Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[cubby]

It's a bold strategy, Cotton, let's see if it pays off for them.

The problem is that we've come to a wall, where reality either shows up or bounces off, depending on whether you are for the truth or back Trump. No matter what information comes out or is said about Cheeto, his rabid fan base will continue to back him. This Impeachment is a perfect example of this phenomenon. Objective proof of Trump's crimes, including Trump confessing on live television, doesn't sway the Trumpkins one bit - it their mind, he can do no wrong, and never has.

[Endus]

What if they see he did wrong, but don't care because the alternative, in their minds, is worse, policy wise?

Removing Trump from office neither gives the office to the Democrats, nor forces an election, so no, this is not reasonable grounds for arguing against impeachment, in any respect whatsoever.

[cubby]

What if they see he did wrong, but don't care because the alternative, in their minds, is worse, policy wise?

But then you're arguing policy, and in the policy debate, Trump loses all over again. He tells his followers that he's done so much for this country, but he hasn't at all. His Tax Break is a lie. His Wall is crumbling.

Moreover, we're talking about a sitting President who's committed literal felonies - something we haven't ever seen. If you pushed partisianship aside, Trump would have already been in handcuffs earlier this year.

- - - Updated - - -

Some do indeed see he did nothing wrong... because at this point people that watch Fox News, and CNN/MSNBC might as well be living in different universes.

The problem is that people equate the two as being polar opposites, which is objectively false. Fox News is usually wrong and certainly biased beyond reason. CNN and MSNBC don't share that characteristic.

You do not have to agree with what is being said here... but many people on the right do agree...


As for what I said... I actually talk to people that support Trump, and candidly they may not agree with how he behaves, but the root of his policies, they actually like...

What policies? What root? People keep saying what you're saying/suggesting, but when asked about specifics, they are at a blank.

[Sorshen]

What if they see he did wrong, but don't care because the alternative, in their minds, is worse, policy wise?

People still cheering for a guy that got nothing done while controlling the House, Senate and WH? A guy that makes the lobbyists and billionaire dreams come true?

[cubby]

Removing Trump from office neither gives the office to the Democrats, nor forces an election, so no, this is not reasonable grounds for arguing against impeachment, in any respect whatsoever.

Exactly. Nothing would change with Trump removed. Same judges. Same shot at a third SCOTUS seat. Hell, Pence might actually get more done because he's not visibly insane and can actually put coherent sentences together. And as a bonus, there wouldn't be felonious tweet-rage-storms every other day.

[cubby]

Trump could be the most honest president in modern history
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ede_story.html

You can read that... but just off the cuff (of what they tell me); Religious Freedom, Gun Rights, Stronger Stance on Immigration Policy, Support for Israel, Perceived Support for Coal Workers/ Blue Collar workers...

Now you may disagree... but that's what they see in him.

Interesting take. And a good reminder that, while "Trump lies all the time" (quote from the article), the people who can't see him objectively can point to some promises that were kept.

The problem is that his rabid base ignores everything else. It's like saying Hitler was great for the arts because of his painting.

And of course his rabid fan base ignores all the promises that weren't kept.

- - - Updated - - -

He got a lot done... Judges being one of the biggest things...

That was McConnell, but I see your point.

[Shadowferal]

He got a lot done... Judges being one of the biggest things...

And the most frightening.

[cubby]

As noted, you may not agree with what he has been doing, but his supporters do... and they may ignore, dismiss, or minimize his many.... many.... many.... personality faults/issues.

But them doing so just confirms the original premise that they are almost literally detached from reality. Only acknowledging those things that are "positive" about Trump (even if they are based on lies, or outright wrong) while entirely ignoring or dismissing at real all the bad he's done, including objective felonies and lies.

There is only one side anymore. The truth. And Trumpkins don't want any part of it.

[cubby]

That's detached from your reality, sure... for their reality... everyone is a sinner... The Truth is evil people can do good, and good people can do evil.

But the Trumpkin world is outside of reality. They are no longer concerned with the truth and will not listen to new information that doesn't conform to what they already think, which is told to them by Trump. It's a literal cult mentality - we've seen it all over the world and throughout history.

Reality is the truth. And Trumpkins don't want any part of the truth.

Just because he is unfaithful to his wife, and basically lives in a land of egocentrism, does not also mean everything he does is "bad/evil"...

But that's not all he's done. In fact, listing Trump's "crimes", those barely make the Top 20.

[cubby]

Your truth and your realty; without a final arbiter you cannot make a fact also a truth... he did X which means you have to feel Y, is not for you to decide for other people.

There is only one truth and one reality. Facts determine those. Trumpkins want no part of reality because if they decided to join the real world, they would have to face the truth.

And after this Impeachment, no Trumpkin wants to face the truth.

They may not feel it's a crime, nor care enough due to the other things that they support that he is doing.

Just more evidence of their detachment with reality. I can see that there is an argument to be made that the Impeachment proceedings are based more on political "feels" rather than objective fact. But in this case, we have actual objective fact - and those facts are being ignored because of feels. Some crimes are indeed decided on feels. But not this time.

Trump's crimes are objective fact, and the Trumpkins continuing to support him are ignore those facts, this reality, and the overall truth.

At some point their disconnection with the real world becomes tautological - ignoring worse and worse behavior because "they like what he is doing". People liked what Hitler was doing as well, never mind all that stuff with the ovens. Do you see what I'm getting at?

[Captain N]

There is only one truth and one reality. Facts determine those. Trumpkins want no part of reality because if they decided to join the real world, they would have to face the truth.

You're correct in this statement but arguing what is reality with Connal is a moot point. He's already proven that he believes facts and reality are subjective and that people need to cater to this sort of delusional thinking in order to meet at some fictional middle. Your best bet is to ignore him and let him spew is drivel to people who need to be convinced that they're not insane by another inmate.

[cubby]

Without an ultimate arbiter to say "this is Evil/Bad, this is Good/Right"... reality is subjective because how I feel about X does not have to match how you feel about it...


We can see the same event, and come away from it with two different feelings, perspectives, etc, etc.

Your confusing facts with morality. They are separate. You can indeed see the same event, but how you feel about it doesn't change the event from having happened.

[cubby]

What facts are you talking about? What events? Just because an event happened does not mean we have to agree on what I take away from that event... Trump lied, ok, now what? I could like his lie, or agree with him lying for multiple reasons like pure spite. Or I think it's the worst lie of all time and want him tried for treason.

Exactly. There are facts/events, and then there are the feels we take away from it. They are separate. 100%. Liking or disliking World War II changes nothing about the fact that it happened. So in your example, the fact is that Trump lied, the feels is that we're ok with it or not. No matter what we take away from it, Trump lied. That's the fact (again, in your example).

Regarding the Impeachment...

Trump has broken the law several times. Objectively (even confessing on live television once). How someone feels about it is separate from the felony violations. If someone is ok with a sitting president violating multiple federal and state laws, then that's who they are. Most Trumpkins are in some way or another ok with Trump's crimes, casting them aside like so much detritus on a messy desk. Others aren't. None of that changes the fact that Trump broke the law.

[cubby]

Laws can be changed, I could disagree with a law, or I could see it as a technicality, and not be denying the facts at all... X happened, but I think Y (the action to take) that the democrats call for, is wrong.

Of course they can be changed, but that doesn't change the event, the fact. Disagreeing with the law, or seeing it as a technicality, is the feels you'd be taking from the facts of breaking the law. You may certainly think that the Y actions from X event happening (using your example) is wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that the X event happened in the first place.

I believe I understand what you're getting at, that the punishment of the crime is separate from the objective events that created the crime. Very true. Killing someone (in Times Square) could be First Degree Murder, could be Manslaughter, could be Not Guilty [of a crime] by Reason of Insanity/Self-Defense - but the killing someone happened. It's a fact. The outcome is certainly all feels. But it doesn't change the fact that X happened.

Trump is a liar, a felon, and a con-man. Those are all facts. How we as a nation choose to deal with those facts will define us for a generation.

[Stormdash]

Trump has broken the law several times. Objectively (even confessing on live television once). How someone feels about it is separate from the felony violations. If someone is ok with a sitting president violating multiple federal and state laws, then that's who they are. Most Trumpkins are in some way or another ok with Trump's crimes, casting them aside like so much detritus on a messy desk. Others aren't. None of that changes the fact that Trump broke the law.

Did he "do the RICO"? 'Cuz I'm guessing that's the level of legal acumen that's backing this paragraph.

[cubby]

Did he "do the RICO"? 'Cuz I'm guessing that's the level of legal acumen that's backing this paragraph.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Could you elaborate please?

[cubby]

They are all facts, but what to do with these facts we do not agree on any more, as a nation. That has been my thesis going on 3 years now.


The facts do not change (unless you just disagree with the events due to trust issues), but how that "event" translates into your reality is what I am talking about.

Because the "reality" (the perspective) is constructed by each individual mind, which has different psychological axioms.

But your "thesis" is going too far. It's trying to ignore the facts because the feels are too strong and overpower what's happened. You're trying to argue that the event changes because of how people feel about it. The event doesn't change. Trump is a liar, a con-man, a felon. That hasn't changed. What's changed is how people rationalize that behavior, or as you put it, their perspective on events changes because of who did it, not because of what happened.

Don't beat me up for this, so to speak, but as a couple of examples...

Hillary kept some government emails on a private server. She was admonished by the Democrats (I believe it was the SecState Inspector General). The GOP wanted her hung.
Trump and company use a private server for some of their government emails. The GOP is fine with that.

It's an example of people being ok with facts based on who did them, not on the facts themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

He was given that list by The Heritage Foundation... would Biden (or Sanders) pass that list on? I doubt it.

Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Was Included on the List The Heritage Foundation Helped Compile
https://www.heritage.org/impact/supr...ndation-helped

To many people this one issue is THE issue.

Kavanaugh's name was given to Trump by then outgoing SCOTUS Justice Kennedy. Because of Deutsche Bank.

[DarkTZeratul]

He was given that list by The Heritage Foundation... would Biden (or Sanders) pass that list on? I doubt it.

No, of course not. But Pence absolutely would.

[Lanrefni]

But your "thesis" is going too far. It's trying to ignore the facts because the feels are too strong and overpower what's happened. You're trying to argue that the event changes because of how people feel about it. The event doesn't change. Trump is a liar, a con-man, a felon. That hasn't changed. What's changed is how people rationalize that behavior, or as you put it, their perspective on events changes because of who did it, not because of what happened.

Don't beat me up for this, so to speak, but as a couple of examples...

Hillary kept some government emails on a private server. She was admonished by the Democrats (I believe it was the SecState Inspector General). The GOP wanted her hung.
Trump and company use a private server for some of their government emails. The GOP is fine with that.

It's an example of people being ok with facts based on who did them, not on the facts themselves.

- - - Updated - - -



Kavanaugh's name was given to Trump by then outgoing SCOTUS Justice Kennedy. Because of Deutsche Bank.

And don't forget Kennedy's son approved multiple questionable loans for Trump from Deutschbank,which I'm sure had no bearing whatsoever on Trump's choice of Kavanaugh from a list of one name....

[cubby]

They change in the sense of "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter..." In that sense both can be true.

Exactly. While the person in question might have blown up a factory, people will label the event differently - but it doesn't change the event.

To you he is a lier,

No - he is a liar. That's the fact. The reasons people condemn or justify it are because...

to them he could be standing up to Liberals. Or some other reason why they overlook that... But I do not thing that generally, if you ask candidly most people would disagree with "Trump likes to stretch the truth." Why he does it, be it "hyperbole" or just outright deceit is where people seem to be disagreeing on.

Of course there are also people that just hate liberals and any psychic pain, etc, etc, they can cause including gaslighting is all justified.

Exactly. The people who continue to back Trump, are backing a liar, felon, con-man; but they justify it because in their mind there are greater "reasons" to be had. Such as the Impeachment. Sure - Trump committed Bribery and Extortion, but he did it to root out corruption (or whatever Trump is trying to sell this week), so it's ok to violate federal law.

And there are huge problems with that kind of moral flexibility. I hate to keep coming back to it, but that kind of moral flexibility is how we got Hitler and World War II.

- - - Updated - - -

And don't forget Kennedy's son approved multiple questionable loans for Trump from Deutschbank,which I'm sure had no bearing whatsoever on Trump's choice of Kavanaugh from a list of one name....

Exactly. People just ignore that or choose to pretend that never happened. That by itself would be an Impeachable/jail-able offense.