Russia is being called "our enemy"?

"Enemy" is such a harsh term, and usually reserved for people with an actual military conflict, even if it is a cold war.

In some ways, I'm glad. There was some reluctance for a while to acknowledge that they weren't really on our team, but there's something vaguely disquieting about a steady stream of "our enemy, Russia". Not even "adversary" or "hostile power".


Not a big deal, but just something that sounds awkward about it.
 
I've thought for a long time that Russia's geographic position puts it in existential conflict with all of its neighbors and their allies.

Almost all Russian access to the wider world and its markets is mediated by other nations. Compare with the US, which has unrestricted access to both major oceans, and the markets that border them.
 
theprestige said:
If I say we shouldn't nuke North Korea, and your rebuttal is, "but Trump says we should!", what's your point?
Click to expand...


Assuming that was what happened:

My point would be: Then maybe you shouldn't have voted for someone who threatens to nuke North Korea. Do a better job of matching your vote to your ideals.

My turn: What was your point in asking me that question?
 
theprestige said:
I've thought for a long time that Russia's geographic position puts it in existential conflict with all of its neighbors and their allies.

Almost all Russian access to the wider world and its markets is mediated by other nations. Compare with the US, which has unrestricted access to both major oceans, and the markets that border them.
Click to expand...

I agree. Its why Russia annexed Crimea.

Don't forget the US also has unrestricted access to the Caribbean beside the two oceans.
 
Meadmaker said:
Is anyone else a bit nervous about how often Russia is being called "our enemy"?

"Enemy" is such a harsh term, and usually reserved for people with an actual military conflict, even if it is a cold war.

In some ways, I'm glad. There was some reluctance for a while to acknowledge that they weren't really on our team, but there's something vaguely disquieting about a steady stream of "our enemy, Russia". Not even "adversary" or "hostile power".


Not a big deal, but just something that sounds awkward about it.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with it. Russia is our enemy.
 
acbytesla said:
I have no problem with it. Russia is our enemy.
Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:
Agreed. If anyone thinks we aren't in a cold war with Putin, they're fooling themselves.
Click to expand...
Putin =/= Russia.

The important point is that national borders are becoming less and less relevant to Pootie. He curries favours and manipulates people rather than nations. If Trump had been the president of, say, Mongolia, Putin would have been equally willing to using all that kompromat on him and holding Trump's IOU's over his head when it came to getting what he wanted.

And what Pootie wants is power. He doesn't give a crap what happens to the USA or the West per se. As long is he can use and push the situation to increase his own power over them. Trump in the White House is working out very well for him. Trump, with a little help from his friend, has almost completely destabilised the USA and its alliances. It makes Russia and especially Putin himself look like the actual "stable genius" in international politics.
 
Stacyhs said:
At this point, Trump could tweet a confession admitting he did exactly what the Dems have shown he did and the GOP would claim he was just kidding or the media is misrepresenting what the confession said.
Click to expand...

Actually, they showed videos of Trump saying outright that he wanted the Bidens investigated. It appears he said it on multiple occasions.

He can't help himself. He doesn't get it you can't ask foreign governments to investigate your political opponents. Which is especially insane given he claimed it was wrong for Obama to investigate his campaign.



There was an interesting comment on BBC news tonight. When the Constitution was written, there was no criminal code. So Dershy's claim the Founders meant for Impeachment to be for an actual crime was impossible.

Dershy's going to be laughed at by his peers.

Of course when gaslighting is as successful as it is for Trump and his minions, I suppose they don't care.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Is anyone else a bit nervous about how often Russia is being called "our enemy"?
Click to expand...
Part of me agrees with you but then Russia cheated for Trump and they are currently spreading Trump's CT that it was Ukraine not them.

And I believe they are on opposite sides of a number of conflicts in the world.


So it's not like there is no basis for the label.


It's probably not helpful to call them the enemy, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom