House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
My position is that by 2009, many progressives had already long abandoned any pretense of benefit of the doubt for the entire set of conservatives, including the family values subset. If I had to guess, I'd say the family values crowd was among the first subsets that progressives crossed off their list, probably at least another decade before that. I doubt very much that if you went back ten years on this forum, and looked at SG's body of work from that period, you'd find any charitable mention of conservatives, let alone "family values" conservatives.

This "I still had some hope in 2009" crap is only plausible if you're sixteen years old and still feel like politics started about the same time you noticed it.
Click to expand...


You come up with some of the weirdest rationalizations. In 2009, and indeed decades before, progressives were "whining" about climate change. Now, by your logic apparently, their current concerns about pulling out of the Paris Agreement and rolling back carbon emissions regulations can be dismissed because it's nothing new.
 
theprestige said:
My position is that by 2009, many progressives had already long abandoned any pretense of benefit of the doubt for the entire set of conservatives, including the family values subset. If I had to guess, I'd say the family values crowd was among the first subsets that progressives crossed off their list, probably at least another decade before that. I doubt very much that if you went back ten years on this forum, and looked at SG's body of work from that period, you'd find any charitable mention of conservatives, let alone "family values" conservatives.

This "I still had some hope in 2009" crap is only plausible if you're sixteen years old and still feel like politics started about the same time you noticed it.
Click to expand...

I don't know what all that means. It's the so called fundy Christians that walked away from the Democratic party not the other way around. Their idea of politics was based on biblical values. Now if you think you can square Donald Trump with biblical values, I want to see that dance.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Yep, Democrats are dividing the country by refusing to become Republicans, and the solution is obvious to Republicans.
Click to expand...

I was actually thinking more about being more tolerant and civil, and not just trying to invalidate or dismiss everything you disagree with. Progressives converting to conservatives didn't strike me as obvious, practical, or necessary. I'm sorry you can only see it in those terms. I hope you find a different viewpoint.
 
theprestige said:
I was actually thinking more about being more tolerant and civil, and not just trying to invalidate or dismiss everything you disagree with. Progressives converting to conservatives didn't strike me as obvious, practical, or necessary. I'm sorry you can only see it in those terms. I hope you find a different viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Really? You think being civil, tolerant and not dismissing everything you disagree with is the solution?

Then WTF is the idea behind supporting Donald Trump?
 
theprestige said:
I was actually thinking more about being more tolerant and civil, and not just trying to invalidate or dismiss everything you disagree with.
Click to expand...

Yes, it certainly wouldn’t do to be dismissive of what someone else thinks or feels:
theprestige said:
On the other hand, I can think of plenty of problems that only exist in people's heads, or are serious problems only in people's heads.
Click to expand...

Thanks for showing us the way. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I was actually thinking more about being more tolerant and civil, and not just trying to invalidate or dismiss everything you disagree with.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's how "conservatives" won their current power, huh -- all that uniting the country with tolerance and civility from right-wing radio, Fox News, websites and email chains. No, that's not intended as a whataboutism. I'll freely admit I've lost a considerable amount of tolerance and civility along the way myself, and in fact I agree with you about what it would take to restore some semblance of civility to our political discourse. But progressives already brought a knife to a gun fight, so I'm not entertaining the "obvious solution" of putting down the knife, thanks.

As for "just trying to invalidate or dismiss everything you disagree with", I certainly have been attempting to make a better substantiation for my opinions than that, but I'll try to be clearer in the future.
 
acbytesla said:
This is the problem with comparing the various impeachments. They are all very different and have very little in common.

That said, when the wall breaks in Donnies's stonewall, the information is likely to come flooding through. The flood for Nixon came fast as the result of the Supreme Court ruling that ordered the release of the White House tapes. Nixon was toast because it proved Nixon and the White House had been lying about it all.
Click to expand...
This is a little odd... you first start by saying that it's not a good idea to compare impeachments then you go on saying that you think × will happen... based on a previous impeachment?
 
The Norseman said:
This is a little odd... you first start by saying that it's not a good idea to compare impeachments then you go on saying that you think × will happen... based on a previous impeachment?
Click to expand...
The first paragraph was an acknowledgment that the second paragraph may have a weakness, though he thinks not. Hence "that said".
 
Belz... said:
Do those idiots not know that impeachment is laid out in the Constitution?
Click to expand...
The target audience is Trump's followers, not necessarily who the letter is addressed to.

Edited to add, on second thought, it's likely Trump is the target market, the result of Trump's lawyers trying to appease him. A temper tantrum is a good description.
 
Last edited:
The Norseman said:
This is a little odd... you first start by saying that it's not a good idea to compare impeachments then you go on saying that you think × will happen... based on a previous impeachment?
Click to expand...


Yea, you're right, I did.

I had grown tired of people using the example of Clinton's impeachment when discussing Trump. Trump is very different from Clinton's or Johnson's impeachments. The aspect of the Nixon comparison which "might" be fair is related to how it progressed.

Everyone knew precisely what the Clinton impeachment was about for years. No big bombshells dropped. The general public never really cared. I don't see the electorate having a backlash against the Democrats like what happened to the GOP over their impeachment of Clinton.

Nixon OTOH like Trump tried to stonewall the investigation. And that worked......until it didn't. And public and political support while a little diminished held for about a year.
And then a flood of damaging evidence became public and support for Nixon disappeared in about 2 weeks, if that.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
My position is that by 2009, many progressives had already long abandoned any pretense of benefit of the doubt for the entire set of conservatives, including the family values subset. If I had to guess, I'd say the family values crowd was among the first subsets that progressives crossed off their list, probably at least another decade before that. I doubt very much that if you went back ten years on this forum, and looked at SG's body of work from that period, you'd find any charitable mention of conservatives, let alone "family values" conservatives.

This "I still had some hope in 2009" crap is only plausible if you're sixteen years old and still feel like politics started about the same time you noticed it.
Click to expand...

The "Family Values Crowd" is/was mostly comprised of people who are into stuff like this: https://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/ Their churches have "family bookstores" with books on Christian parenting which are sold alongside devotionals and cutsie fancy bookmarks for bibles. A lot of them are very "legit" in their convictions.

Republican insiders/elites/operatives have been shamelessly and cynically playing these folks for decades, and progressives knew THAT by the early or mid 2000's. Numerous books on the history of how evangelicals were "tapped" as a voting block had been written by then, and the rumors from republican staffers in Washington about what a con it was were dripping/flooding out.

What Trump proved was just that among a large sub-set of the supposed family values voters, republican brand loyalty was orders of magnitude more important than any sort of traditional family values. These are part of the Trump base who cheer at his rallies. They're just shameless hypocrites. We always suspected there were a lot of them, but but we didn't know there were so many, or that it was so extreme.
 
theprestige said:
My position is that by 2009, many progressives had already long abandoned any pretense of benefit of the doubt for the entire set of conservatives, including the family values subset. If I had to guess, I'd say the family values crowd was among the first subsets that progressives crossed off their list, probably at least another decade before that. I doubt very much that if you went back ten years on this forum, and looked at SG's body of work from that period, you'd find any charitable mention of conservatives, let alone "family values" conservatives.

This "I still had some hope in 2009" crap is only plausible if you're sixteen years old and still feel like politics started about the same time you noticed it.
Click to expand...
Dude, I was talking about the Family Values crowd because they are holding their annual Values Voter's Summit this week.
 
a_unique_person said:
If they suddenly decide to dump him it won't be for reasons of ethics, it will be because he is no longer a useful idiot but a massive liability.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right. But that was the case with Nixon too. At least partially so. When the public support cratered on Nixon so did his support in the Republican party.
 
acbytesla said:
Yea, you're right, I did.

I had grown tired of people using the example of Clinton's impeachment when discussing Trump. Trump is very different from Clinton's or Johnson's impeachments. The aspect of the Nixon comparison which "might" be fair is related to how it progressed.

Everyone knew precisely what the Clinton impeachment was about for years. No big bombshells dropped. The general public never really cared. I don't see the electorate having a backlash against the Democrats like what happened to the GOP over their impeachment of Clinton.

Nixon OTOH like Trump tried to stonewall the investigation. And that worked......until it didn't. And public and political support while a little diminished held for about a year.
And then a flood of damaging evidence became public and support for Nixon disappeared in about 2 weeks, if that.
Click to expand...
Okay, thanks for taking time to explain more thoroughly. If it matters, I tend to agree with what you're saying here.
 
It's interesting that Trump's approval ratings seem to be hanging at about 42% even as the impeachment sentiment has gone up sharply. But unfortunately for the Party of Trump, it appears to me that Trump's approval/disapproval ratings, his impeach/don't impeach polls, and his Trump vs. any Democrat election forecasts are all converging at 10 points or more underwater.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
The target audience is Trump's followers, not necessarily who the letter is addressed to.

Edited to add, on second thought, it's likely Trump is the target market, the result of Trump's lawyers trying to appease him. A temper tantrum is a good description.
Click to expand...

People noted that much of the language sounds like Trump, and then a report came out (from the usual anonymous insiders) saying that Trump basically dictated it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom