-->
@Swagnarok
The Collusion Hoax was aided by (former)people in the FBI. Why would Trump trust the FBI?
Hot Take on Impeachment
Posts
Total:
43
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
It took the smearing of "DOG KILLER" Mitt Romney for Republicans to realize how fucked up their party is.
Hopefully, back-to-back losses to Trump will cause enough of the sane people on the left to fix their party before it's too late for the future of the country instead of blind support for establishment. At this point, the only thing that can save the DNC is for Biden to lose spectacularly like Mitt Romney did.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Trump explicitly asks a foreign leader to dig up dirt on his political rival, by name.
Lie. Trump said nothing about dirt. He mentioned Biden because Biden was the one who strong armed them into closing the investigation. Your baseless assumption will not be used to convict Trump.
They cut something out of the transcript there.
Or there was just a pause in the convo. Either way, it isn't an invitation for you to insert your assumption.
If he wanted an investigation he would have referred it to the FBI or to congress to look into.
The same congress that started talking about impeachment on is first day in office? The same FBI that had an insurance plan in case he won the presidency? Please.
Plus, we know Trump doesn't like formality. This was a getting to know you phone call with a new leader. There was nothing wrong in Trump asking for an investigation, even if it wasn't done the orthodox way.
That's why you dems have to lie and insert your assumptions and then pretend they are true.
So we already know he committed that crime.
We who? You and the loser dems? Trumps poll numbers have been going up. The only thing you "know" is that your fake charges are not convincing the American public.
It's hard to frame someone for crimes they are doing in public for all to see.
It's harder yet to frame someone for crimes that are jacked up by a dishonest partisan congress. And fewer people see it now than when the dems started this charade. Trumps approval numbers are moving up! Ouch!
-->
@ethang5
Lie. Trump said nothing about dirt. He mentioned Biden because Biden was the one who strong armed them into closing the investigation. Your baseless assumption will not be used to convict Trump.
His exact words were:
"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."
He explicitly asks him to look into biden and his son. That is asking for dirt.
Or there was just a pause in the convo. Either way, it isn't an invitation for you to insert your assumption.
No it's not. Vindman, who was on the call, testified that they were deleted phrases. That specific one he testified was something about trump saying there were tapes of Biden. But the transcript had that section deleted.
The same congress that started talking about impeachment on is first day in office? The same FBI that had an insurance plan in case he won the presidency? Please.
This is in no way a defense. You are saying the the legal channels wouldn't work, so he decided to commit a crime. That does not excuse the crime.
It's harder yet to frame someone for crimes that are jacked up by a dishonest partisan congress.
You clearly suffer from trump derangement syndrome. It doesn't matter that we now know for absolute certain he committed multiple crimes, you just keep repeating lies over and over and over and pretend like reality doesn't exist.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Let me put it this way.
In mainland China right now, Hong Kong and Macau notwithstanding, the general tendency of Chinese people is to think "Everything is just fine. The economy's doing great and the current government is providing stability and making China a superpower on the global stage." This is in spite of the fact that their government routinely censors freedom of speech and of the press and has committed horrific crimes against its Christian, Muslim, and Falun Gong practicing minorities. In spite of the fact that China does not hold free elections, in spite of the fact that every level of government over there is probably riddled with graft.
Why do they tolerate this? Because it's all that they know, because the status quo has been the status quo for so fricking long.
In America, the current two-party system has been in effect for over 150 years straight now. Or, that is, over twice as long as the Chinese communist party. Both parties here comprise absolutely enormous political machines that have totally dominated generation after generation after generation of local and national government.
We have term limits. Why? Because we're afraid of the possibility that if one guy is allowed to be in power for very long stretches of time he might be able to consolidate control over the government and make himself a dictator. And yet we're perfectly fine with the same two parties ruling for 150+ years straight.
I'm not going to mince words here: every aspect of American political life is totally in the grip of the Democratic and Republican parties. They do, at least in theory, have the power to cook any book, to manufacture or to silence any witness, and to render the federal bureaucracy subservient to their every whim.
In Congress there is something of a collegiate atmosphere. Lawmakers are buddies with fellow lawmakers, even with those belonging to the other party. Buddies stand up for each other, and cover for each other, when accused of something illegal. In addition, each lawmaker has obvious reason to want to cover it up if his or her self falls into corruption. The natural rationale is "I'm doing good work for the country, if I go to jail now then I won't be able to accomplish anything else" or "If I get caught doing this then my party will suffer, and my party needs to stay in power to accomplish good work and keep the bad people on the other side from having their way". Or at least, that's how the more benevolent-minded Congressmen would rationalize it. Less charitably, they'd recognize and embrace their own selfish motives.
Even when Congressmen hate each other, they know that if they make a big stink of trying to expose dirt on the other, the other guy or party could turn around and do the same to them. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if the party bosses exchanged kompromat as a way of facilitating good relations and a basic level of cooperation.
Ultimately, the American system still works for most of its people. Corruption in Congress, so far as it most definitely does exist, is not so bad as to justify trying to overthrow 230 years of republican democracy and the stability inherent in our Constitution. If there are peaceful ways to lessen corruption, we ought to look into that, surely.
But here's the thing. Even if Trump is guilty of everything that he stands accused of (and the Establishment most certainly does have the means to frame him of stuff he didn't do), doing away with him would not being "taking a stand against corruption". Because selective enforcement of laws against corruption and graft by some political actors against others is not rule of law. It's weaponized law, which is the same as anti-law. If the Elites use the cover of law to do away with anyone who would challenge them, in such a way that the law does not hold them accountable for their deeds but rather strengthens and upholds their position of power, that is anti-law.
Trump is a billionaire, yes. But money alone does not buy you a spot in the Establishment. Trump's an obnoxious, unsophisticated blowhard. He always has been one, and so he has little in way of friends. In addition, he hasn't had a large stake in key industries/institutions such as oil, Hollywood or the university system. The Establishment is a social circle of influential/powerful people. Trump stands alone, for better and for worse.
Ultimately he is not a great reformer. All he cares about is being a two-term President who retires with a sizable base of adoring fans, because he is a man of very simple tastes. He quickly alienated the Establishment on both sides, which is why he's facing challenges and attacks from all directions. To some degree Republicans in Congress are stuck with him, but even then there are still many Republicans there who are gunning to be rid of him.
So if it's a question of one sonuvab**ch over another, why does it matter? Because there's nothing you or I can do about the larger issue of corruption in America. So the defining attribute of politicians is whether you like their policy positions or not.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Also, in this instance the "crime" that Trump stands accused of is trying to turn up dirt on a guy from the other party. Normally I would consider this akin to weaponized law, if not for the fact that Trump has already had his entire past blown wide open for the public to ooh and ah over whereas his opponents pretty much get a clean pass 95% of the time. Because of the agonizingly intense scrutiny he has undergone, I regard him trying to do the same to somebody else as adding to a general proportionality.
Ultimately, since enforcement against corruption is already as selective as it is, we really do have a choice whether to let Trump go on a technical violation of the law or not. I'm not convinced that any legalities were trampled over, but either way the idea that he "has to be impeached" is bullcrap.
-->
@Swagnarok
But here's the thing. Even if Trump is guilty of everything that he stands accused of (and the Establishment most certainly does have the means to frame him of stuff he didn't do), doing away with him would not being "taking a stand against corruption". Because selective enforcement of laws against corruption and graft by some political actors against others is not rule of law. It's weaponized law, which is the same as anti-law.
So even though we know for a fact that trump has committed multiple crimes in office, you don't think we should do anything about that because some other people (who don't have the power of the presidency) also do shitty stuff? That is stupid. Yes I agree that many politicians are corrupt. But saying we shouldn't fight this corruption because there is also other corruption is just allowing corruption.
He quickly alienated the Establishment on both sides, which is why he's facing challenges and attacks from all directions.
That's a joke right? Pretty much everyone on the right has bent over backwards to defend him. There are a tiny handful of people on the right willing to say even moderately critical things about him. Even as he commits crimes in broad daylight.
So if it's a question of one sonuvab**ch over another, why does it matter?
Because evil should be fought. Trump is abusing the power of his office in order to get a second term. That is precisely what impeachment was designed to prevent. The founding fathers were afraid of someone exactly like trump seizing power.
Because there's nothing you or I can do about the larger issue of corruption in America.
Of course there is, we get the money out of politics. Ban all private contributions to political campaigns. Ban elected officials from going to work at big companies after they leave office. We need to remove the ways that private companies and billionaires can control politicians. That's why we need a president like Sanders.
So the defining attribute of politicians is whether you like their policy positions or not.
How much of a criminal the candidate is should always be a big determining factor. We know trump has committed multiple crimes. People like Sanders and Warren have not.
-->
@HistoryBuff
(Keep in mind that everything I'm saying here about Trump is "Assuming that he's guilty", something that could legitimately not be the case.)
So even though we know for a fact that trump has committed multiple crimes in office, you don't think we should do anything about that because some other people (who don't have the power of the presidency) also do shitty stuff? That is stupid.
You don't actually believe this to be true. Bill Clinton committed perjury and the general response to this by Democrats was "Well it's just a little thing, it doesn't really matter, the Republicans are obviously doing this for politically motivated reasons." If you were there in 1998/1999 I have no doubt your response would've been the same.
That's a joke right? Pretty much everyone on the right has bent over backwards to defend him.
Fox News hosts don't count as "everyone on the right". He has had many public rows with Republican politicians.
Because evil should be fought.
If you really meant that, your politics would look radically different than they do. Everyone's would.
Trump is abusing the power of his office in order to get a second term.
If "abusing the power of his office" is what he has to do to have a fair race in which either everyone's past gets mercilessly dredged up or nobody's does, then so be it. The problem is not Trump but rather the larger system that drove Trump to resort to the measures that he did. Either acknowledge that the entire system (including the criminally biased and monolithic news media plus the ideological collusion of 90% of celebrities and public figures to the exclusion of that roughly half of the country that thinks and votes differently) is f**ked up, and then do something about it, or leave Trump alone.
The founding fathers were afraid of someone exactly like trump seizing power.
The Founding Fathers could not have conceived of the America that Trump was a reaction against. George Washington punished gay sex with the death penalty in his army. Many of the Founding Fathers owned slaves. The systemic hatred of organized religion that permeates the modern press would've shocked even those few of them who were deists.
Of course there is, we get the money out of politics. Ban all private contributions to political campaigns. Ban elected officials from going to work at big companies after they leave office. We need to remove the ways that private companies and billionaires can control politicians. That's why we need a president like Sanders.
That is only a part of it. Politicians are motivated not just by money but also by power and prestige.
People like Sanders and Warren have not.
How could you possibly know this?
-->
@HistoryBuff
"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."He explicitly asks him to look into biden and his son. That is asking for dirt.
Or asking for a legitimate investigation into a crime. For example, if Trump replaced Biden with me, you wouldn’t we saying “dirt.” Your problem is the coincidence that the person is a candidate running from President. Even then they’re just as much prone to investigation. Just because you’re running for President doesn’t mean you get a pass. If this were the case the entire Russian investigation should be null and void. It started while Democrats were in office against a candidate running for President. Hold yourself to the same standard buddy.
-->
@ILikePie5
Or asking for a legitimate investigation into a crime.
I have never seen anyone say any crime that Joe or Hunter could have committed. There simply is no evidence that they did. But if they had, the legal way to proceed would be to get the FBI or congress to investigate. Asking the president of Ukraine to do it is a crime.
For example, if Trump replaced Biden with me, you wouldn’t we saying “dirt.” Your problem is the coincidence that the person is a candidate running from President.
The problem is the profit motive. If trump had asked about some random person he had no benefit to investigating, then that would not breach election laws. But because he did stand to directly benefit from it, it is illegal. It could still break the other laws he is guilty of breaking though.
Just because you’re running for President doesn’t mean you get a pass.
Of course not. that is what law enforcement agencies are for. Trump chose not to do that though, so he broke the law.
If this were the case the entire Russian investigation should be null and void. It started while Democrats were in office against a candidate running for President.
And they did exactly what they were supposed to. they asked the FBI to investigate. If trump had done that we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead he went and committed some crimes by trying to get the Ukrainians to smear his political rival.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I have never seen anyone say any crime that Joe or Hunter could have committed.
Ya if you only get news from Leftist source that might happen
There simply is no evidence that they did. But if they had, the legal way to proceed would be to get the FBI or congress to investigate. Asking the president of Ukraine to do it is a crime.
If the crime occurred in the Ukraine, we have no jurisdiction over it. And that’s what happened.
The problem is the profit motive. If trump had asked about some random person he had no benefit to investigating, then that would not breach election laws. But because he did stand to directly benefit from it, it is illegal. It could still break the other laws he is guilty of breaking though.
See this is your problem. You’re under the impression that there was a motive behind it — it’s a predisposed bias. A normal unbiased person would see Joe Biden as a problem worth investigating.
Of course not. that is what law enforcement agencies are for. Trump chose not to do that though, so he broke the law.
Once again: not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. if the crime occurred in Ukraine.
And they did exactly what they were supposed to. they asked the FBI to investigate. If trump had done that we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead he went and committed some crimes by trying to get the Ukrainians to smear his political rival.
Still using investigation for political benefit. You’d be saying oh how could he investigate a potential challenger. Don’t worry, when the FISA Report comes out Monday, we’ll just have political the wiretapping was.
-->
@ILikePie5
See this is your problem. You’re under the impression that there was a motive behind it — it’s a predisposed bias. A normal unbiased person would see Joe Biden as a problem worth investigating.
They don't seem to understand this, and it is quite irksome. They talk about how Bernie will fight corruption and all that, but then they try to impeach Trump when he tries to expose corruption. SMH
OrangeManBad.exe has stopped running.
His exact words were:
"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."
And where in there is the word "dirt"? The crime you charge Trump with is in your imagination. The sad part is, you can't see the difference between what you assume and what is.
He explicitly asks him to look into biden and his son. That is asking for dirt.
How is asking for an investigation asking for dirt? You are only telling us your interpretation. Were the democrats looking for dirt when they launched an investigation on Trump?
Or there was just a pause in the convo. Either way, it isn't an invitation for you to insert your assumption.
No it's not. Vindman, who was on the call, testified that they were deleted phrases. That specific one he testified was something about trump saying there were tapes of Biden. But the transcript had that section deleted.
And Vindman is to be believed and Trump not? Trump is to be convicted just on what Vindman claims to have remembered?
The same congress that started talking about impeachment on is first day in office? The same FBI that had an insurance plan in case he won the presidency? Please.
This is in no way a defense.
Of course. Why would I need a "defense" when no crime was committed?
You are saying the the legal channels wouldn't work, so he decided to commit a crime. That does not excuse the crime.
That is what YOU'RE saying pinko. What Trump did is being called a crime by you, but that doesn't make it a crime anywhere except in your biased mind.
That's why you have to lie now and substitute your spin as "what I'm saying" and then pretend it is what I'm saying.
Plus, what you're calling the "legal channels" was rife with criminals who have since been found out and ejected from the FBI and DOJ.
Tell us, what do you think that "insurance policy" was the FBI had in case Trump got elected? Hmmm?
It's harder yet to frame someone for crimes that are jacked up by a dishonest partisan congress.
You clearly suffer from trump derangement syndrome. It doesn't matter that we now know for absolute certain he committed multiple crimes,
We who? I keep asking and you keep dodging. Who is "we"? It certainly isn't the American people
you just keep repeating lies over and over and over and pretend like reality doesn't exist
Stop being stupid. Your assumptions are not reality. No matter how strongly you believe fakery, it never becomes truth.
I have never seen anyone say any crime that Joe or Hunter could have committed.
Then you are sheltered and naive. And that is what investigations are for, to uncover crimes if any were committed.
Its good you know what TDS is, so you'll know what medication to take when Trump wins in 2020.