Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Jan 17 21:13:10 PST 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / Stain on Legacy
TJ
Member
Mon Dec 23 11:13:31
Fool me once fool me twice, surprise.

On December 19, 1998, Clinton became the second American president to be impeached.

He was paid $104.9 million for 542 speeches around the world between January 2001, when he left the White House, and January 2013, when Hillary stepped down as secretary of state, according to a Washington Post review of the family’s federal financial disclosures.

Although slightly more than half of his appearances were in the United States, the majority of his speaking income, $56.3 million, came from foreign speeches, many of them in China, Japan, Canada and the United Kingdom, the Post review found. One of those speeches reaped him $750k in China.

That is a huge nasty stain. Was that a Hillary quid pro quo? Was she selling her office while secretary of state? chuckle

How many of you wouldn't mind an equal stain on your legacy?
CrownRoyal
Member
Mon Dec 23 11:18:27
You finally talked yourself into being in peace with Donald being impeached, I see. Good for you, man. No more complaints
TJ
Member
Mon Dec 23 11:28:58
Funny, did anyone outside of politicians have a choice? Be at peace always with things you can't change. Bully for Bill. It isn't about me being at peace. It is about huge stains.
Rugian
Member
Mon Dec 23 11:33:42
TJ,

The problem with this comparison is that Trump made the massive error of siding against the global establishment during his campaign and presidency. Other than maybe an Sheldon Adelson type, why would the internationalist elites want to renumerste Trump for failing to shill their insidious ideologies?
Rugian
Member
Mon Dec 23 11:34:09
*renumerate
TJ
Member
Mon Dec 23 11:40:51
Rugian:

I've made no comparison. Clinton clearly had an advantage being an internationalist.

Did I mention Trump? It's not so strange how the mind works, eh
TJ
Member
Mon Dec 23 12:17:16
Maybe I should have titled the thread:

"Appearances"

Although possibly hostile, the appearance of neutrality was preserved to date. The Biden's are no different.

I wouldn't discuss Trump's legacy after impeachment and leaving office, because he could, by all indications, remain in office and possibly be reelected. If he is or not, then that will be a single note in his legacy. The remainder is unknown.
jergul
large member
Mon Dec 23 13:00:36
TJ
This is good. Losing the confidence of a legislature is a serious matter (and what is impeachment but the loss of house confidence?), but its not the end of America as we know it.

Clinton carried on. So will Trump.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Dec 23 13:10:35
it's easy to carry on when you don't do anything
TJ
Member
Mon Dec 23 13:32:07
jergul:

An impeachment has, that I know of, been suggested as being the end of America as we know it to be.

Yes, Clinton carried on and so will Trump. As far as I know that has never been in question. What is in question, since you mention, is how Trump will carry on and that is an unknown.

Realistically, losing the confidence of a legislature is a dual point of view. Sole powers and all that jazz.
Rugian
Member
Mon Dec 23 13:33:49
Jergul,

It looks like you just conflated the House of Representatives and the legislative branch. This is an incorrect understanding of our system of government.

In fairness, it's quite an easy mistake to make. Nancy Pelosi makes that same error on a constant basis.
Rugian
Member
Mon Dec 23 13:34:34
TJ,

You are clearly speaking to someone who isn't me here, so I'm bowing out. Happy hunting.
Rugian
Member
Mon Dec 23 13:42:37
TJ,

You are clearly speaking to someone who isn't me here, so I'm bowing out. Happy hunting.
TJ
Member
Mon Dec 23 13:43:35
I was speaking about everyone, which includes myself. Please don't bow out as all posts are welcome. I'm not a suppressor of speech.
jergul
large member
Mon Dec 23 13:46:15
Ruggy
The house of representatives is one of two legislative assemblies. The entire branch includes the senate of course.

TJ
My take is that Americans view impeachment as a curse from God. In reality, it is just a vote of no confidence.

How Trump carries on depends. He may want to avoid giving himself a heart-attack, so should probably mellow some.
TJ
Member
Mon Dec 23 13:53:56
jergul:

I believe your take is incorrect concerning impeachment being a curse of God. In reality it is a bias political vote of no confidence.
TJ
Member
Mon Dec 23 14:24:56
Rugian
Member Mon Dec 23 11:33:42
TJ,

The problem with this comparison is that Trump made the massive error of siding against the global establishment during his campaign and presidency. Other than maybe an Sheldon Adelson type, why would the internationalist elites want to enumerate Trump for failing to shill their insidious ideologies?

The only thing I disagreed with you on was that I hadn't made a comparison and not mentioned Trump. I agree with the remainder.

Threads never seem to stay on the subject of the OP. All of us drift into an abyss of interests. I don't look at that as a good or bad thing necessarily.
jergul
large member
Mon Dec 23 14:35:10
TJ
The objective basis for the vote of no confidence is very solid on the two articles Trump was impeached on.

I think it very clear the democratic leadership did not want to impeach him, and impeached him only on a very limited scope when it did.

You often say Trump does stuff to trigger people. Well, he finally triggered the House of Representatives (I have absolutely no doubt that the democratic caucus voted with its individual member's convictions).

The only practical problem with impeachment in modern times is the tarnish it leaves on a president's legacy. Which I referred to as a curse from God.

Don't turn this into a hate crime.
TJ
Member
Mon Dec 23 14:43:30
jergul->You often say Trump does stuff to trigger people.

No, I've said it only once.

j->.Don't turn this into a hate crime.

Don't stretch this particular bias into a hate crime.

A political wound(stain as you call it) doesn't necessarily mean it is always a bad thing depending on view. Politically wound me like Clinton. snickering
Borthas
Member
Mon Dec 23 14:44:14
It's pretty clear Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors before becoming President as well as in office. This isn't about politics or left/right.
TJ
Member
Mon Dec 23 14:52:20
And convicted of none, as of yet. Doesn't mean he won't when he leaves office though. If it is pretty clear before he took office why hadn't he been indicted. Different laws for different people, maybe?
TJ
Member
Mon Dec 23 14:54:16
I should have said: why hadn't he been indicted and convicted
Borthas
Member
Mon Dec 23 14:57:44
Because economic crimes are rarely punished or investigated to the same level as violent crime.
TJ
Member
Mon Dec 23 15:03:34
I'm not sure that plenty of economic crimes haven't been severely punished. I'm sure I could find plenty if I was interested. Plenty of crimes go unpunished and plenty have been punished without committing crimes. But I'll take your word as worthy.
Habebe
Member
Mon Dec 23 15:11:38
My defense of Trump on this issue is largely due to my my belief that in the US due process is in a sad state.

In Montgomery County PA I remember a story of a man arrested for five years fighting his case for stabbing his wife to death. Everyone knew he did it he was caught with the bloody knife and his wife's body wrapped up in a sheet.

The problem was the cops never got a earrant nor did they have reasonable cause to search his house.Thus all of this evidence is fruit from the poison tree. As such imo he should have been released immediately. Instead they continued a sham imprisonment and trial eventually finding him not guilty.

My point is not to compare these two cases but to point out that the us judicial system is anything but just as we tend to not actually follow the law as much as " well we know he did it, find a way to get him" sort of mentality.

I have been accused on this very forum years ago of placing greater importance on the process than finding out the actual guilt/ innocence. Which is true, I thinknits a slippery slope to add in as a matter of presidence " well we know he did it". If that isnthe case we might as well arrest random people especially peoplenof color in bad neighborhoods cause come on, they probably did something illegal.
TJ
Member
Mon Dec 23 15:24:09
I'm not in defense of Trump. I'm for due process and those found to be guilty should pay the price.

On the other hand a good number of people pay a price while actually being found innocent after serving years in prison for a crime they didn't commit.

Nothing is perfect, not even Trump's phone call. Politics in general, my opinion, is not an ethical profession.
TJ
Member
Mon Dec 23 15:57:05
Punished finical crimes. There are probably a lot more that were less publicized in previous decades. I wouldn't disagree that many are never caught and punished. Some pretty heavy hitters in the list.

Paul Manifort
Bernie Madoff
Samuel Israel and Daniel Marnio
Marc Dreier
Kenneth Lay
Scott Rothstein
Richard Scrushy
Tom Petters
R. Allen Stanford
Jérôme Kerviel
Bernie Ebbers

jergul
large member
Mon Dec 23 16:37:45
habebe
So basically, you want to make an example of Trump in an impeachment process to protest the sad state of affairs within the criminal justice system?

We know he did obstruct congress and we know he did solicit a quid-pro-quo.

We know enough at least to impeach him in what is ultimately a job dismissal process.

TJ
I don't think listing names will prove anything. 2.5 million people are under arrest, awaiting trail, being tried, are in jail, or are on parole.

A few dozen names out of that number does not undermine Borthas' point.
TJ
Member
Mon Dec 23 16:45:31
jergul:

I'm not attempting to undermine anyone and nothing you have said has undermined what I've posted.

Should I point out that you don't think when you are thinking? :)
Habebe
Member
Mon Dec 23 16:46:32
Jergul, No, there is no proof. There is suspicion. Reasinable doubt? Absolutely. A preponderance of evidence to convict? Absolutley not.

The president of the Ukraine has said there was no quid pro quo.He also said there was no pressure.

On recordings Trump never states qpc. As a matter of fact there is him stating the exact opposite.

Could this be him being sly about it? Yes. But no proof.
Habebe
Member
Mon Dec 23 16:49:57
I also find it very telling that the Democrats polled battle gound states on the use of the term " quid pro quo" or "bribery"

Then they all started calling it Bribery, however he was not charged as such because they know the legal charge could not be proven.
TJ
Member
Mon Dec 23 16:51:29
A question for you: Don't you think that I don't think that all crimes are economic crimes? That wasn't the point of listing names individually that committed huge economic crimes.
jergul
large member
Mon Dec 23 17:26:04
TJ
If you list names, then it is fair to assume you meant it as a contradiction to the point Borthas was making.

Habebe
Let me rephrase. There is sufficient evidence to impeach. To convict? Well, perhaps the Senate should wait for Supreme Court rulings that are relevant to obstruction of Congress.

It would have been nice to have a full transcript of Trump's conversations, but since those are not available, then it is fair to rely on witness testimony as evidence.

Remember if you will that dismissal is what is at stake here. Trump will get fired if his bosses (by way of representative democracy) decide that there is enough evidence to fire him.

They already decided there was enough evidence to impeach him.

What incidentally is your general position on evidence required to fire someone?
jergul
large member
Mon Dec 23 17:30:30
Trump would be the briber in that scenario. Not the one recieving the bribe.

TJ
Member
Mon Dec 23 17:42:23
jergul:

Assume at will.

Isn't it fair to set the parameters of fairness upfront? If you think it is fair to assume, then we disagree. Rarity as well.
jergul
large member
Mon Dec 23 17:51:02
Sigh.

No one here is posting thesis quality statements profuse with clearly defined context.

We all assume. Sometimes more fairly than others.

You might want to be clearer on the purpose of posting a list of names if it was important to you that people did not assume you meant there is a form of balance between convictions for financial crimes and other types of convictions.
TJ
Member
Mon Dec 23 17:58:36
jergul:

On a side note. They having already decided doesn't get him convicted of a crime. Pelosi is abusing her power of office as well as obstructing the legislative process(Congress) by not sending the articles to the Senate. She is attempting to apply leverage she doesn't possess. You know, sole power of impeachment and sole power of conviction. The Judiciary spectacle had the opportunity to do what they want the Senate to do presently. They should have done it when it was in their hands to do.

Oh wait, it was an emergency to get Trump out of office and now that rush is exposed for what it actually was, political. It is ok for Borthas to disagree on that point. It doesn't mean I don't respect for him as a person.
TJ
Member
Mon Dec 23 18:02:29
Like I said all crimes have an economic impact. That is something everyone should know. At all levels I think we can "assume" more get away than are convicted.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Dec 23 18:33:48
"Oh wait, it was an emergency to get Trump out of office and now that rush is exposed for what it actually was, political"

no... if they wanted to drag it out (as kargen said they were doing) they could've done the witnesses A LOT slower plus done the court waiting that R's now say should've been done

plus Mitch & Lindsey have indicated they just want a sham trial so urgency isn't relevant... if they can force public opinion to want to see the witnesses & docs Trump is hiding (as EVERYONE should, absolutely no one has heard a legitimate reason for holding aid in testimony) then it's worth some waiting


and as far as i can tell, the Senate isn't being held up at all, they have to layout the rules, it doesn't require the articles sent over to do so & they haven't agreed to those rules yet
Forwyn
Member
Mon Dec 23 18:34:35
"It's pretty clear Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors before becoming President as well as in office."

Being a retard isn't a high crime and/or misdemeanor
Dukhat
Member
Mon Dec 23 18:49:42
Wow, truly fucking deranged reactionary thinking.

Cuckservatives are so sad.
Forwyn
Member
Mon Dec 23 19:01:21
Indeed, the leftist REEEEing for a return to the moderate neoliberal status quo is sad.
Habebe
Member
Mon Dec 23 19:11:25
Jergul, For firing a legally elected official?

I don't know to be honest. No potus has ever been kicked out of office and let's face it FDR was way worse in terms of power grabbing than any potus that I know of.
Dukhat
Member
Mon Dec 23 19:52:53
Proving my point. Cuckservatives don't stand for anything anymore, just against "liberuls." That's why they are so easy to manipulate with facebook ads and the kleptocrats that run the GOP.

Useful pawns that act against their own long-term interests.

And lol at the "libertarian" being against neoliberalism. A real libertarian loves international markets. Calling himself a libertarian was just for show. Foreskin simply spends too much time in far-right echo chambers to end up nothing more than another dumbass reactionary.
TJ
Member
Mon Dec 23 20:05:55
Dukhat:

Freedom of speech is a pretty amazing privilege, wouldn't you agree?
jergul
large member
Tue Dec 24 01:17:22
TJ
Nothing the house or senate can do will convict Trump of a crime. It is not a criminal process.

The process does not provide him with immunity from criminal convictions at a later date.

Forwyn
Just like Clinton and to some degree Nixon, the coverup is worse than the initial matter of concern.

Trump did obstruct Congress and provided absolutely no justification for doing so (he has not invoked executive privilege).

Habebe
No. For leading his administration in such a way that left ample evidence and witnesses to testify that the Ukraine was under pressure to provide Trump with a personal benefit before aid it needed to face down Russia would be provided.

But the main thing is obstruction of Congress. Which is indisputable and unjustified.

Both Nixon and Clinton got into a huge amount of trouble when they did provide Congress with the input it requested.
Habebe
Member
Tue Dec 24 02:19:11
(Nixon/Clinton in trouble?) Really? What exactly was a huge amount of trouble? Who administered this punishment and under what authority?

Also I feel like you answered questions that I didn't ask I think there was a little confusion.

You asked me about what evidence imo was required to impeach.

I took that as a general statement.

I replied that I didn't really know, but to clarify Im also not sure what I find as an impeachable offense.

In Trumps case even if he did what he is accused of, honestly I don't think it shook the pillars of democracy.

But I would apply the same level as it takes for a criminal conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
jergul
large member
Tue Dec 24 03:29:46
Habebe
Nixon ultimately lost his support in the Senate over the release of white house tapes. Not least because of the excessive use of profanities and blatant bigotry.

He faced not only impeachment, but also conviction because of this. So he resigned.

Clinton was not impeached for impropriety. He was impeached for lying and otherwise obstructing Congress.

Obstruction of congress does shake the pillars of democracy.

You would apply that for conviction, or for impeachment?

Your constitution is structured in a way that implies that conviction requires beyond reasonable doubt, while impeachment requires a lower standard of evidence (supermajority in one case, simple majority in the other).

I think I find the use of the presidential office to destroy political opponents a pretty clear impeachable offence.

Which ultimately is what dirt on Biden was supposed to do.
jergul
large member
Tue Dec 24 03:38:29
http://edi...stimony-white-house/index.html
Forwyn
Member
Tue Dec 24 07:50:28
"And lol at the "libertarian" being against neoliberalism. A real libertarian loves international markets."

Lol @ Cuckhat. There's a difference between less trade barriers, and supranational bureaucratic regimes with unified regulatory standards.
jergul
large member
Tue Dec 24 07:53:56
Here is a smoking gun Trump was looking for.

"Washington (CNN)Roughly 90 minutes after President Donald Trump spoke to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25, Trump's political appointees at the White House's budget office were already ordering the Pentagon to freeze security funding for Ukraine, newly released government documents show.

"Based on guidance I have received and in light of the Administration's plan to review assistance to Ukraine, including the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, please hold off on any additional DoD obligations of these funds, pending direction from that process," Mike Duffey, the White House official in the Office of Management and Budget responsible for overseeing national security money and a Trump political appointee, wrote to select OMB and Pentagon officials on July 25.
Duffey's email suggests that he knew the hold could raise concerns.

"Given the sensitive nature of the request, I appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute direction," Duffey said.

While a formal notification would be sent later that day, this was the first clear sign that the aid was being held -- a short time after the phone call in which Trump pressed Zelensky for investigations that could boost Trump politically."

More@ http://edi...kraine-aid-timeline/index.html
TJ
Member
Tue Dec 24 11:01:51
jergul:

j->TJ
"Nothing the house or senate can do will convict Trump of a crime. It is not a criminal process."

"The process does not provide him with immunity from criminal convictions at a later date."

That has been excessively established and an example of your tendency with redundancy.

The Senate can convict the President of the Articles, but they won't because this impeachment has been a politically bias process. It is unfortunate that the House chose the rules and process that they did or this could have turned out much differently.

The US President has the power to withhold aid to other countries. He has the power to set the agenda. This isn't about withholding aid, it is about Biden and his son linked to Burisma and it won't be forgotten. There is no other reason than the name Biden. The left has been working on a way to get rid of Trump since before he was elected and that doesn't seem to be in question.

The US and every country consistently applies quid quo pro's. It is just a quid quo pro that the left doesn't like. Policy issues. Just to curl toes, Trump has the same Executive power in a Senate trial if he chooses to invoke.

Let me make this clear: I didn't agree with Clinton's morality and I don't agree with Trump's morality, but neither IMO, were or are impeachable offenses. Nixon's was, he knew it and resigned.

We the people, according to the Constitutional process, will decide if he is reelected or not.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Dec 24 11:43:07
"The US President has the power to withhold aid to other countries. He has the power to set the agenda."


not entirely... this was the law Mulvaney was worried about in his confession (that Sandy from OMB also testified about):

"
The Impoundment Control Act, as Van Hollen pointed out, sets out "narrow circumstances" under which the executive branch may withhold funds. Congress must be notified if funds are to be withheld, and no notification was given to Congress, said Van Hollen.
"

-----------------

"This isn't about withholding aid"

i disagree, that's how it becomes an impeachable abuse of power rather than a regular abuse of power like the White House meeting quid pro quo

-----------------

"it is about Biden"

speaking of which, -1 hour- before the call Trump was tweeting about a Fox poll... the same Fox poll that showed Biden w/ a commanding lead in primaries & a 10 point lead over Trump


and how are R's not curious about that OMB email 90 minutes after the call?... what prompted it... what were the secret details...

instead they just want to completely LIE about the FBI, & falsely smear the FBI's reputation worse than they did w/ the IRS

so disgusting
Tj
Member
Tue Dec 24 11:54:46
TW:

I take it you didn't watch Horowitz's testimony on his report did you? I'm not talking about when he first presented his report. If you missed, it can be viewed on cspan.

http://www...es-origins-fbis-russia-inquiry
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Dec 24 12:04:15
i was referring to this total bullshit by GOP Leader McCarthy:

(the video has even more bullshit than the excerpt he typed)
http://twitter.com/GOPLeader/status/1208818029578137602

& i'll safely guess Fox News didn't call him a lying piece of shit & is instead pushing those same claims on their 90%+ Trump propaganda opinion show content.

if those claims are in your 2 hour video (i'm CERTAIN they are NOT) then direct me to the timestamps...
(yes, i'm aware all his questions weren't answered to his satisfaction)

he should be censured... & executed
Tj
Member
Tue Dec 24 12:16:52
Your interest is less than adequate if you wish to be fully in the know. Put in the work necessary to be fully aware. I don't give two sheets in the wind what anyone says on twitter, face book, or any other such media whether left or right. I don't use such social media outlets. I don't have an account on any of them.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Dec 24 12:24:09
are you claiming what McCarthy said is in the IG report (or his testimony)?

tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Dec 24 12:33:11
"
We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations.

We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page.
"
~ IG report

weird things to put in a document concluding a criminal coup attempt...

also how exactly would a corrupt FISA on Carter Page help bring down Trump?

but i await the heaps of arrests

Tj
Member
Tue Dec 24 12:35:57
The only thing I have claimed is to be fully aware to date that you watch the link I presented. 100% of it.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Dec 24 12:39:15
let's just pretend i watched all 2 hours & i didn't find what McCarthy said in it as i DEFINITELY will not

also, i won't hear this shit:

http://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1209539919997091840

why you aren't outraged is beyond me... or maybe you silently are
Tj
Member
Tue Dec 24 12:44:52
I don't pretend. What don't you understand in my Dec 24 12:16:52 post?
Tj
Member
Tue Dec 24 12:52:36
"weird things to put in a document"

Not at all when you understand the limitations of Horowitz's purview power. He has said that his report does not vindicate anyone who touched the Mueller investigation.

It wasn't weird at all. I've said nothing about a coup and neither did he in his testimony. It is up to you if you watch or not.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Dec 24 13:02:44
i don't know what we're arguing about

i said what McCarthy/Trump/Fox News opinion shows are claiming is all TOTAL bullshit, & you seem to agree (or don't disagree) or whatever weird middle ground you walk that seems to lean toward Trump defenses

it is wholly unacceptable for them to be making these claims (especially Trump as President)

if R's actually cared about the FISA concerns they wouldn't be completely lying about the report's conclusions pretending it backs up all of Trump's total lies & saying that the FBI was clearly out to get him

Tj
Member
Tue Dec 24 13:07:44
I'm not arguing, I'm suggesting you watch the Horowitz testimony to be fully up to date on the Mueller investigation. I'm not responsible for what anyone says, hell, anyone can say anything.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Dec 24 13:20:54
i'm satisfied w/ my knowledge (& technically that report wasn't about Mueller)

and i'm satisfied Trump is wholly unfit for office & that R's are becoming more & more disgusting as they emulate him

absolutely no one should find the total bullshit he spews on a regular basis acceptable

plus the danger of Fox News is now alarmingly clear
TJ
Member
Tue Dec 24 13:28:43
I've never doubted in how you've satisfied yourself and I don't care what you think about Trump. I've posted a link about the Crossfire investigation, not Mueller.

There are more episodes on the horizon. Suit yourself.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Dec 24 13:38:01
i said R's were lying about the FBI (& THEY ARE)

you responded w/ a link to IG testimony so seemed to imply you were disagreeing... but you don't seem to be ('coup' is said by McCarthy in that clip... 'broke into' 'coup' 'dirty cops' 'cover up' 'watergate'... those all imply corrupt criminal activity targeting Trump that has NOT been demonstrated)

you are waiting for more reports, fine... at the moment what they are saying is total UNACCEPTABLE bullshit

you claim you don't trust various places & do your own research, but i guarantee you plenty watch Fox News & believe what they hear

TJ
Member
Tue Dec 24 14:08:47
People have a strong tendency to listen to their preferred leaning.

What I didn't say was that anyone isn't lying. Again suit yourself.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Dec 24 15:04:23
well, Trump, Republicans & his propaganda team at Fox making a significant portion of the public believe the FBI is politically biased, corrupt & attempts coups is quite awful & worthy of speaking out against

plus all the other made-up BS Trump claims... he dumbs down the public daily, it's not defensible

let's await him lying & downplaying whatever N Korea about to do (not referring to him suggesting they might give us a nice vase, i mean after it occurs... if something occurs)
Habebe
Member
Wed Dec 25 03:27:12
Jergul, "
But the main thing is obstruction of Congress. Which is indisputable and unjustified.

Both Nixon and Clinton got into a huge amount of trouble when they did provide Congress with the input it requested"

Habebe-"Nixon/Clinton in trouble?) Really? What exactly was a huge amount of trouble? Who administered this punishment and under what authority?"

"Nixon ultimately lost his support in the Senate over the release of white house tapes. Not least because of the excessive use of profanities and blatant bigotry."
"

So This huge amount of trouble that Nixon got into for obstructing justice was not legal trouble but from public opinion...Trumps number have gotten better during impeachment, not drastically nationwide but noticeable.

As far as the Senate goes he has Huge support.

As for Clinton I should point out it was Perjury which is much worse than a simple lie its lying under oath....but again in context he was lying to cover the fact that he was getting head from chubby chicks...again not shaking the pillars imho...

Back to trump for arguments sake lets say for a minute that he baited in the Ukraine with a husky aid deal and then implied you'll get this as soon as you announce your investigating a highly corrupt company of which my likley opponents son worked for.

Meh, doesn't do it for me. Biden/ son were definitley doing something wrong, even it was just nepotism ( totally legal)

And Burisma was so corrupt that Obama/ Biden had wanted it looked into.

Were about to give away a lot of money, is it wrong to ask to recipients of CHARITY of such a magnitude to look into corrupt shit going down that said charity could get wasted on...i say no....if it also happens to be his political rival should he ignore thenwrong doing solely because the guy is running for President or has a relative that is?
jergul
large member
Wed Dec 25 04:59:24
Habebe
He got into political trouble and lost his support in the Senate. Not for obstructing justice, but for releasing the tapes as he had to do to avoid obstructing justice.

Yes, the GOP has gone all cult of personality. Had you not noticed?

The point is that there is precedent to providing Congress with the input it requires. Despite the high cost paid for obliging Congress.

Congress allocated the funds. Trump wanted to withold it until Ukraine announced it was investigating the Bidens.

If you are fine with a president using his office to find dirt on political opponents, then nothing anyone says of finds out will ever change your mind on Trump.

The leader can do no wrong.
jergul
large member
Wed Dec 25 05:02:03
1. The leader is allowed to keep evidence hidden

2. The leader cannot be challenged until all evidence is found.

Quite the iron-tight defence there. Unbreakable.
jergul
large member
Wed Dec 25 05:11:46
http://pro...proval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

May as well keep it for reference.

LBJ is the only president close to Trump's low approval ratings (44.1 to Trump's 42.7)

We know LBJ chose not to run for a 2nd full term.
TJ
Member
Wed Dec 25 12:04:45
Polls are not predictive, at least not in the 2016 Election.

It has been reported that it takes as many as 20 attempts before you can complete an interview with someone willing to spend 15 minutes on the telephone.

The 2016 Election was an eye opener.

Pollsters wildly underestimated the number of hidden Trump voters — people who stampeded to the ballot box on Election Day but never showed up on the radar of surveyors.

According to USA Today, The Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California tracking poll consistently pegged Trump as the leader throughout the final months of the campaign — and to much derision from political pundits.

Arie Kapteyn, director of the University of Southern California’s (USC) Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research, which jointly runs the poll, said some voters were apparently sheepish about admitting to a human pollster that they were backing Trump. But the L.A. Times/USC poll was based on an internet survey of a recruited group of voters.
jergul
large member
Wed Dec 25 12:42:22
Interesting that you should mention that. I use 538 for a reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight

"The final prediction by FiveThirtyEight on the morning of election day (November 8, 2016) was at 10:41AM and had Hillary Clinton with a 71% chance to win the 2016 United States presidential election,[64] while other major forecasters had predicted Clinton to win with at least an 85% to 99% probability.[65][66] FiveThirtyEight's model pointed to the possibility of an Electoral College-popular vote split widening in final weeks based on both Clinton's small lead in general polls, but also on Trump's improvement in swing states like Florida or Pennsylvania, mixed with Clinton's poor performing in several of those swing states in comparison with Obama's performance in 2012.[67] The main issues pointed out by the forecast model was the imbalance of Clinton's improvement in very populated states like Texas, Georgia (projected safe for Republican) and California (projected safe for Democrats);[67] mixed with her inability to attract white voters without a college degree, an increasing demographic in swing states, in addition to a potential decline in turnout from minorities.[68] In consequence, Clinton's probabilities to win the Electoral College were not improving.[67] Silver also focused on state-by-state numbers in so-called 'must-win' states like Ohio and Florida, plus a consideration of polls' margin of error in advantages of less than three points.[69]

Donald Trump won the election. FiveThirtyEight projected a much higher probability of Donald Trump winning the presidency than other pollsters,[65] a projection which was criticized by Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post as "unskewing" too much in favor of Trump.[70] And while FiveThirtyEight expressed that "nonetheless, Clinton is probably going to win, and she could win by a big margin", the forecaster also made a point about the unreliability of poll trackers in some cases, about a considerable number of undecided voters and about the unpredictable outcome in traditional swing states"

=================

Poor polling provides motive for using the office to dig up dirt on a political opponent.

In a traditional motive-means-opportunity analysis.
TJ
Member
Wed Dec 25 13:00:33
Hillary was sure she had the election in her box and prematurely had an organism. It was obviously a disturbing experience for her.
jergul
large member
Wed Dec 25 13:19:18
I am sure she was disappointed. Hubris is a common flaw. Even when supported by polling that was weighed wrong.

I saw Clinton with her daughter on a British talkshow recently. Both seemed well-rounded and in good form.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share