Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Fugus]

My point is framing the things you say with "As shitty as democrats are..." is the same sort of deflecting word usage that's constantly used to defend the GOP.

The bullshit "BOTH SIDES" rhetoric that's so very popular with fascist groups because its an incredibly efficient way to take attention off of the horrible shit their groups do. If you can't make yourself look good, you make your opponent similar, even if they are so many degrees different in such respects that the comparison is ludicrous.

Its your basic "If I can't win, I'll make them lose" that only benefits one side and does so very well.

Not my intent, my intent was basically that as bad as the Democrats are, the Republicans are complete garbage by comparison.

[swiftowner]

I see that a lot, comparisons of dems to republicans with a heavy dose of implied "JUST AS BAD".

But for a decade now at least the GOP has been just... awful. Unquestionably, horribly, full of lies awful. Dems can be bad, but making that comparison in the first place feels disginuine given the sheer scale of shit the GOP has been doing. Just the fundamental dismantling of rights, economy, and basic human decency thats been going on and just getting worse and worse and worse that they take part in. Its like watching a little kid hit their sibling with a stick, and then watching the sibling respond by curb stomping the other on a slab of concrete and going "Oh man, they're both pretty bad".

Tell, please, about all this shitty stuff the dems apparently do thats comparable to the mountain of nation killing bullshit the GOP has been doing.

- - - Updated - - -



Dems have been trying for more accountability laws for some time.

Guess who keeps blocking that?
Hint, its the same people who keep deregulating industry so they too dont have to be beholden to standards.

I was independent for the 2016 election, I didn’t vote for Trump because I knew better, but at this point the Republicans can fuck off. I don’t care what the person’s policies are, and a friend of mine’s wife is running for local elections as Republican, i wouldn’t even vote for her simply because of her party association. Until republicans fix their shit, they aren’t worth voting for.

[Toppy]

Not my intent, my intent was basically that as bad as the Democrats are, the Republicans are complete garbage by comparison.

I know it wasnt your intent, just pointing out that its bad usage that's become very common and is doing wonders to protect the GOP's image. The worse they get the worse they're able to say the democrats are, not because the dems are doing anything, but because so many are sticking to the "Well both sides are bad" nonesense.

[muto]

Imagine wanting a fair trial when a fair trial wasn’t given in the House. Still waiting to hear from that Whistleblower.

[Benggaul]

Imagine wanting a fair trial when a fair trial wasn’t given in the House. Still waiting to hear from that Whistleblower.

Oh look, the same, false GOP talking points that have been debunked a few dozen times in this thread already. Pretty sure this qualifies as spamming by now.

[swiftowner]

Imagine wanting a fair trial when a fair trial wasn’t given in the House. Still waiting to hear from that Whistleblower.

Imagine not knowing what a trial is. Hint, that part of the process in the house was the investigation part, then subsequent voting on articles of impeachment. The Senate executes the trial, not the house.

But maybe you already know this, and are intent on derailing this thread, as this process has been explained over and over and over ad nauseam.

Edit:

Oh look, the same, false GOP talking points that have been debunked a few dozen times in this thread already. Pretty sure this qualifies as spamming by now.

Pretty sure others have been infracted for this already.

[Flarelaine]

Not trying to argue with moderation here, but this seems very unfair. In an ideal world, where Senators voted on the preponderance of evidence, this would be a fair rule, and discussions of the political impacts would be off topic. We do not live in that fairy tale world. 90 out of 100 senators are going to vote the way they think is most likely to get them reelected or the most plush post Senate job. And that is being extremely generous to 10 senators.

In the context of reality, discussing how vulnerable a given Senator is for reelection is EXTREMELY relevant to this thread, both because of that Senator's desire for Self preservation, and McConnell's insistence on preserving his majority. Essentially, this entire impeachment hinges on "Future election odds and outcomes". The facts of the case are irrelevant. It isn't right, I am not happy about it, but it is reality, and banning us from talking about it completely kills the discussion.

Well, I was rather brisk when writing that comment. I really meant that future election odds without demonstrating a link to the impeachment process have no place here. Like comments throwing out a random number and derailing the thread for pages, y'know?

[Wyrt]

Imagine wanting a fair trial when a fair trial wasn’t given in the House. Still waiting to hear from that Whistleblower.

The trial is in the Senate, not the House.

And maybe you would have heard from the Whistleblower if Trump and his lackeys didn't threaten him. Too bad they couldn't STOP BREAKING THE FUCKING LAW FOR FIVE GOD DAMNED MINUTES.

[Fugus]

Well, I was rather brisk when writing that comment. I really meant that future election odds without demonstrating a link to the impeachment process have no place here. Like comments throwing out a random number and derailing the thread for pages, y'know?

Slight off topic question. If someone knowingly repeats lies and disinformation which are basically conspiracy theories. At what point do they actually risk an infraction? How many times do they have to be debunked spouting the same stuff before it becomes a problem?

[Machismo]

Imagine wanting a fair trial when a fair trial wasn’t given in the House. Still waiting to hear from that Whistleblower.

You did hear from him, his report was sent to the IG, and they took his sworn statements.

[Benggaul]

You did hear from him, his report was sent to the IG, and they took his sworn statements.

And his statement was rendered irrelevant when actual firsthand witnesses testified during the House investigation, so still asking for the Whistleblower at this point is clearly just an attempt to distract from the fact that the firsthand witnesses gave up the goods on Trump (and others).

Here, I'll just go ahead and list all of the lies--sorry, I mean "false narratives" he had packed in those tiny sentences:

1) The House didn't have a trial, and doesn't during the impeachment process. They held investigations and sent their findings to the Senate so THEY can hold a trial. So, falsehood number one.
2) The investigation most certainly was fair, given that several GOP members were on all of the relevant committees for the investigation and--despite outcry to the contrary--were more than welcome to sit in on all of the "secret basement meetings". Several, however, chose not to so they could cry about how unfair it was. And others decided to try to barge in when they weren't on the committees and therefore were not allowed. The GOP acted like fools and were rightly called out on it.
3) The GOP were allowed to call witnesses (though I believe according to the rules the GOP set up in 2015 the Dems did not HAVE to allow them to). It just so happened that the witnesses the GOP called also threw Trump and others under the bus, so that didn't work out for them.
4) "But der whistleblower!!!" See above.

I'm done with him and I suggest others should be as well. He's clearly not arguing in good faith. Or particularly well.

[Flarelaine]

Slight off topic question. If someone knowingly repeats lies and disinformation which are basically conspiracy theories. At what point do they actually risk an infraction? How many times do they have to be debunked spouting the same stuff before it becomes a problem?

Given the subjectivity of human communication, it is very hard to nail down an exact point. The site rules give a lot of leeway to opinion, even opinion which goes against the majority consensus. Simply contradicting the consensus is (usually) not itself an offense - the way it is presented can be.

[Benggaul]

Given the subjectivity of human communication, it is very hard to nail down an exact point. The site rules give a lot of leeway to opinion, even opinion which goes against the majority consensus. Simply contradicting the consensus is (usually) not itself an offense - the way it is presented can be.

Except there is "opinion" and then there is "fact" and what we've been seeing lately is arguing against facts. See above. Everything he wrote has been shown to be 100% false in this thread multiple times over. Not because there is a consensus of opinion, but because it is backed up by fact.

[Fugus]

Given the subjectivity of human communication, it is very hard to nail down an exact point. The site rules give a lot of leeway to opinion, even opinion which goes against the majority consensus. Simply contradicting the consensus is (usually) not itself an offense - the way it is presented can be.

Not talking about opinions though. I am talking about objective facts that they deny repeatedly. How many times can a fact be proven to someone for them to repeat that lie anyways before it becomes an issue?

Because going against a consensus isn't really a problem. It's when they go against hard facts that the problem arises.

Like if they keep repeating about the email server and crowd strike when the company is US based and the server was cloud based.
Or if they start talking about how unfair it was to have closed room hearings when it was the same in every other case.
Or if they talk about how the Republicans were shut out of the hearings when they were physically on the committees like a third of the witnesses called were theirs and they had equal time questioning them?

At which point do can they keep repeating those lies knowing they are factual lies before it becomes an issue?

[Machismo]

And his statement was rendered irrelevant when actual firsthand witnesses testified during the House investigation, so still asking for the Whistleblower at this point is clearly just an attempt to distract from the fact that the firsthand witnesses gave up the goods on Trump (and others).

Here, I'll just go ahead and list all of the lies--sorry, I mean "false narratives" he had packed in those tiny sentences:

1) The House didn't have a trial, and doesn't during the impeachment process. They held investigations and sent their findings to the Senate so THEY can hold a trial. So, falsehood number one.
2) The investigation most certainly was fair, given that several GOP members were on all of the relevant committees for the investigation and--despite outcry to the contrary--were more than welcome to sit in on all of the "secret basement meetings". Several, however, chose not to so they could cry about how unfair it was. And others decided to try to barge in when they weren't on the committees and therefore were not allowed. The GOP acted like fools and were rightly called out on it.
3) The GOP were allowed to call witnesses (though I believe according to the rules the GOP set up in 2015 the Dems did not HAVE to allow them to). It just so happened that the witnesses the GOP called also threw Trump and others under the bus, so that didn't work out for them.
4) "But der whistleblower!!!" See above.

I'm done with him and I suggest others should be as well. He's clearly not arguing in good faith. Or particularly well.

Off course he's not arguing in good faith, he's flat out lying.

[Orbitus]

Imagine wanting a fair trial when a fair trial wasn’t given in the House. Still waiting to hear from that Whistleblower.

Why? Everything the whistleblower stated, has been confirmed by every other witness.

[Masark]

Why? Everything the whistleblower stated, has been confirmed by every other witness.

So they can shout their name to the heavens in the hope that a "random lone wolf" (or a pack of lone wolves) will injure or kill them (or their family. Or both) as an object lesson to any other potential whistleblowers.

[Orbitus]

So they can shout their name to the heavens in the hope that a "random lone wolf" (or a pack of lone wolves) to injure or kill them as an object lesson to any other potential whistleblowers.

Yep, so they can claim that the guy is biased, just because of who he might know, even though he worked in the Whitehouse.

[Fugus]

Said it on my facebook, will repeat it here.

"Well, I can say this. If you saw the Senate stuff today and you actually support what the Republicans did. Flat out, you are traitors to the Nation and the US Constitution.

I apply this to my family, I apply this to my friends, I apply this to anyone who reads this.

If you didn't see it, you have can at least rely on ignorance to support them.

But I don't care if the impeachment was against Trump, Clinton, Bush, Sanders, Satan or Jesus Christ himself. If you supported what they pulled to try and ignore facts and witnesses during that. You are a traitor to the USA and the US Constitution. Full stop."

[Dontrike]

Imagine wanting a fair trial when a fair trial wasn’t given in the House. Still waiting to hear from that Whistleblower.

You're right, the House wasn't fair 'cause many didn't testify. They should definitely testify. Good on you for being honest.

It is hilarious you think the whistle blower matters though.