Topic: US Politics [serious discussion - please read OP before posting] - page 16. (Read 5824 times)

Please don't mis represent my comments. "SORE LOSERS" is not synonymous to "BETTER"

Got a chance to watch some today.  Really embarrassing performance by the Republicans who keep arguing things that dont need to be argued.  Like the president has the right to fire the ambassador lady for whatever reason.  Everybody knows this and she done said so herself a whole bunch of times.  Why keep harping on the fact he shouldnt be fired because hes allowed to fire ambassador?

And now Trump is on TV saying its violation of his first amendment rights because he isnt defending himself at the Trial?  Has  he even read the constitution?  Not to mention he would be allowed in a blink of a eye to go under oath and take questions.

On break for Day 2 of hearings.  I wasn't able to watch it from the beginning, but Trump is having a bit of a melt down on Twitter, attacking Marie Yovanovitch mid testimony.





I don't think "Party A is better than Party B" is a valid argument, or even relevant, when it comes to whether or not a president should be impeached.  

It was Obama that media suggested was looking and acting King-like, not Trump. It's only that Trump is not the King they'd wished for, right?

So there you have it. A bunch of sore losers who did get a Congressional majority advocating impeachment, for, whatever. And now they are scraping around in impeachment hearings looking for some plausible impeachable offense.

It really is that simple. And people see this and know it.

Meanwhile, exactly what real, useful work has the Democratic Congress done?

And in 2018 we voted in Nancy Pelosi and a bunch of democrats that ran on impeaching the president.

Not trying to be confrontational.  But the whole "but he's the president" thing I think is pretty dangerous.  The president is not a King.  He's the head of 1 of the 3 co-equal branches of government.

LOL here's the problem. We voted this dude in as POTUS knowing that he was unorthodox, knowing that he wasn't going to do things the way they were done in the past.

I really don't care what the LOSERS in that 2016 election wanted or what they want now. I do understand that a lot of them don't like his unorthodox methods.

Trump sent his personal lawyer (a civilian without security clearance, no oath taken or senate confirmation) to undermine the foreign policies that the State department were directed to push by Trump.  Do you think that's the way it should be done?

I guess you could look at it as "they just think it should be done their way, not Trumps", and that wouldn't be inaccurate.  It's also an argument you could use for pretty much anything a president could ever be accused of.  Just because it's what POTUS wants, doesn't mean it's the right way.

Do you think federal employees, like most of the witnesses, should just blindly follow orders from Trump with total loyalty, and just keep their mouths shut because he's President?

---

I was planning on doing it from the very beginning, and I thought I did.  Just realized last night I guess I forgot to check the box.

FHellfish suggested it


I have absolutely no intention of censoring any opinion or anything, I prefer lots of different opinions.  But a thread like this seems like it would have pretty high chance of devolving into flame/troll wars and then the discussion is basically impossible.

Really, all that you have said (and what I got from listening to Taylor) is that these guys think they know how it should be done and the POTUS shouldn't get in their way because they know better.

I don't think the argument the Dems are making is simply "Trump withheld funding from Ukraine", although that's certainly what the Republicans are trying to make it seem.

Kent made it pretty clear that he considered it his duty to carry out whatever foreign policy the president decided, and if Trump decided he didn't want to send aid then that was fine.  

They both testified that the entire state department, maybe even including Pompeo - not sure what he knew, were told that the aid was coming, so they reassured Ukraine it was coming, and Ukraine believed them.  Then Trump got all sneaky and sends his personal lawyer to basically undermine the entire State department.  The whole thing made Ukraine appear vulnerable to Russia and made the US look like a country that has no problem fucking around with Allies while they are being invaded by Russia.

If he didn't want to send the aid to Ukraine, he shouldn't have proposed it to Congress.
If he wanted to investigate Ukraine before the aid was sent, he should've done it before the check was supposed to be in the mail.
If he wanted a favor from the President of Ukraine, he should've asked for it before the US agreed to send the money.
If he wants to do whatever he wants and answer to nobody, like he has for most of his life, he shouldn't run for President.

That's my simplified interpretation of the Dems narrative anyway.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that pretty much anyone and everyone on foreign policy doesn't like the way Trump goes about doing things, it most likely makes things hard for them as he isn't typical in the way that he negotiates, some news could be handeled on twitter, he holds a deep distrust for career burecrats who he feels are apart of the swamp, and he also feels the intelligence community was out to get him (which is true to a certain point, some did try to make him look bad)

So yeah -- I mean I'm not saying these people are lying, I'm just saying there is without a doubt a bias present as they most likely don't like this president.

Also: What threw ya over the edge Twitchy to move over to the Self mod ?

Responding to this post.

I don't think it is so much that Obama should be criticized for not helping Ukraine, it is more that this shows Democrats are being dishonest when they say things along the lines of "Trump is endangering our national security" and when Taylor (and?) Kent (I was listening sporadically throughout the day, and am not entirely sure who said what, but presume their overall narrative was generally similar) said that Trump's actions are at odds with "long standing" foreign policy with regards to Ukraine.

From my perspective, Taylor and Kent don't like Trump's foreign policy stances on Ukraine, which is totally within their rights, but this is not something that should be within their testimony discussing "high crimes and misdemeanors" potentially committed by a president, which is the standard for impeaching a president.

---

One of the two said that Ukraine is on a path to join NATO, which would mean potentially sending US troops to defend it if necessary, and I am not sure that would be in the US's best interest; maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but it is not something that should be rammed down our throats by unelected State Department officials.

They announced eight witnesses for next week over 5 hearings, I added them to OP ^^   Volker and Vindman seem likely to be the most interesting.

A thread for civil discussion on US national politics, formerly known as "Donald Trump has been Impeached [Serious Discussion]" and "Donald Trump has been Impeached, what's next? [Serious Discussion]"

Local Rules:
- No baiting, trolling or flaming.
- If you aren't interested in the opinions of those you disagree with, do not post in this thread.
- If you aren't willing to make an effort at being objective, do not post in this thread.
- No personal attacks, name calling, tantrums, circular arguments.
- Don't be an asshole.  
- No spam.

If you have a signature from a spammy signature campaign, and you make vague post about US politics, I'll probably just delete it.

If you don't like these rules, TECSHARE created a thread that isn't self moderated: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/reee-donald-trump-hasnt-yet-been-impeached-whats-next-serious-discussion-5201320