U.S. Politics

[Straggler]

1 hour ago, villakram said:

51% is polling error land or have you forgotten Brexit and 2016 already.

Evidence, but evidence of what?  The testimonies of the Dem legal experts yesterday were invoking many, many things. The Clinton/Obama voting Rep legal expert had the opposite opinion when focussing on the impeachment charges. Afterwards, unwanted focus was being placed on the "joke" by one of the Dem experts that invoked Trump's 13yr old child instead of the content of their testimonies.

Regarding evidence, Zelensky is quite insistent that a quid pro quo never happened or was offered for example.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/02/ukrainian-president-zelensky-grievances-trump-074755

“Look, I never talked to the president from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing,” he said, in some of his most extensive comments to date on the current political storm.

The Senate shows no sign whatsoever of budging, the republicans in the house also. This is all politics.

Evidence of impeachable offenses.

Many of them.

https://intelligence.house.gov/report/

Quote

As this report details, the impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection.  In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump conditioned official acts on a public announcement by the new Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, of politically-motivated investigations, including one into President Trump’s domestic political opponent.  In pressuring President Zelensky to carry out his demand, President Trump withheld a White House meeting desperately sought by the Ukrainian President, and critical U.S. military assistance to fight Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine. 

The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his own presidential reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political rival, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage.  In doing so, the President placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.

You don't need to read the whole 300 pages of evidence, the executive summary does exactly what it is supposed to do, but if you want to get into the weeds of the evidence it is all in there in the long version.  If you still cannot see the evidence having read the report then you are willfully blind.  It is bullet proof.

Zelensky is the victim of Trumps extortion and still relies on funds and military supplies that come from the USA.  He is hardly in a position to throw Trump under the bus whilst Trump still holds power.  However even in the article you quoted Zelensky complains about being used as a pawn in a political game when he is in desperate need of a strong ally.....

As to the Clinton/Obama voting expert you are extolling the virtues of (I'm assuming you are referring to Jonathan Turley as his statements are the only ones that match), you conveniently left out the fact he was the only one that was called by the Republicans to give evidence.  Is it also a coincidence that he also gave evidence at the exact same part of the Clinton impeachment where he made an argument that directly contradicts everything he said this time, again at the request of the Republican party?

Jonathan Turley 180

Quote

Turley was one of four legal experts — and the only one invited by the Republicans — who testified in the House Judiciary Committee's first public impeachment hearing about Trump.

While the other witnesses laid out the case that Trump abused his power by trying to strong-arm Ukraine into caving to his personal demands while withholding vital military aid and a White House meeting, Turley argued there was no evidence that Trump broke a specific federal statute and that impeaching him would set a dangerous precedent.

But 20 years ago, Turley made the opposite case. At the time, he was one of several GOP legal analysts pushing for President Bill Clinton to be impeached and removed from office.

"If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct," Turley testified in 1998 during Clinton's impeachment hearings. He added that Clinton's actions didn't need to break any laws in order to be considered impeachable conduct.

The evidence is there that Trump committed impeachable offenses.  The public will is there, the polls support this process. The Senate will almost certainly not actually impeach Trump, but only because the Republicans have abdicated their constitutional duties.

You are very good at regurgitating Republican talking points.  The problem with them is that they all melt in the face of the facts.

[jackbauer24]

We are in a new age of politics and power. Truth and law is largely irrelevant. The US got there first and the UK follows close behind.

This whole process is almost certainly a waste of time, you're asking a corrupt group to self-police and that just won't happen regardless of any amount of evidence. The last hope is for the public to respond in elections...

...however, evidence suggests (certainly on this side of the pond) that even that is unlikely. People are now too easily swayed by 'fake news', spin by newspapers and snappy catch phrases rather than putting any effort in to researching often complex issues. It's depressing how easy it is to 'con' the masses with lies and then even more worrying that it is just as easy to convince that same public that those decisions weren't yours in the first place despite any evidence the contrary.

Both in the US and here, the majority of people will get what they deserve. We're an ever decreasing step from returning to the politics of rotton boroughs.

[Ingram85]

The biggest problem in the UK imo is apathy. I think a lot of people are realising that whatever they vote for they are still going to get shit pay and never get close to the high quality of life the elite and those in charge flaunt in out faces. 

The shit thing is, the vast majority would simply settle for fair pay, working conditions and a good standard of work/life balance with visible/tangible improvements in the standards of living. The bastards running the show dont want us to have it while keeping things fantastic for themselves and corrupt friends at the top. Why vote for or take part in a system that no matter who is in charge is only designed to ever keep the masses down.

[villakram]

1 hour ago, Straggler said:

Evidence of impeachable offenses.

Many of them.

https://intelligence.house.gov/report/

You don't need to read the whole 300 pages of evidence, the executive summary does exactly what it is supposed to do, but if you want to get into the weeds of the evidence it is all in there in the long version.  If you still cannot see the evidence having read the report then you are willfully blind.  It is bullet proof.

Zelensky is the victim of Trumps extortion and still relies on funds and military supplies that come from the USA.  He is hardly in a position to throw Trump under the bus whilst Trump still holds power.  However even in the article you quoted Zelensky complains about being used as a pawn in a political game when he is in desperate need of a strong ally.....

As to the Clinton/Obama voting expert you are extolling the virtues of (I'm assuming you are referring to Jonathan Turley as his statements are the only ones that match), you conveniently left out the fact he was the only one that was called by the Republicans to give evidence.  Is it also a coincidence that he also gave evidence at the exact same part of the Clinton impeachment where he made an argument that directly contradicts everything he said this time, again at the request of the Republican party?

Jonathan Turley 180

The evidence is there that Trump committed impeachable offenses.  The public will is there, the polls support this process. The Senate will almost certainly not actually impeach Trump, but only because the Republicans have abdicated their constitutional duties.

You are very good at regurgitating Republican talking points.  The problem with them is that they all melt in the face of the facts.

1) I quite clearly outlined that he was the Rep voice testifying.

 2) The American imperial presidency is important. A precedent would be set by impeaching the president for the behavior outlined in the report, nowhere in which, is explicit evidence of a quid-pro-quo provided. They are not going to impeach a president for this as it would potentially constrain the presidency going forward. Remember, in US politics, foreign affairs are essentially the exclusive purview of the president. Yes, there's the obvious R vs D stuff going on here, but there's a bigger picture too.

You can claim that all I'm doing is regurgitating republican talking points, but then you're a pot. Not helpful.

 

 

[TheAuthority]

Page 666 on the day he gets impeached

[peterms]

 

[maqroll]

Dems and MAGAs both digging in their heels. Expect the worst.

[Straggler]

10 hours ago, villakram said:

1) I quite clearly outlined that he was the Rep voice testifying.

 2) The American imperial presidency is important. A precedent would be set by impeaching the president for the behavior outlined in the report, nowhere in which, is explicit evidence of a quid-pro-quo provided. They are not going to impeach a president for this as it would potentially constrain the presidency going forward. Remember, in US politics, foreign affairs are essentially the exclusive purview of the president. Yes, there's the obvious R vs D stuff going on here, but there's a bigger picture too.

You can claim that all I'm doing is regurgitating republican talking points, but then you're a pot. Not helpful.

 

 

You have conveniently moved the goal posts again. There does not need to be a quid-pro-quo for Trump to have committed impeachable offenses. It is yet another Republican talking point that has been rebutted many times, including in the report I provided. There is also ample evidence of a quid-pro-quo as unnecessary as it is to provide it.

As to restricting the president and future ones with the impeachment. It is not the actions now that are trying to restrict Trump it is the enforcement of the constitution. The constitution does indeed give the President almost unfettered ability to persue foreign policy. It does however insist that the policy be on behalf of the American people. Trump was and is still using the office of the president and all the power that comes with it for his own personal gain at the expense of the USA. Stopping a president from doing this now only restricts future ones from flouting the constitution, which is exactly what impeachment is for.

Unless you think the Trump should be allowed to use his office in this way. I mean if you are cool with what he has done then by all means say so.

Also your definition of quite clearly differs significantly from mine.

 

[bickster]

11 hours ago, villakram said:

1) I quite clearly outlined that he was the Rep voice testifying.

Do you deliberately miss out words and sentences when reading? The important bits were ONLY and evidence that contradicts his own testimony in a previous impeachment hearing

[StefanAVFC]

I would argue that the 'Presidency was restricted' when Clinton was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob.

[peterms]

US press publishes drawings and descriptions of mediaeval torture techniques used by US forces in their illegal secret prisons.

Quote

One shows the prisoner nude and strapped to a crude gurney, his entire body clenched as he is waterboarded by an unseen interrogator. Another shows him with his wrists cuffed to bars so high above his head he is forced on to his tiptoes, with a long wound stitched on his left leg and a howl emerging from his open mouth. Yet another depicts a captor smacking his head against a wall.

They are sketches drawn in captivity by the Guantánamo Bay prisoner known as Abu Zubaydah, self-portraits of the torture he was subjected to during the four years he was held in secret prisons by the C.I.A...

 

[villakram]

7 hours ago, bickster said:

Do you deliberately miss out words and sentences when reading? The important bits were ONLY and evidence that contradicts his own testimony in a previous impeachment hearing

Another pot, yay!

Why is the Dem report the truth?

Why is the Repub report bs?

Good guys vs bad guys is overlooking an awful lot of what is going on here. As @maqroll pointed out above, things are going downhill with this partizan analysis. The Rs are now going to have control for the senate impeachment trial, that Trump has no chance of losing. I wonder what they'll do with that? 

[villakram]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

US press publishes drawings and descriptions of mediaeval torture techniques used by US forces in their illegal secret prisons.

 

wow... freedom and democracy for all.

[HanoiVillan]

 

[sne]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

 

[A'Villan]

On 06/12/2019 at 08:36, Ingram85 said:

The biggest problem in the UK imo is apathy. I think a lot of people are realising that whatever they vote for they are still going to get shit pay and never get close to the high quality of life the elite and those in charge flaunt in out faces. 

The shit thing is, the vast majority would simply settle for fair pay, working conditions and a good standard of work/life balance with visible/tangible improvements in the standards of living. The bastards running the show dont want us to have it while keeping things fantastic for themselves and corrupt friends at the top. Why vote for or take part in a system that no matter who is in charge is only designed to ever keep the masses down.

A post that I made in response to posts on facebook about how we should be scared in response to Peter Dutton declaring that parliament is a disadvantage for government.

I just thought it might resonate or be of interest considering the nature of some of your posts recently, and obviously the state of affairs worldwide at current.

" I don't know if it's all that helpful to be scared by someone who lacks understanding. Isn't that what his antics and even gimmick is, the facade that what he represents is somehow in our best interest, whilst simultaneously excluding us from any input on the matter? That's almost contradictory and condescending, not exactly a sure sign of someone who is careful or caring. People being afraid and motivated by fear oftentimes results in mentality that assumes a certain way of life, that it is inherently unkind or something, when really it starts with you, what you stand for and how you operate. Fear distracts from holding true to oneself and having the freedom to develop ourselves through creativity, problem solving abilities and focus. Having a valuable input into a discussion about how we navigate life and the decisions that govern us is integral to quality of life. If we are constantly afraid our spectrum of insight is skewed and that's how people like this guy become influential, when perspectives are fear driven. Divide and conquer."

[StefanAVFC]

On 06/12/2019 at 18:05, villakram said:

Another pot, yay!

Why is the Dem report the truth?

Why is the Repub report bs?

I really cannot be bothered in engaging here because the replies aren't in good faith but this cartoon sums it up nicely

[snowychap]

8 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

 

[Dr_Pangloss]

10 hours ago, snowychap said:

More like 

[peterms]

21 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

 

Make Apartheid Great Again.