Impeachment is the end of trump?

Submitted by scaredyclassic on September 24, 2019 - 1:06pm
Yes. Hes a bad man
9% (2 votes)
No. He did not do anything.
35% (8 votes)
No. Hes too incomprehensible for charges to stick.
30% (7 votes)
No. Because hes very very clever.
26% (6 votes)
Total votes: 23
Submitted by outtamojo on September 24, 2019 - 3:52pm.

Add as a choice: no,because the GOP will choose party over country.

If the GOP can agree to dump trump and promise to make the Republican party great again, I will go into 2020 election unbiased as can be rather than voting straight Democrat for everything.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 24, 2019 - 4:47pm.

outtamojo wrote:
Add as a choice: no,because the GOP will choose party over country.

If the GOP can agree to dump trump and promise to make the Republican party great again, I will go into 2020 election unbiased as can be rather than voting straight Democrat for everything.

You seem so quick to forgive. If they is no penalty or past misbehavior, what incentive is there to change? The Republicans who are quiet now will claim they were opposed all along.

Submitted by outtamojo on September 24, 2019 - 4:49pm.

Now now for the good of America we want 2 viable candidates.

Submitted by utcsox on September 24, 2019 - 9:23pm.

outtamojo wrote:
Add as a choice: no,because the GOP will choose party over country.

If the GOP can agree to dump trump and promise to make the Republican party great again, I will go into 2020 election unbiased as can be rather than voting straight Democrat for everything.

What are you smoking? According to the Gallop poll, 91% of Republicans approve President Trump. You cannot dump a president this popular among its voters.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/pres...

Submitted by outtamojo on September 24, 2019 - 10:43pm.

When did "if" begin to mean "I predict"

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 24, 2019 - 11:23pm.

utcsox wrote:
outtamojo wrote:
Add as a choice: no,because the GOP will choose party over country.

If the GOP can agree to dump trump and promise to make the Republican party great again, I will go into 2020 election unbiased as can be rather than voting straight Democrat for everything.

What are you smoking? According to the Gallop poll, 91% of Republicans approve President Trump. You cannot dump a president this popular among its voters.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

That is so true, utcox. And yet, many Republicans will push the narrative “the socialist democrats are pushing people to vote for Trump”. Really? They supported and voted for Trump well before. So much for the party of personal responsibility who won’t take ownership of their own votes.

It’s like some people might tell their friends “i’m a drug addict because of you. Now you owe me.” Sure...

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 24, 2019 - 11:42pm.

I voted “because he’s very clever” not because he’s clever. He actually wings it but the republicans will make excuses and let him wiggles out of everything because they are so afraid of him. He will burn down the house if he has to.

Plus the Democrats are wusses. They are afraid of the white male low-education voters. We love our low education voters, don’t we?

The political establishment is also so afraid of the damage to the American brand of democracy, both domestic and international, that they will not impeach and prosecute an American president. That would mean a descent towards banana republic. They just hope Trump will go away. Best if he gets a heart attack and dies quickly after leaving office.

Submitted by outtamojo on September 24, 2019 - 11:34pm.

Here's my prediction: the white house will Nixon the call transcript, declare nothing to see, not release the whistleblower complaint, and prevent the whistleblower from seeing Congress and trump gets off scot free never mind openly soliciting a foreign gov. for help on digging dirt on a rival.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on September 25, 2019 - 10:40am.

I read the transcript, seems much to do about nothing but what do I know.

I am sure it will take about 6 months of congress's time to go over a 10 minute call.

Submitted by zk on September 28, 2019 - 9:18am.

The-Shoveler wrote:
I read the transcript, seems much to do about nothing but what do I know.

Did fox news not mention that it's illegal to solicit campaign help from a foreign power?

Even the white-house's no-doubt-sanitized version of the phone call shows that solicitation as clear as day.

So funny that trump spent years denying collusion with Russia in the 2016 election and then openly showed that he was colluding with Ukraine in the 2020 election.

And yet somehow fox convinces you that it's all "much to do about nothing."

Submitted by The-Shoveler on September 28, 2019 - 10:08am.

For the record, I don't watch fox news.
I just saw the transcript on the net.

You make a lot of assumptions IMO.

Submitted by zk on September 28, 2019 - 12:16pm.

I should have been clearer. I sometimes use "fox" as a stand-in for right-wing propaganda outlets as a whole.

Still, I could be wrong about you getting your news from right-wing propaganda. My bad for making that one assumption (if I made any others, feel free to point them out). So, let's clear it up: Where do you get your news, Shoveler?

And, given that what trump did was illegal, do you still think that trump's phone call is "much to do about nothing"?

Submitted by outtamojo on September 28, 2019 - 12:31pm.

Let's not forget the standard for impeachment used to be lying about an affair. At the time I thot impeachment was appropriate given that it was a President lying to Congress- my how stupid I was.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on September 28, 2019 - 1:04pm.

LOL well not from CNN.
I very really ever listen to the news.

Mostly I get news from the yahoo landing page when I check my email.

Seriously I just saw the transcript made up my own mind.

Still hold that opinion, I feel it would be useless waste on energy debating it here.

OK You guys can go back to your echo chamber.

Submitted by outtamojo on September 28, 2019 - 1:34pm.

Come to think of it this whole blog was once a real estate echo chamber, turned out ok.

Submitted by zk on September 28, 2019 - 4:31pm.

The-Shoveler wrote:
Still hold that opinion, I feel it would be useless waste on energy debating it here.

OK You guys can go back to your echo chamber.

Hilarious. You run away when confronted with facts. Then accuse those who are willing to debate you of being in an echo chamber. What a joke.

Submitted by svelte on September 28, 2019 - 5:18pm.

It is really hard to say what will happen with impeachment.

Ordinarily, party members would stand behind the person being impeached and therefore it would not be successful.

But these are not ordinary times. Trumps has belittled quite a few senators and representatives from his own party. Given the right political cover, they may decide to extract their revenge.

A good read on that take:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/28/opinions/...

Submitted by outtamojo on September 29, 2019 - 11:08pm.

Well, it looks like Trump is not losing supporters. The known trump supporters in my circles appear to have upped their anti Obama anti Hillary social media posts. One in management whom everyone suspects is a closet white supremacist reposted that raccoon story falsely attributed to comedian Steve Harvey.

Submitted by zk on September 30, 2019 - 9:30am.

outtamojo wrote:
Well, it looks like Trump is not losing supporters. The known trump supporters in my circles appear to have upped their anti Obama anti Hillary social media posts. One in management whom everyone suspects is a closet white supremacist reposted that raccoon story falsely attributed to comedian Steve Harvey.

I've noticed the same thing. One group I'm in is full of trump supporters. I heard two of them talking, and it was nonstop "I hate Obama" and "I hate Hillary." With just a bit more vigor than usual. It's all they have left.

And they can't give up and not support trump anymore, because being a trump supporter is - literally - who they are.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...

One thing the article mentions is the charisma of a leader, implying that trump is charismatic. And, to millions, apparently he is. I am completely baffled by this. When he talks, his ignorance, stupidity, maliciousness, mendaciousness, lack of character, pettiness, selfishness, and foolishness (among many other bad traits) are beyond obvious. They're blazing like a thousand cold suns right in your eyes. How can anybody listen to that and hear charisma?

That's not a rhetorical question. If anybody has insight into that, I'd love to hear it.

I'd particularly like to hear it from trump supporters.

Submitted by sdduuuude on September 30, 2019 - 6:39pm.

zk wrote:
The-Shoveler wrote:
I read the transcript, seems much to do about nothing but what do I know.

Did fox news not mention that it's illegal to solicit campaign help from a foreign power?

Even the white-house's no-doubt-sanitized version of the phone call shows that solicitation as clear as day.

So funny that trump spent years denying collusion with Russia in the 2016 election and then openly showed that he was colluding with Ukraine in the 2020 election.

And yet somehow fox convinces you that it's all "much to do about nothing."

I was on here two years ago and you were accusing people who didn't watch the news of being influenced by Fox. It is a bad habit and kind of rude. I think you are giving Fox way too much credit and not enough credit to people who independently conclude something different from you.

Sometimes Fox is right, you know.

I read somewhere - maybe even on this site somewhere - that the meaning of "That's bullshit" is not "That is a lie." It really means "That is exactly what you would have said whether it was true or not."

So, yes - Fox is bullshit - but not always wrong, and not completely incapable of coming to a conclusion that mathches that of reasonable people who don't watch Fox.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on September 30, 2019 - 9:21pm.

Nixon wuz framed

Submitted by outtamojo on September 30, 2019 - 9:54pm.

If nixon had fox Breitbart the blaze Limbaugh etc he would not have resigned.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on October 1, 2019 - 7:43am.

outtamojo wrote:
If nixon had fox Breitbart the blaze Limbaugh etc he would not have resigned.

That's true. Fake tapes. Plus everyone does it anyway.

Why did trump reinstate aid to Ukraine after the whistleblower came forward. Seems better 4 his defense not to reinstate, argue by e had an independent reason for Ukraine aid withholding.

Submitted by sdduuuude on October 1, 2019 - 8:51am.

zk wrote:
When he talks, his ignorance, stupidity, maliciousness, mendaciousness, lack of character, pettiness, selfishness, and foolishness (among many other bad traits) are beyond obvious. They're blazing like a thousand cold suns right in your eyes. How can anybody listen to that and hear charisma?

Look up "malignant narcissist." As you read about it, if you didn't know you weren't reading about Trump, you would think you were.

They are incredibly confident, no matter what. Even in the face of facts or hard truth. They are irrational in their belief of their own infallibility. It is, literally, impossible to convince them they have done something wrong, and, I have found, for some reason very, very difficult to convince certain people around them as well.

Malignant narcissists don't go to therapists - they are incurable. The only way to rid yourself of one is to leave. People close to them or around them often go to therapists.

They are usually very successful. When you first meet one, they appear to be supremely confident, which is always attractive. Perhaps it is this confidence that speaks to the charisma you mentioned. I think some people fall in love w/ that confidence and fall into the same trap of irrational belief in the infallibility.

By the way, I think many politicians are all those things, just not in front of the camera. And most are experienced, expert, professional liars but more fearful of getting caught in a lie. So, Yes Trump is all those things, but I dislike him only slightly more than most politicians.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on October 1, 2019 - 10:18am.

outtamojo wrote:
Now now for the good of America we want 2 viable candidates.

I think we deserve Trump. 4 more years!

I’m no longer American. I am a citizen of the world. I’ll just watch what happens to America. If Americans, especially the white working class, want Trump, let them have him. It’s like Brexit. We’ll see how great England is with Brexit. I give up.

Submitted by zk on October 1, 2019 - 5:13pm.

sdduuuude wrote:
I think you are giving Fox way too much credit and not enough credit to people who independently conclude something different from you.

It's possible, but I doubt it.

The reason I say that is that most (usually all) of what they (people who I accuse of watching fox) say is exactly what fox says. (When I say fox in this post, I mean the right-wing propaganda machine in general.)

Which would be fine, if a reasonable percentage of it made sense in an objective way. If millions of people all reached the same conclusions, and those conclusions made sense and were based in reality, it would be easy to see how that would happen. It would be a little unusual, given how different people and their ideas are, but it would be understandable. But for millions of people to all come to the same conclusions, and for many of those conclusions have no basis in reality, it seems awfully likely that propaganda is to blame. If millions of people suddenly concluded that 2+2=5, and there had been propaganda out there selling that idea, it would be eminently reasonable to conclude that the propaganda was the reason those people reached that conclusion.

I would imagine your response to this would be: the conclusions that right-wingers reach are ridiculous to you, but not necessarily ridiculous to somebody else. Well, at some point, conclusions become objectively ridiculous.

Is big government bad? That’s a very complex subject, and it could be debated for millennia, with both sides using logic and reason and facts and not agreeing.

Is trump a good president? I’ll listen to a supporter’s reasons and probably disagree with them. But I wouldn’t call their position objectively ridiculous. (It would be ridiculous in my opinion.)

Did the Sandy Hook shooting really happen? To conclude that it didn’t is objectively ridiculous.

Some conclusions can only be reached by starting with lies or by using faulty reasoning. And that is what the right-wing propaganda machine supplies. The lies, faulty logic, alternative facts, made-up evidence, and emotional manipulation required to reach objectively ridiculous conclusions. The conclusions that the propagandists want their marks to reach.

Here are some objectively ridiculous conclusions that millions of right-wingers hold. I defy you to defend any of these positions using facts, reason, and logic:

Democrats want an open-border immigration policy.

Trump didn't break the law in his conversations with Ukraine.

Obama is a muslim.

Obama was born in Kenya.

Hillary acted illegally and treasonously regarding Uranium One.

Hillary was involved in a pedophile ring.

George Soros paid women to attend anti-trump march.

Sandy Hook was a hoax.

There are obviously a lot more of these kinds of beliefs among right-wingers.

Sure, some of the above are believed by millions but still a minority of conservatives. But my point is made: All those millions of people aren’t reaching a “conclusion that matches that of reasonable people who don't watch Fox.” They’re reaching conclusions that they’ve reached because of right-wing propaganda. How else would so many people come to the same objectively ridiculous conclusions? So obviously there is some manipulation going on there. It would be unreasonable, I think, to conclude that, while these objectively ridiculous conclusions are clearly inspired by propaganda, the not-objectively-ridiculous conclusions (but still improbable enough that it is extraordinarily unlikely that millions of people would independently reach all of these same conclusions) that right-wingers mostly agree on (trump is a good president, trickle-down economics works, tax cuts for the rich will help the poor, less environmental regulation is good, trump’s tariffs will help the average American, Obama was the worst president ever, Obama hated America, liberals are snowflakes, America is in danger of being ruled by sharia law, there was widespread voter fraud by democrats in 2016, trump hasn’t obstructed justice, and a thousand more) are not influenced by that propaganda. When you hear the exact same points from virtually every right-winger you discuss these things with, it seems pretty obvious to me where they’re getting their ideas from.

Sure, there might be the very rare exception where a person actually comes to all (or most of) the same conclusions as the rest of the right-wingers all on his own. But I think that is very rare indeed.

sdduuuude wrote:

So, yes - Fox is bullshit - but not always wrong, and not completely incapable of coming to a conclusion that mathches that of reasonable people who don't watch Fox.

While all that is true, the occasions where right-wing propaganda (including fox) comes to such a conclusion seem vastly outnumbered by occasions when these propagandists lead their viewers to either terribly misled or outright objectively ridiculous conclusions.

Submitted by zk on October 1, 2019 - 5:17pm.

sdduuuude wrote:
I think some people fall in love w/ that confidence and fall into the same trap of irrational belief in the infallibility.

That is an interesting insight. I guess if one is ignorant of how full of shit he is (and one is somewhat weak-minded), one might be attracted to that. (Not at all implying that you feel that way, sdduuuude; obviously you don't).

If, however, you are aware of the fact that most of what comes out of his mouth is either a lie or just nonsense, that confidence has the opposite effect.

Submitted by temeculaguy on October 1, 2019 - 11:59pm.

I read the transcript and there's no there there. What they are doing is a plan to just keep the word "impeachment" in the news cycle. The drawback is whole thing has brought to light Biden's sins. It doesn't pass the smell test that Biden's son, kicked out of the military for drugs, lands a job on a Ukrainian energy company for 1 million a year with no experience. The unintended consequence is the damage to Biden, the only moderate in the race. Two things will happen as a result, President Trump or President Warren.

I had been content with an Biden/Trump playoff, no real downside economically, just feelings, but my investments would be safe. Now if Warren wins the nomination I have to look at some serious investment choices. I've been looking into my mutual fund positions and seeing which have fossil fuels, big tech, banking, pharma, medicine, etc. and contemplating selling and moving into other investments as she will change the game more than most. It will still be a game, the rules will just be different. Zuckerberg is panicking, Bezos should be. Just bought a cardigan so I can have my uniform (admittedly for a 50's party, but it's a warren signature, so I'll be spared). As a true Pigg, it's not about ideology, it's about how I play the change.

I wonder how she affect R/E, my guess is she will cause inflation thus reducing my mortgage but she may go after landlords, so near the end of her term I'll become one. I hate to break anyone's heart but it wont change anything, it will just create opportunities, the trick will be finding them.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on October 2, 2019 - 6:24am.

Still say you make a lot of assumptions.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on October 2, 2019 - 8:02am.

temeculaguy wrote:
I read the transcript and there's no there there. What they are doing is a plan to just keep the word "impeachment" in the news cycle. The drawback is whole thing has brought to light Biden's sins. It doesn't pass the smell test that Biden's son, kicked out of the military for drugs, lands a job on a Ukrainian energy company for 1 million a year with no experience. The unintended consequence is the damage to Biden, the only moderate in the race. Two things will happen as a result, President Trump or President Warren.

I had been content with an Biden/Trump playoff, no real downside economically, just feelings, but my investments would be safe. Now if Warren wins the nomination I have to look at some serious investment choices. I've been looking into my mutual fund positions and seeing which have fossil fuels, big tech, banking, pharma, medicine, etc. and contemplating selling and moving into other investments as she will change the game more than most. It will still be a game, the rules will just be different. Zuckerberg is panicking, Bezos should be. Just bought a cardigan so I can have my uniform (admittedly for a 50's party, but it's a warren signature, so I'll be spared). As a true Pigg, it's not about ideology, it's about how I play the change.

I wonder how she affect R/E, my guess is she will cause inflation thus reducing my mortgage but she may go after landlords, so near the end of her term I'll become one. I hate to break anyone's heart but it wont change anything, it will just create opportunities, the trick will be finding them.

I agree that knocking biden out seems likely, but I'm not sure it's unintended. I'm not a deep state conspiracist, but it seems too much to trumps advantage to trigger the impeachment process.

There's some chance he orchestrated the whole thing...at least 33 %.

It may be irrelevant to you today, but as a country we still don't want presidents conditioning military aid on assistance to the presidents campaign in the future,right? The transcript is only meaningful in context.

If for instance trump had a gun to zelenskys head, it would change your reading of the transcript, right?

The granting or withholding of military aid is similar to a gun. It is an implied rather than Express threat, but it's still definitely a threat.

So regardless of your position on impeachment, or whether this violates the constitution, could we at least agree as a nation to make a new rule, only applying prospectively so trump gets a pass on this one, to bar this type of presidential bargaining?

Or is this cool for all future presidents.

I guess I'm very old fashioned but I still believe there's some value in rules and boundaries and I think it's bad for the US for other countries to use dirt on our candidates to bargain with presidents.

And of course, if a negro or half negro president, or a president with a vagina did this same thing, fox news would LOSE ITS SHIT. And I honestly would, too.

But how bad is it, really, this one small peccadillo?

In historical context trump and this constitutional violation really are trivial compared to say, Bush 2, the war criminal who lied to embroil us in the Iraqi war, killing hundreds of thousands for NO REASON.

Compared to that piece of shit, who should be in prison, trumps actually pretty chill.

Plus trump cut my taxes a lot, in addition to not slaughtering people senselessly.

So yeah, i agree that in the scope of history, trumps violation. Is small compared to fucking Bush who i still despise, fucking war criminal may he rot in hell.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on October 3, 2019 - 8:41am.

Isnt that phone call "collusion".

Collusion. Illusion.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on October 3, 2019 - 9:02am.

IMO (and I am no expert so probably not worth much)

If you take the transcript "ONLY THE TRANSCRIPT AND NOTHING ELSE".

It is ambiguous at best so it depends largely on your pre-bias.

Either way I think TG had it right, it is mostly a political football that will in the end likely go nowhere as it will not likely get passed the senate.

How much does 6 months of congress cost?

Submitted by zk on October 3, 2019 - 9:15am.

temeculaguy wrote:
I read the transcript and there's no there there.

The-Shoveler wrote:

It is ambiguous at best so it depends largely on your pre-bias.

It is not ambiguous. Not at all. And the "there" there is impeachment-worthy all by itself.

---------------

52 U.S. Code 30121:

“It shall be unlawful for —

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make —

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election . . .

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) . . . of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.”

--------------

The president asked Zelensky to do him a "favor" by investigating his political opponent. That is soliciting a thing of value in connection with an election. That violates the law. Show me the ambiguity.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on October 3, 2019 - 9:22am.

LOL you assume a lot IMO.

really not worth my time.

Submitted by zk on October 3, 2019 - 9:31am.

The-Shoveler wrote:
LOL you assume a lot IMO.

really not worth my time.

Again, confronted with facts, you run away.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on October 3, 2019 - 9:33am.

"FACTS" - LOL,

anyway F-off

Submitted by zk on October 3, 2019 - 9:47am.

The-Shoveler wrote:
"FACTS" - LOL,

anyway F-off

Who does that remind me of? Having no facts to back you up, nothing reality-based to counter your foes, you come away defiant, belligerent, and unable to see that you've lost. Hmmm. Oh, I know. And as it turns out, by the standards of 2019, you're very presidential, Shoveler. Good on ya.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on October 3, 2019 - 10:03am.

The-Shoveler wrote:
IMO (and I am no expert so probably not worth much)

If you take the transcript "ONLY THE TRANSCRIPT AND NOTHING ELSE".

It is ambiguous at best so it depends largely on your pre-bias.

Either way I think TG had it right, it is mostly a political football that will in the end likely go nowhere as it will not likely get passed the senate.

How much does 6 months of congress cost?

Context matters.

"Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day, accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding day."

Don Vito corleone.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on October 3, 2019 - 11:18am.

OK one last post,

So you think Trump will get convicted in the senate?

Or that it is not in anyway politically motivated?
(timing and all).

Seriously I did not vote trump the first time and probably will not vote for him this time, but the Dem's need to put someone up in the middle or they will lose IMO.

You can look up my old posts LOL,
I wanted to vote Bernie but became completely disenchanted when Clinton got the nomination.
I liked his health care plan (still do), not crazy about the rest of his ideas.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on October 3, 2019 - 11:25am.

No. Because everything is bullshit.

Submitted by livinincali on October 3, 2019 - 12:20pm.

zk wrote:

The president asked Zelensky to do him a "favor" by investigating his political opponent. That is soliciting a thing of value in connection with an election. That violates the law. Show me the ambiguity.

The problem with this assessment is was the thing of value exclusive to the president. One would presume all American voters would derive value from knowing what Joe and Hunter Biden's dealing were with the Ukraine. Why is Hunter Biden sitting on a board earning $600K/yr that he didn't seem to possess any qualifications unless it's to peddle influence for the company with his father?

Knowing whether Biden's dealing with Ukraine we legal or not is of interest to the entire electorate. Just as knowing Trumps dealings with the Russian's is of value to the whole electorate.

If multiple democrat senators sent a letters or talked to Russian politicians asking for favors to help investigate Trump's dealing with Russia shall they be impeached as well? Obviously the answer is no, so that's why I look at this as a nothing to see here.

I don't really see the reason why democrats are so focused on impeachment here unless they are feeling like their probably going to lose the election again. It does seem like their going to be stuck with Warren based on recent events.

Submitted by burghMan on October 3, 2019 - 12:33pm.

temeculaguy wrote:
I read the transcript and there's no there there. What they are doing is a plan to just keep the word "impeachment" in the news cycle. The drawback is whole thing has brought to light Biden's sins. It doesn't pass the smell test that Biden's son, kicked out of the military for drugs, lands a job on a Ukrainian energy company for 1 million a year with no experience. The unintended consequence is the damage to Biden, the only moderate in the race. Two things will happen as a result, President Trump or President Warren.

Just today president Trump has openly called for China and Ukraine (again) to investigate Biden's son. He made the comments within minutes of mentioning that he has "tremendous power" over China. His behavior is not a one-off, it is a pattern with clear intent: He's using the power of his office to damage political opponents.

Biden's son is not very relevant in the scope of national politics. He holds no office (unlike president Trump's family who have been given positions of influence despite having no qualifications or experience.) There is no direct evidence of wrongdoing by Biden's son, and even if there was, it would not justify the president's intense, even obsessive, focus on the family member of a political rival.

Any smart middle school kid that is learning about the constitution understands the importance of preventing individuals in power from using that power to disrupt the democratic process. The 1st Amendment prevents a president from silencing political rivals, the 4th Amendment prevents a president from harassing rivals with false accusations and criminal investigations. The checks and balances of the three branches prevent the president from simply ignoring the rules. The framers knew that a president that behaved like Trump would come along eventually.

I've noticed from the beginning that Trump never talks about the Constitution and he never talks about the law. He always talks about himself or other people. He's taken our government and turned into a reality TV show. The rule of law has been replaced by the influence of gossip. In the world of president Trump, matters are weighed by how much people are talking about them, not their actual importance.

Trump wants America to gossip about Biden's son. He's desperate to achieve this, even to the point of soliciting foreign assistance to fuel the flames. The only other situation where the United States of America would call on the assistance of China, Ukraine, Italy and seemingly any and every country would be if the earth were being attacked by aliens. President Trump is trying to convince us America is facing an existential crisis...why? Because the opposing party has a viable candidate.

It's sad to watch this strategy of distraction by using gossip and misinformation working on millions of Americans. Are we really so easily confused? I'm disappointed to see that it is working on you, temeculaguy. You always seemed to be smarter than that.

But I'm not falling for it, and I hope that other Americans can continue to stay focused on what matters. President Trump is using his executive power to spread misinformation, and to harass and intimidate political rivals. It's a slap in the face to the constitution. He's doing it without shame and sadly with the overt support of many Americans who value their "team" more than our shared principles.

If there's ever been a case for removing a president from office in our history, this is it. Allowing a president to openly mock the constitution, allowing a president to openly seek favors from foreign nations solely for political gain, and allowing him to face no consequences is a not a good outcome. It sets a terrible precedent. This is no longer about political parties or election rivalries. Removing Trump from office because of his specific disregard for the law would be a reaffirmation that our constitution works as it was meant to.

(In the quote I left off the paragraphs about the stock market and real estate because they are not relevant...just another attempted distraction to a much bigger issue.)

Submitted by outtamojo on October 3, 2019 - 12:50pm.

I cant wait for a Democrat version of trump to go around and promise all kinds of things in exchange for investigating the whole trump clan because you know, we need to know if people are going around doing illegal things.

Submitted by outtamojo on October 3, 2019 - 12:58pm.

scaredyclassic wrote:
The-Shoveler wrote:
IMO (and I am no expert so probably not worth much)

If you take the transcript "ONLY THE TRANSCRIPT AND NOTHING ELSE".

It is ambiguous at best so it depends largely on your pre-bias.

Either way I think TG had it right, it is mostly a political football that will in the end likely go nowhere as it will not likely get passed the senate.

How much does 6 months of congress cost?

Context matters.

"Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day, accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding day."

Don Vito corleone.

Mob speak like this
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SoBC3xC1Mjw

Submitted by burghMan on October 3, 2019 - 1:16pm.

livinincali wrote:

The problem with this assessment is was the thing of value exclusive to the president. One would presume all American voters would derive value from knowing what Joe and Hunter Biden's dealing were with the Ukraine. Why is Hunter Biden sitting on a board earning $600K/yr that he didn't seem to possess any qualifications unless it's to peddle influence for the company with his father?

Knowing whether Biden's dealing with Ukraine we legal or not is of interest to the entire electorate. Just as knowing Trumps dealings with the Russian's is of value to the whole electorate.

If multiple democrat senators sent a letters or talked to Russian politicians asking for favors to help investigate Trump's dealing with Russia shall they be impeached as well? Obviously the answer is no, so that's why I look at this as a nothing to see here.

I don't really see the reason why democrats are so focused on impeachment here unless they are feeling like their probably going to lose the election again. It does seem like their going to be stuck with Warren based on recent events.

If the "thing of value" is negative information about one of Trump's rivals, that thing is FAR more valuable to Trump than it is to any ordinary American. Do you really think he did that blatant quid-pro-quo for the benefit of all Americans and not primarily for himself?

This is a perfect example of how president Trump uses gossip, confusion, and hearsay instead of the rule of law. "Knowing" something because the media is buzzing about it is not the same as proving something. Convicting a financial criminal like Manafort through a lawful trial helps Americans. But gossip and hearsay about an unusual situation in a foreign country has little value to you our me. Of course the inevitable media buzz about the hearsay can be extremely valuable to Mr. Trump.

Absolutely there is plenty of corruption in the Ukraine and throughout the world, more than our government could ever sort out. I don't know how the government and intelligence agencies generally prioritize their investigations into corruption but when the president intervenes directly and targets ONE person specifically, that is clearly a red flag. Did president Trump inquire about ANY other corruption concerns on that call? Are we to believe there is only ONE possible American deserving scrutiny?

In Biden's situation, Trump is literally begging anyone and everyone in the world to find dirt on one guy... one guy who just happens to be related to his most competitive rival. It's desperate, pathetic, and his motivation is ridiculously transparent.

How anyone believes Trump's reasons for digging up dirt on Biden is a routine part of a president's job to protect the country is beyond me. Are we really so easily duped?

Meanwhile North Korea is launching submarine missiles...

Submitted by FlyerInHi on October 3, 2019 - 1:24pm.

The-Shoveler wrote:
OK one last post,

So you think Trump will get convicted in the senate?

Or that it is not in anyway politically motivated?
(timing and all).

The impeachment of Clinton set the standard for impeachment. He just lied about the affair. Well, not really an affair, just a blowjob.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on October 3, 2019 - 1:33pm.

That was also a large waste of time and money LOL.

Most expensive BJ in history.

Submitted by zk on October 3, 2019 - 1:40pm.

livinincali wrote:

The problem with this assessment is was the thing of value exclusive to the president. One would presume all American voters would derive value from knowing what Joe and Hunter Biden's dealing were with the Ukraine. Why is Hunter Biden sitting on a board earning $600K/yr that he didn't seem to possess any qualifications unless it's to peddle influence for the company with his father?

Knowing whether Biden's dealing with Ukraine we legal or not is of interest to the entire electorate. Just as knowing Trumps dealings with the Russian's is of value to the whole electorate.

If multiple democrat senators sent a letters or talked to Russian politicians asking for favors to help investigate Trump's dealing with Russia shall they be impeached as well? Obviously the answer is no, so that's why I look at this as a nothing to see here.

I don't really see the reason why democrats are so focused on impeachment here unless they are feeling like their probably going to lose the election again. It does seem like their going to be stuck with Warren based on recent events.

The democratic senators were not asking for "favors to help investigate trump's dealing with Russia."

What those senators said was that Ukraine should not impede cooperation with the United States Special Counsel.

Completely different.

Submitted by zk on October 3, 2019 - 3:03pm.

The-Shoveler wrote:
So you think Trump will get convicted in the senate?

Unless further information comes to light, or the right-wing propaganda machine turns on him, the chances of him being convicted are virtually zero.

If further information comes to light unambiguously showing trump extorted Ukraine for dirt on Biden using U.S. funds, the chances go up a bit. But most senators care more about being reelected than about their country or about what's right or about the constitution. So the chances might not go up all that much, even in that case.

If the right-wing propaganda machine turns on him for whatever reason, then his base will turn on him and the senators will have an excuse to do what's right. In that extremely unlikely case, the chances of him being removed are very high.

The-Shoveler wrote:
Or that it is not in anyway politically motivated?
(timing and all).

I don't think it's politically motivated. I could be wrong about that, but I think democrats know that impeachment is much more likely to energize trump's base than it is to actually remove trump from office or to make voters more likely to vote democratic.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on October 4, 2019 - 7:30am.

Capitalism. People do things for money.

Why would anyone expect differently for Biden dirt?
No quid pro quo? Doesn't that violate our fundamental understanding of how the world works.

You dont get anything for nothing