Impeachment failing in battleground states

[moda0306]

I wonder, when Trump gives one of his slurred, stroked-out, meandering speeches, does that indicate he might need some sort of deficiency test?

Or is it just senility setting in? I'd love to see a cognitive impairment test on the man...

You Trumpists really are something to behold... but I don't say this with little anger. Just confusion and embarrassment. This place used to have some really damn intelligent conversations going on.

And pug I also attacked your argument... the nicknames were for effect and to call out idiocy when I see it. So there was no "avoidance." I'm not trying to build my conclusion on a premises of insults.

Lastly, the idea that PragerU is way more than just facts isn't a matter of disagreeing with their politics. It would be equally ridiculous to say that Glenn Greenwald is "Just the facts," which I'd never do. PragerU is absolutely dripping with opinion. You may agree with those opinions, but to pretend it's "nothing but facts and education" is idiotic on its face.

[flyingpylon]

No, but similar.

That's interesting, they seem very different to me.

Article of Impeachment: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/96/HR/P ... HR0005.pdf

Are they taking their positions simply because there is no specific hard evidence?

Simply?

[Cortopassi]

I am not saying Blago was a saint. And I don't know anything much more than what was on the news. But even in reading the link you provided, Blago's impeachment points are all "plots" for him to do something illegal, which at least the main one, selling the Senate seat, he failed at. So it was all just talk.

Isn't that like the republicans saying, hey, Trump tried to get them to investigate and stopped the aid for a while but they did get their aid in the end? No harm, no foul?

No harm, no foul, Blago wasn't able to sell the seat, right?

Is that not similar? Trying to do something bad/illegal, but failing? Like I tried to rob a bank but wasn't able to get away with any money, that's apparently not a crime in some weird twisted logic.

[WiseOne]

Taking the Blago and Trump impeachment cases together, it looks to me like the bar for impeachment is a lot lower than it is for a prosecution in a civil court. And come to think of it, Bill Clinton's little lie might not have resulted in a court case either, in the real world.

I don't think that was meant to happen though. Otherwise, the Constitution would describe impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors, or for being an a**hole". I also think that after the Bill Clinton debacle, the Republicans have lost their right to complain now that it's their guy (aka the a**hole) in the hot seat. Gotta remember that they started this, and now they have to live with the consequences: ANY government official facing a hostile legislative body can now be first extensively investigated to find the desired pretext, then impeached.

[doodle]

From sondlands opening testimony it seems like a lot of the Ukraine policy was filtered through Rudy Giuliani. Why does the president involve his private lawyer and a private citizen when conducting government foreign policy? Is Giuliani a firewall? A way to claim attorney client priviledge when conducting foreign affairs in a shady manner? If trump delegates his attorney to carry out foreign policy how does any communication between the two come to light without breaking attorney client priveledges? And if things go south, with any policy directive carried out by Giuliani trump can always throw his attorney under the bus claiming he acted independently of Trump's orders.

[Maddy]

From sondlands opening testimony it seems like a lot of the Ukraine policy was filtered through Rudy Giuliani. Why does the president involve his private lawyer and a private citizen when conducting government foreign policy? Is Giuliani a firewall? A way to claim attorney client priviledge when conducting foreign affairs in a shady manner? If trump delegates his attorney to carry out foreign policy how does any communication between the two come to light without breaking attorney client priveledges? And if things go south, with any policy directive carried out by Giuliani trump can always throw his attorney under the bus claiming he acted independently of Trump's orders.

The short answer is that he was stabbed in the back too many times by Obama leftovers bent on carrying out a coup.

Not to be confused with the Weiner guy who, when not snapping shirtless photos of himself and sexting teenage girls, was charged by the former Secretary of State with the job of safekeeping tens of thousands of classified documents.

[Tyler]

What I am confident is that Trumpanzees have no f'ing idea what they're talking about, and are hopeless tribal boobs.

You Trumpists really are something to behold... but I don't say this with little anger. Just confusion and embarrassment. This place used to have some really damn intelligent conversations going on.

A forum is the sum of its contributors. The blind spot between these statements is so large that you can drive a truck through it.

If you truly want an intelligent conversation, be the change you wish to see in the world.

[moda0306]

What I am confident is that Trumpanzees have no f'ing idea what they're talking about, and are hopeless tribal boobs.

You Trumpists really are something to behold... but I don't say this with little anger. Just confusion and embarrassment. This place used to have some really damn intelligent conversations going on.

A forum is the sum of its contributors. The blind spot between these statements is so large that you can drive a truck through it.

If you truly want an intelligent conversation, be the change you wish to see in the world.

Tyler,

I agree that a forum is a sum of its contributors. My trying to bleed any valid critical analysis out of Trumpists is the most fruitless efforts I've ever experienced. I know intelligent, intriguing leftists, libertarians, anarchists, monarchists, and conservatives. But almost all the Trump apologism here wreaks of some mix of knuckle-dragging idiocy, tribalism and groupthink. I'll "be the change I want to see" by calling out bad reasoning/sourcing where it lies, rather than put up with constant gas-lighting attempts using Scott Adams, Breitbart and Prager-U as sources.

And there's nothing contradictory about saying that conversations used to be intelligent here and engaging in pointed assessments of where we are at. If you want to call out inconsistency, look no further than the orange clown with his finger on the button.

The idea that anyone could look at the greasy clown show that is US federal politics and claim that only the Dems, in an era of that shit show in the white house, are materially part of the problem, is absolutely ludicrous.

[Tyler]

My trying to bleed any valid critical analysis out of Trumpists is the most fruitless efforts I've ever experienced.

If you're struggling that badly, maybe try a different approach. Clearly what you're doing now is not working and is making you unhappy.

[Mountaineer]

My trying to bleed any valid critical analysis out of Trumpists is the most fruitless efforts I've ever experienced.

If you're struggling that badly, maybe try a different approach. Clearly what you're doing now is not working and is making you unhappy.

moda,
Perhaps being respectful in your language would be a good start, maybe also being respectful of those you disagree with, even if it is President Trump. Be respectful of the office of the President if nothing else. Sugar catches more flies than vinegar.

Best wishes.

For example, these are inflamatory words in the context of your post (my opinion) - bolded text:

I agree that a forum is a sum of its contributors. My trying to bleed any valid critical analysis out of Trumpists is the most fruitless efforts I've ever experienced. I know intelligent, intriguing leftists, libertarians, anarchists, monarchists, and conservatives. But almost all the Trump apologism here wreaks of some mix of knuckle-dragging idiocy, tribalism and groupthink. I'll "be the change I want to see" by calling out bad reasoning/sourcing where it lies, rather than put up with constant gas-lighting attempts using Scott Adams, Breitbart and Prager-U as sources.

And there's nothing contradictory about saying that conversations used to be intelligent here and engaging in pointed assessments of where we are at. If you want to call out inconsistency, look no further than the orange clown with his finger on the button.

The idea that anyone could look at the greasy clown show that is US federal politics and claim that only the Dems, in an era of that shit show in the white house, are materially part of the problem, is absolutely ludicrous.