People who can't support their position (because it's wrong) tend to resort to yelling. Someone who is confident in their position and can back it up with facts doesn't have to resort to yelling and aggression to win an argument.
I have a co-worker who "wins" every argument this way. Just keep yelling and screaming until the other person walks away.
Jordan is a bully and it doesn't surprise me that someone like that is loyal to Trump.
It drives me crazy watching the Republican questioning: badgering, interrupting, "ANSWER YES OR NO!" Cutting the witness off. If you're confident in the truth, you wouldn't have to yell, scream, shout over witnesses, try to get them to answer in incomplete sentences, etc.
I only heard a little over an hour (and at the end of the day) while driving this afternoon and my two takeaways were:
(1) The Republican members want so very badly to have the whistleblower identified - as if knowing his identity would somehow change the facts. There also seems to be a clear misunderstanding of what it means to be a whistleblower and how demanding this person is publicly paraded about defeats the point of being able to blow said whistle. But I digress, because they do indeed know that.
(2) There seems to be concerted effort on the part of the Republicans to paint this as a criminal investigation and that criminal investigations are not the purview of Congress. Therefore, this should be a matter handled entirely by the Justice Department. I wish I could remember who said it because it was hi-fucking-larious.
Regardless, the awarding of the gold medal in mental gymnastics when this is all over is going to be a tough, tough call. Also, my general thoughts now when I hear anyone from the GOP speaking:
Jim Jordan's chewbacca defense still is rattling around in my head. He sounded like the guy from 'Pi' rambling about numbers. He confused Taylor and I think he confused himself. The most I could pick out was he was originally complaining that no one talked to Taylor about the aide extortion. The answer to that is pretty obvious - he clearly didn't have the President's ear. Sondland did. The Ukrainians definitely would have figured that out. So Taylor not knowing about it from internal folks is no surprise.
I’d be interested to know ratings for the hearings. My guess is they are dismal. I don’t think anyone is watching, at least not in numbers that would move the dial.
I also don’t understand the analysis that the GOP defense of Trump is going up in smoke. I thought the current defense was: “Yeah, so what? Not an impeachable offense. Quid pro quo happens all the time. Politics and foreign policy are routinely merged.”
I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t see how anything will come of this.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
Kurth wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:42 pm
I’d be interested to know ratings for the hearings. My guess is they are dismal. I don’t think anyone is watching, at least not in numbers that would move the dial.
I also don’t understand the analysis that the GOP defense of Trump is going up in smoke. I thought the current defense was: “Yeah, so what? Not an impeachable offense. Quid pro quo happens all the time. Politics and foreign policy are routinely merged.”
I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t see how anything will come of this.
Impeachment at this point is inevitable. But as long as Trump holds onto the GOP base, then he'll never get convicted in the Senate. I think Trump's defense in these proceedings is some mix of "hold onto the base" with a lot of crazy sprinkled in.
For the Democrats, I think part of it is keep hammering and hope that some of these seeps through to the GOP base, possibly putting removal in play (albeit with that being a long shot). But more realistically, establishing a record on this can keep independents away from the GOP in 2020.
The closed door hearings already moved the dial of public opinion. It would be quite surprising if public testimony playing out in news clips every night for the next month didn't have an effect.
And I agree with El Guapo - while it's unlikely this will result in Trump's removal, the Democrats are playing the long game and hoping the GOP's defense of Trump hurts them in the court of public opinion come election time.
Regardless of that, Congress has an obligation to put checks on executive power, especially when that power is being used to unfairly tip the scales in our election process. I don't think Schiff was being melodramatic - failure to do anything to stop this kind of Presidential abuse will fundamentally change the way our government operates from here on out. In short, rip the Constitution to shreds because it no longer means anything.
Last edited by YellowKing on Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If these guys lay out this story which is obvious corruption and people don't pay attention...well then screw it. We're dead in the long run anyway. Why should we expect these guys to act reasonably and not stuff their own pockets if no one cares when they get caught doing it red-handed? We can't expect them to not be scorpions. More and more good people don't get into politics. This is how corruption creeps in. Corruption breeds more corruption. It is why rule of law long-term is in serious danger here.
Last edited by malchior on Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:06 pm
I only heard a little over an hour (and at the end of the day) while driving this afternoon and my two takeaways were:
(1) The Republican members want so very badly to have the whistleblower identified - as if knowing his identity would somehow change the facts. There also seems to be a clear misunderstanding of what it means to be a whistleblower and how demanding this person is publicly paraded about defeats the point of being able to blow said whistle. But I digress, because they do indeed know that.
(2) There seems to be concerted effort on the part of the Republicans to paint this as a criminal investigation and that criminal investigations are not the purview of Congress. Therefore, this should be a matter handled entirely by the Justice Department. I wish I could remember who said it because it was hi-fucking-larious.
Regardless, the awarding of the gold medal in mental gymnastics when this is all over is going to be a tough, tough call. Also, my general thoughts now when I hear anyone from the GOP speaking:
It was pretty outlandish, but not as outlandish as it could be.
I have been checking in with the more conservative/pro-trump news outlets through out the day to see what was being reported or discussed regarding the hearings. As expected it felt as if I was reading remarks written on "Opposite Day", the comments section was just as surreal. This article, although focused only on FOX does a good job of summing it all up.
I am firmly convinced the hearings will ultimately amount to nothing, a small handful of folks may have their minds changed but not enough to matter one way or the other. My faith in humanity and the inherent good in people is all but evaporated and I believe there is a very strong possibility he will be re-elected.
"Don't touch my stuff when I'm dead...it's booytrapped!" - Bender Bending Rodriguez
Tao wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 3:08 am
I have been checking in with the more conservative/pro-trump news outlets through out the day to see what was being reported or discussed regarding the hearings. As expected it felt as if I was reading remarks written on "Opposite Day", the comments section was just as surreal. This article, although focused only on FOX does a good job of summing it all up.
I am firmly convinced the hearings will ultimately amount to nothing, a small handful of folks may have their minds changed but not enough to matter one way or the other. My faith in humanity and the inherent good in people is all but evaporated and I believe there is a very strong possibility he will be re-elected.
Depends on what you mean by "nothing". Odds are very, very high that he will be impeached but not removed. BUT honestly, if you told me that the sole result of these proceedings was that Trump would lose ~ 1 - 2 points off his long-term approval rating (given that he's already facing an uphill battle for reelection) and that it would better inform the media and independents about Trump's corruption, I would be pretty satisfied with that outcome.
Kurth wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:42 pm
I’d be interested to know ratings for the hearings. My guess is they are dismal. I don’t think anyone is watching, at least not in numbers that would move the dial.
I also don’t understand the analysis that the GOP defense of Trump is going up in smoke. I thought the current defense was: “Yeah, so what? Not an impeachable offense. Quid pro quo happens all the time. Politics and foreign policy are routinely merged.”
I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t see how anything will come of this.
Impeachment at this point is inevitable. But as long as Trump holds onto the GOP base, then he'll never get convicted in the Senate. I think Trump's defense in these proceedings is some mix of "hold onto the base" with a lot of crazy sprinkled in.
For the Democrats, I think part of it is keep hammering and hope that some of these seeps through to the GOP base, possibly putting removal in play (albeit with that being a long shot). But more realistically, establishing a record on this can keep independents away from the GOP in 2020.
My take on this entire thing is that DEMS know they can't get impeachment so they are trying to paint him as corrupt for the 2020 election and get him out that way.
While feeding all the beasties out back I let a nice big fart. The smell followed all the way back to the house. It's like it was my baby and felt abandoned.
An appeals court has denied for the second time President Donald Trump's attempt to stop an accounting firm from turning over his financial documents to the House, making it the second tax case Trump's lawyers say they are taking to the Supreme Court.
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals said on Wednesday that a panel of eight judges out of 11 voted against allowing Trump to continue his appeal.
...
Trump's attorney Jay Sekulow said Wednesday that they will appeal the decision to Supreme Court, noting "well reasoned dissent" from three judges to Wednesday's opinion.
...
And in yet another new filing in a third case Wednesday night, Trump's legal team asked a judge for a two-week buffer period if the US House asks for his tax returns through New York state. Congressional Democrats countered in that court filing that they'd like to write an argument this week responding to this request and have an in-person hearing before the judge makes a decision.
When the impeachment inevitably fails, I wonder if the GOP’s current ‘let the voters decide’ meme will work against them.
Many people will, I would think, be more likely to vote against Trump when it’s perfectly clear it’s only their vote that will stop him.
It certainly will hope mobilize the dem base in 2020, I would think. And the Trump Base may just be growing exhausted of defending everything at that point.
Let's be clear here. Impeachment is almost certainly going to happen. Pelosi has the votes or else they wouldn't have engaged. If by failed, you mean that the Senate doesn't vote to remove then what we need is to define where the failure occurred. That is the point ultimately.
If the Democrats play this right, the Dems will make a clear case for removal. If, the Republicans as pure *partisans* do not remove them it opens the GOP to an attack that they are putting party over country. And then the Dems should use that to bludgeon the heck out of purple state/vulnerable candidates.
That is probably the best outcome at this point. It shouldn't just be about Trump. It is an attack platform against the whole damn party. The other option would have been to ignore a clear cut case of abuse and completely demoralize the D base. Plus it is just the right thing to do from an ethical standpoint.
I live in SC. No one cares about this. It's a witch hunt and they are all perfectly happy voting for Trump again. The Dems are coming for their guns and will raise their taxes.
Trump is winning again. There is no stopping him short of removal.
stessier wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:16 pm
I live in SC. No one cares about this. It's a witch hunt and they are all perfectly happy voting for Trump again. The Dems are coming for their guns and will raise their taxes.
Trump is winning again. There is no stopping him short of removal.
That's SC. I don't expect anyone in the south to change their mind based on evidence, facts or science. BUT, the people in PA, WI, Michigan and maybe even Ohio could easily flip on Trump.
stessier wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:16 pm
I live in SC. No one cares about this. It's a witch hunt and they are all perfectly happy voting for Trump again. The Dems are coming for their guns and will raise their taxes.
Trump is winning again. There is no stopping him short of removal.
That's SC. I don't expect anyone in the south to change their mind based on evidence, facts or science. BUT, the people in PA, WI, Michigan and maybe even Ohio could easily flip on Trump.
I'm just giving a view that no one else seems to be giving. I hope you're right. I see no evidence for it though.
I am with you as I believe none of this matters, as it relates to convincing someone about what happened. Instead, all of this is simply about winning and all of illegal/immoral/unethical elements don't matter if your side "wins" in the end.
I would tend to agree with the idea that the impeachment isn't actually about removal from office at this point. Instead, it's trying to make sure Trump is hit with the spotlight during the election cycle with the hopes that it tugs away just enough support to make a difference. I fully believe a month from now any polls related to support or approval are going to maintain that ~30% deplorable floor.
stessier wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:16 pm
I live in SC. No one cares about this. It's a witch hunt and they are all perfectly happy voting for Trump again. The Dems are coming for their guns and will raise their taxes.
Trump is winning again. There is no stopping him short of removal.
That's SC. I don't expect anyone in the south to change their mind based on evidence, facts or science. BUT, the people in PA, WI, Michigan and maybe even Ohio could easily flip on Trump.
I'm just giving a view that no one else seems to be giving. I hope you're right. I see no evidence for it though.
Right, because everyone is correctly assuming that Trump will win South Carolina in 2020, unless he says that North Carolina barbecue is better or something. That tells us nothing about whether Trump will win the electoral college. On that Trump clearly has a shot, but it's more likely than not that he'll lose currently (though far from a slam dunk - I'd say right now that Trump has a ~ 40% shot at winning).
El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:35 pm
I'd say right now that Trump has a ~ 40% shot at winning).
I'd say 60%. Higher if Warren is the candidate. See you back here in a year.
I'm with you here though 60% is too high. Right now it is at early blush looking to be split in the battleground states - *if* a moderate is on the ticket. The problem is Biden isn't the fighter we need and Warren is probably too liberal *and is a woman*. Tying herself to medicare-for-all was a terrible idea. To be honest, there is no Obama right now. Every one of the leading candidates has major flaws. Which is infuriating to say the least.
That is why you have so many rumors about more moderates jumping into the fray. This isn't a time for Democrat wish lists. Sorry to say it but country over party here means driving down the center of the road and getting as much support as possible. This is unfortunately about survival and not a bright future. The Dem winner if they win steps into a basket case of a nation.
We need to be very realistic here and these fools are running a clown car against the ruin of a 2nd term. I totally get why people are losing hope. A lot of our fellow citizens are garbage idiots. Our system doesn't protect us from our worst natures. And it hurts that our nation would be a laughingstock if only but we weren't the heavily armed meth head beating up our friends. It is a terrible time line to be sure.
Pelosi with some serious shade for Trump: "If the president has something that is exculpatory -- Mr. President, that means you have anything that shows your innocence -- then he should make that known ... so far we haven't see that."
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
Here's how I would sum up everything I heard from Fox's prime time hosts: Wednesday's hearing was a bust. It was all just hearsay. It was a "disaster" for the Democrats and a "great day" for the Republicans. Impeachment is "stupid." Impeachment is "fake." There's nothing impeachable here. There's no reason to hold hearings. This inquiry needs to stop right now.
The message was one-sided and overwhelming. Every host and practically every guest said the Republican tribe is winning and the Democrat tribe is losing. I'm sure the president loved watching every minute of it. That's one of the reasons why this right-wing rhetoric matters so much -- because it is reassuring and emboldening Trump.
but what if, this is a misdirect. Pelosi knows that the impeachment will be voted down. No matter what, the GOP will vote it down. but thats not her actual goal. I know, there are plenty of arguments that its the duty to do the proceedings and such, but still, maybe thats not her actual goal.
What if her goal is to lay bare the actual facts to prove that the sitting president committed a crime. Not in the long form hundreds of pages like Mueller who said if a sitting president had committed a crime (wink) he wouldn't be able to do anything about it. But a short form, look everybody, here is a specific serious crime committed by this here specific sitting president and we heard from all these witnesses and have this evidence to show it.
Then take all that biz, and turn it over to the judicial branch, and let them declare, firmly and decisively, YES or NO can a sitting president be put on trial for crime?
Jaymon wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:15 pm
I don't post over here in R&P much
but what if, this is a misdirect. Pelosi knows that the impeachment will be voted down. No matter what, the GOP will vote it down. but thats not her actual goal. I know, there are plenty of arguments that its the duty to do the proceedings and such, but still, maybe thats not her actual goal.
What if her goal is to lay bare the actual facts to prove that the sitting president committed a crime. Not in the long form hundreds of pages like Mueller who said if a sitting president had committed a crime (wink) he wouldn't be able to do anything about it. But a short form, look everybody, here is a specific serious crime committed by this here specific sitting president and we heard from all these witnesses and have this evidence to show it.
Then take all that biz, and turn it over to the judicial branch, and let them declare, firmly and decisively, YES or NO can a sitting president be put on trial for crime?
I don't know how you would tee it up. Clearly Congress can't criminally indict the President (or anyone else). DoJ is not going to. In theory some state AG could try indicting the president based on what's laid out, but I think the argument for sitting presidential immunity from state prosecution is stronger than the argument for immunity from federal prosecution, so that's not ideal. In theory the House could file a motion asking courts to declare that the president can be indicted, but that doesn't seem likely to succeed.
And even if you could, the odds that this SCOTUS declares the sitting president criminally immune seem pretty high.
Co-conspirators to (1) Obstruction of Justice and (2) Use of Government to Harass a Political Opponent.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein "I don't stand by anything." - Trump “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867 “It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:26 pmAnd even if you could, the odds that this SCOTUS declares the sitting president criminally immune seem pretty high.
Yeah - I imagine them saying in effect impeach and remove if you want to pierce that protection.
A second official at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine overheard U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland's call with President Trump about the need for an investigation by Ukraine, The Associated Press reported Thursday, citing an unidentified source.
Kyiv-based foreign service officer Suriya Jayanti also overheard the call, the wire service reported, citing a person briefed on what Jayanti overheard.
...
Jayanti had been slated to testify last month in the inquiry, but the scheduling of her interview was among those shuffled after the death of House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.).
The AP reported that Jayanti has been in Kyiv since 2018 and helps facilitate coordination between the country's energy industry and U.S. business interests. She joined the State Department in 2012 and has also served at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq.
Jaymon wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:15 pm
I don't post over here in R&P much
but what if, this is a misdirect. Pelosi knows that the impeachment will be voted down. No matter what, the GOP will vote it down. but thats not her actual goal. I know, there are plenty of arguments that its the duty to do the proceedings and such, but still, maybe thats not her actual goal.
What if her goal is to lay bare the actual facts to prove that the sitting president committed a crime. Not in the long form hundreds of pages like Mueller who said if a sitting president had committed a crime (wink) he wouldn't be able to do anything about it. But a short form, look everybody, here is a specific serious crime committed by this here specific sitting president and we heard from all these witnesses and have this evidence to show it.
Then take all that biz, and turn it over to the judicial branch, and let them declare, firmly and decisively, YES or NO can a sitting president be put on trial for crime?
Not seeing it for criminal indictment pre-impeachment/voting out of office, but her goal is to lay bare the actual facts that that prove the President committed a crime and send it to the Senate. If/When the GOP Senate rules against Impeachment, use all of the above in the 2020 campaign. However, it *is* important that Roberts will also be acting as Judicial oversight for the Senate Trial, though I'm not so sure he has the same powers as a Judge would.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
