So, there can be no truth without anti-Trump rhetoric? I'm new to this argument, so if you've covered this earlier, then let me know and I'll go back and research. However, if you lie to me I'll ridicule you harshly.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
So, there can be no truth without anti-Trump rhetoric? I'm new to this argument, so if you've covered this earlier, then let me know and I'll go back and research. However, if you lie to me I'll ridicule you harshly.
You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role,” the politician said. “Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is aboutcleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
I've been talking about the phone call. Details of the phone call that wasn't publicly available were in the report. This was confirmed when Trump released the transcript of the call. This means one of three things. One, the whistle blower was in the room (he claims he wasn't). Two, he has sources that were in the room (that's what he is claiming). Three, Trump saw the report before it was released and decided to put out a fake transcript to match the report. I'll leave it up to you as to what you believe.So, there can be no truth without anti-Trump rhetoric? I'm new to this argument, so if you've covered this earlier, then let me know and I'll go back and research. However, if you lie to me I'll ridicule you harshly.
Assuming that you believe #1 or #2, that gives credibility to the report which merits further investigation of the rest of the claims. You can't say fake news when at least part of it is true.
Before the IG (a Trump appointee) sent the report to the DNI (a Trump appointee), he interviewed other people and found the report creditable and urgent. So, two Trump appointees have said that this is creditable and needs to be investigated.
I'm super curious to see the impact this has on the 2020 election. It's unprecedented for a President to be impeached in his first term so we have literally nothing to show what could happen in the eyes of the voters. We will speculate, but until it happens, it's just that.
Yes, a body with no honor or integrity will ‘cleanse’ the office of the executive. That’s funny.
I saw a poll yesterday that put support for an impeachment inquiry at close to 50% which is significantly higher than it was. It could definitely have an impact. I think it all depends on how quickly they can move this along. If this thing drags out, then I think it helps Trump. If it can be wrapped up by the end of the year, then it can hurt Trump. One person who definitely got screwed by this is Biden. He's been brought into the middle of this and it's not a good place for him to be. Bottom line, will it be Warren vs Trump or Warren vs Pence?
Dems would be better off getting Biden out of there but they don't really have a likable, electable candidate in their top 3. For a party that is supposed to be thinking about young people and minorities, their top candidates are all over 70 and white. Makes zero sense.
The only hope the dems have is that they get out and vote this time realizing that staying home cause their candidate is a bore is how trump won.
Yeah - you're right, but he didn't run for election in 1868 because the party (rightly) abandoned him so my point was more on the precedent of someone running for President after they've been impeached. It's never happened.
I've said before that running Biden would be a mistake, because him and Trump are very similar. Biden is just the PC version of Trump. They wouldn't be able to attack Trump because of that. The dems don't have very much to choose from though. Who out of the current group is actually electable? They are almost all way too far left. They might have some better candidates in 2024 (Newsom maybe?), but right now their options are pretty crappy. Trump might win for the second time just because the dem candidate is pathetic.
I think of the remaining candidates, Tulsi Gabbard would have the best chance at beating Trump. Relatively young, attractive female, pretty moderate compared to other candidates.
Trump attacking her would really backfire. She's surely more likable. But I think she's polling pretty low within the primary, and the establishment, swamp, is destined to make it be Biden or Warren or Sanders. Which is helpful IMO for Trump.
They should make Kennedy the future of that party and throw all their support into him for 2024. He's got the name and he actually seems pretty moderate.
Also agree above about Tulsi and I'd add in the mayor from South Bend, but he's too green right now.
Kennedy would never work. Americans have shown that they are tired of presidential political dynasties at this point. Tulsi and Buttigieg are irrelevant in politics and that makes them unelectable. Maybe they will be in 2032, but not now.
Dude. Kennedy is a different beast. That name is still revered in this country.
So in doing some reading of resources i consider non-biased
Using the power of the office for personal gain is impeachable. You could argue asking a foreign
Power to investigate someone who is the leading candidate to run against you in the next election would fall under that. Seems impossible to prove the motivation was that though without a smoking gun e mail or something.
Hiding the transcripts of the calls on a server they would normally never be on is impeachable. You would have to prove trump knew it though.
So def worth an “inquiry” into whether any proof exists of the above. But i doubt it exists. Trump is excellent at covering his tracks.
Using the power of the office for personal gain is impeachable. You could argue asking a foreign
Power to investigate someone who is the leading candidate to run against you in the next election would fall under that. Seems impossible to prove the motivation was that though without a smoking gun e mail or something.
Hiding the transcripts of the calls on a server they would normally never be on is impeachable. You would have to prove trump knew it though.
So def worth an “inquiry” into whether any proof exists of the above. But i doubt it exists. Trump is excellent at covering his tracks.
To prove definitively? You're right. However, when you combine it with withholding the money and the call being covered up it looks super shady at best. It's definitely enough for the dems to impeach him. Not enough for the GOP to convict though.
Agreed. From what I read though, it would be almost impossible for him not to know. Only a high ranking official has the authority to have it moved. When I say high ranking, I mean someone like his chief of staff or a cabinet member.
Couldn't disagree more. If he could cover his tracks, then this thread would only be about 3 pages long. No one would know who Robert Mueller is, no one would know who Stormy and Avenatti are, no one would know the Ukraine call happened, etc.
Someone needs to tell Hillary to shut up too. No one, not even her own party, cares what she thinks or says.
So the white house has released a statement saying that they moved the transcript to the secure system under the direction of the National Security Council attorneys. This means that they are admitting that it was in the incorrect system and it also confirms another accusation in the whistler blower report.
Imagine that! Legalized gambling and ham-stringing the entire economic system doesn't sit very well with the movers and shakers who profit from it on a constant basis!
She can't win without their money though. Trump has a big war chest and plenty of backers.
Eh. Bernie has revolutionized campaign finance. Still a ways to go but I think the argument can be made that Wall Street money is as much of a curse as a blessing now a days. You don’t need big donors if you have grassroots support.
Last edited:
From what I've read in that article, those proposals wouldn't help workers and would hurt small business owners. The focal point shouldn't be on corporations, it should be on people, but then that would actually affect the Dems in Congress and we wouldn't want that, now would we?
Some political stuff in this, so I'll put it here. Makes fun of both sides and it's pretty damn funny.
Maybe to win the primary, but you've got to have big money to win the presidential general election.
There’s a clear relationship between raising more money and winning an election. And up until now that’s meant big donors. It would be silly to even try to debate that. But I think the current trend towards populism could have an effect on the optimum fundraising strategy. If you can raise the same sum of money from a higher quantity of small donors then I would imagine that would be the better strategy, since there wouldn’t be any blowback about being a corporate sell out.
Until someone like Bernie or Warren gets nominated and tries this strategy in the general election we aren’t going to know. The DNC does not want either of them to be the nominee because they want that super PAC money to keep flowing.
Gabbard is in the next debate. I'm pleased to hear that. Small victories are okay.
If Bernie gets the nomination she should be a no-brainer for VP. It’s funny that people talk about her being more moderate when she backed Bernie and basically has the same platform as him.
We'll see if she endorses the eventual Democratic nominee.
Anyone who doesn’t endorse the nominee against trump will make themselves look like a moron. The worst democratic candidate would be ten times better than trump.
Your honor, I would like to introduce evidence A as to why the Democratic party is lost. In fact, I think the defense can rest its case at this point.
Did she really endorse Sanders last time? I doubt she came out in support of Hillary, but she may have, I dunno. I don't think she is obsessed with Trump as a lot of democrats seem to be.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Inside The Game: A Tale of Two Halves for Carolina in Win Over Flyers
- Latest: andrew jones