the 45th is The Fourth US President to officially Face Impeachment.

[Agema]

You're treating every statement as innuendo, and you're treating innuendo as fact, and then getting confused when I take anyone at their word.

The aid should go to Ukraine as determined by Congress. It's illegally halted by Trump, with no official reason given despite the fact one should be. The only evidence of an unofficial reason is Trump saying they'll get it when they publicly announce the investigations he wants. From these basic facts (never mind all the other contextual evidence), there is no explanation even a tenth as sensible as that the aid was being used as leverage.

The problem is that you decided right at the start of this that Trump didn't do it. This central article of faith has infected all your arguments: every piece of evidence that ever turned up you have only thought about in terms of how it can be seen to exculpate Trump. I'm sure it's all convincing to you - that's what it is to have such an article of faith.

But then... when you repeatedly refused to agree more evidence should be gathered, I think that deep down you did that because you knew what those White House documents and testimonies would probably show, and it would not be in your favour.

 

[SupahEwok]

You're treating every statement as innuendo, and you're treating innuendo as fact, and then getting confused when I take anyone at their word.

The aid should go to Ukraine as determined by Congress. It's illegally halted by Trump, with no official reason given despite the fact one should be. The only evidence of an unofficial reason is Trump saying they'll get it when they publicly announce the investigations he wants. From these basic facts (never mind all the other contextual evidence), there is no explanation even a tenth as sensible as that the aid was being used as leverage.

The problem is that you decided right at the start of this that Trump didn't do it. This central article of faith has infected all your arguments: every piece of evidence that ever turned up you have only thought about in terms of how it can be seen to exculpate Trump. I'm sure it's all convincing to you - that's what it is to have such an article of faith.

But then... when you repeatedly refused to agree more evidence should be gathered, I think that deep down you did that because you knew what those White House documents and testimonies would probably show, and it would not be in your favour.

You're ignoring the possibility he's trolling. He's been stringing you along for months, and his only real argument comes down to "people are talking in bad faith", and whenever somebody makes a post full of points, he only cherry picks those of which he can apply that argument to, and that shifts the discussion over in the direction of his choosing.

Look, he came around to saying that it was the Democrats' fault for there being no witnesses called in the impeachment trial because they forced Republicans to not allow it by demanding it be allowed. Like, c'mon. He types intelligibly enough and he hangs around this dead-ass forum enough that I doubt he's a raving MAGA faithful fresh off of Twitter to carry the crusade. The simplest explanation for this Olympic level of mental gymnastics is trolling.

 

[tstorm823]

The problem is that you decided right at the start of this that Trump didn't do it.

I explicitly didn't do that. My first take was he did it, but we'll wait to see if it was reasonable and justified. It was at least several days later that I suspected he actually didn't do what he was accused of.

But then... when you repeatedly refused to agree more evidence should be gathered.

I explicitly didn't do that, I explicitly said I support a thorough investigation. I did argue against the Democrats statements because I don't believe they ever intended a thorough investigation, but that's kind of the opposite of refusing to agree to more evidence.

He's been stringing you along for months...

You very likely have it backwards. I've never seen Agema this unreasonable, and as seen above, a ton of what I've said is being completely ignored or flipped upsidedown. But like, I wasn't about to back out just for that, there are only so many opportunities in a lifetime to get into a whodunit challenge like this.

Look, he came around to saying that it was the Democrats' fault for there being no witnesses

It is their fault, they didn't want witnesses, they just wanted to say that it was Republicans' fault for covering things up. They called the House investigation done without getting the witnesses they wanted. They refused to have several people as witnesses. When people they subpoenaed asked the courts to decide if they must comply, the House took back the subpoenas and ask the courts to dismiss the case. Republicans being non-compliant with their investigation was the outcome they wanted, it was literally half of the articles of impeachment. Even now, the House is considering more articles of impeachment as an option, but they aren't sure that they want to subpoena Bolton, even after arguing that the Senate not doing so was the end of the world.

I'm not saying that Republicans all really wanted witnesses, but there was always a split there between those who wanted a quick trial and those who wanted to use the power to call witnesses that Republicans were denied in the House. The Democrats and the media spent weeks crafting the narrative that any Republican voting for more witnesses was implicitly conceding that Trump is guilty. They voted for no witnesses because the witness vote was hyped to death to make it a proxy vote for the acquittal itself.

The Democrats did that on purpose. By framing witnesses as a win for Democrats and a loss for Republicans, they put themselves in a no-lose scenario. Either the Republicans decide to not have witnesses to avoid losing the point, or they decide to have witnesses and Democrats claim victory. Since Democrats can't win anything in the Senate in a simple majority vote, their best play is to frame the optics in the most beneficial way. If they actually want something done from the minority position, they have to work with the other party, so they would have cooperated with Republicans and voted for witnesses at the allotted time without all the fanfare. But that would leave the probable outcome of getting the investigation they asked for and still failing to convict. Instead, they spent like a week name calling and treating Republicans like crap so that nobody would be able to work with them.

It's politics: the art of getting others to do things and have you benefit from them.

 

[Saint of M]

As much as I was hopeing for an impeachment, I think the Left should have waited till they had stronger and more potent evidence. As is we have images of Polosi ripping paper in half, which will no doubt be used over and over again in Trump's reelection advertisements, as well as congress agreeing the present amount of evidence does not warrent an impeachment.

That and a few other things he's legit done good, which he is already using some in his adds, is also going to be problematic.

In short, as much as we think he's an idiot, he's savant enough to outwit us.

 

[tstorm823]

As much as I was hopeing for an impeachment, I think the Left should have waited till they had stronger and more potent evidence. As is we have images of Polosi ripping paper in half, which will no doubt be used over and over again in Trump's reelection advertisements, as well as congress agreeing the present amount of evidence does not warrent an impeachment.

That and a few other things he's legit done good, which he is already using some in his adds, is also going to be problematic.

In short, as much as we think he's an idiot, he's savant enough to outwit us.

The "legit done good" is really important. Even downplayed to "didn't really screw anything up", it's still important. Impeachment would have been a really effective move against a really controversial president if the impeachment itself wasn't a bigger controversy than Trump's decisions so far as president.

 

[Saint of M]

As much as I was hopeing for an impeachment, I think the Left should have waited till they had stronger and more potent evidence. As is we have images of Polosi ripping paper in half, which will no doubt be used over and over again in Trump's reelection advertisements, as well as congress agreeing the present amount of evidence does not warrent an impeachment.

That and a few other things he's legit done good, which he is already using some in his adds, is also going to be problematic.

In short, as much as we think he's an idiot, he's savant enough to outwit us.

The "legit done good" is really important. Even downplayed to "didn't really screw anything up", it's still important. Impeachment would have been a really effective move against a really controversial president if the impeachment itself wasn't a bigger controversy than Trump's decisions so far as president.

Maybe so, but Clinton still faced those same impeachment trials and he still came up smelling like roses decades after the fact. THe worse in hindsight is ruining the reputation of a young intern over half his age where she took the smear and he still treated as God's gift to politics.

I seriously doubt that this will ruin Trumps credibility no more than Trump Vodka has.
Or Trump Magazin
Or Trump Steaks.
Or Trump Water.
Or Taj Mahal.
Or him blaming video games for violence
Or...

 

[tstorm823]

Maybe so, but Clinton still faced those same impeachment trials and he still came up smelling like roses decades after the fact. The worse in hindsight is ruining the reputation of a young intern over half his age where she took the smear and he still treated as God's gift to politics.

He's got a (D) next to his name. As far as academia and the media are concerned, there hasn't been a bad Democrat since Andrew Johnson. It's sort of how sports fan's treat a star player in a sex scandal when he's on their team vs when he plays for a rival. I expect entire generations to die out before Donald Trump is allowed to be considered a medium president when ranking presidents.

 

[Silvanus]

I expect entire generations to die out before Donald Trump is allowed to be considered a medium president when ranking presidents.

Unless there's something massive in a President's domestic agenda (like the New Deal), Presidents tend to be judged more on foreign policy than anything else by the history books. It's Trump's betrayal of the Kurds which will tank his reputation, if I had to guess.

 

[Trunkage]

Maybe so, but Clinton still faced those same impeachment trials and he still came up smelling like roses decades after the fact. The worse in hindsight is ruining the reputation of a young intern over half his age where she took the smear and he still treated as God's gift to politics.

He's got a (D) next to his name. As far as academia and the media are concerned, there hasn't been a bad Democrat since Andrew Johnson. It's sort of how sports fan's treat a star player in a sex scandal when he's on their team vs when he plays for a rival. I expect entire generations to die out before Donald Trump is allowed to be considered a medium president when ranking presidents.

Yep gonna need a citation. I would accept this claim if your talking about just Dems. It would look good if yiu didn't automatically 'like' all the people in your party

Here's what I've heard from academia anout Wilson. He started the Lost Cause revisionism, reigniting the split in the country. His 14 points plan was an absolute failure, his desire to push it through alienate everyone and his inability to convince Congress ensured its destruction. He resegregated departments, didn't ban lynching leading to thousands dying and played Birth of a Nation in the White House and said that it was accurate. He was highly misogynistic, banning women from certain areas of the university he lead, despite what happened with the new amendment at the end of his reign. He lied about prohibition as many advocated for moderation of alcohol. Not abstinence. Leading to normal citizens becoming crime lords

Want a recent example. Because I can go through the laundry list of things I've stated to you about Obama that I only learnt from liberal media. Fox was too busy trying to paint Obama as a Muslim terrorist to realise that he was doing the wrong thing all the time. They could have strung him up a hundred times over but it just didn't fit their narrative. So they made thier own stories up

 

[tstorm823]

Yep gonna need a citation.

Prepare to be shocked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

Scholars frequently rank Woodrow Wilson in the top 10 presidents of all time. Jimmy Carter comes pretty close to being poorly received, with a decided "meh" rating, but in all of those tables with quartile ratings, no Democrat since Andrew Johnson is in a bottom quartile overall. Not Obama who you criticize. Not Clinton, the impeached sex offender. Not Carter, the punchline president. Not Lindon Johnson, the all around terrible human being who also put us in Vietnam (also sometimes makes the top 10). Not Wilson who resegregated the White House. The bottom rated presidents are all average Republicans and people who supported slavery.

 

[Agema]

I explicitly didn't do that. My first take was he did it, but we'll wait to see if it was reasonable and justified. It was at least several days later that I suspected he actually didn't do what he was accused of.

Waiting all of a few days before making your mind up on a matter where evidence has trickled out over months is making your mind up at the beginning.

I explicitly didn't do that, I explicitly said I support a thorough investigation. I did argue against the Democrats statements because I don't believe they ever intended a thorough investigation, but that's kind of the opposite of refusing to agree to more evidence.

Whether you like it or not, the Democrats have been the only party trying to get anything close to a thorough investigation... the Republicans from top to bottom have resisted getting meaningful witnesses in, instead trying to bring in patently irrelevant ones they can mine for publicity.

And even now, Senate Republicans decided to "investigate" Hunter Biden. Ukraine doesn't want to, there's no case for US law enforcement to, so they're giving Trump his publicity themselves! It's hilarious, in a banana republic corruption sort of way.

It is their fault, they didn't want witnesses, they just wanted to say that it was Republicans' fault for covering things up. They called the House investigation done without getting the witnesses they wanted. They refused to have several people as witnesses. When people they subpoenaed asked the courts to decide if they must comply, the House took back the subpoenas and ask the courts to dismiss the case.

I'm not saying that Republicans all really wanted witnesses...

That's an absurd way to put it. The Republicans pretty much all didn't want any meaningful witnesses at all.

Specific to the Democrats calling witnesses, they had a problem. Going through the courts to enforce subpoenas would have taken months and months (some Congressional subpoenas have taken years to hear an answer), dragged all the way to SCOTUS, without even a guarantee of success. We all know that's true, the Republicans knew that was true, and they'd have pretty much defeated the impeachment as a going concern just through that.

Where the Democrats rejected witnesses they did so on broadly reasonable grounds: for instance the whistleblower merits protections (which the Republicans repeatedly attempted to undermine anyway) and Hunter Biden clearly has no insight into what went on between Trump's WH, Giuliani and Ukraine and was to be called up just to throw mud.

Any willignness for the Republicans to hear testimony in the trial (which started very low - they started by openly pushing hearing from none) disappeared the minute the leak from Bolton's book arrived, because they knew at that point they were onto a loser. Thus them voting some 95% not to hear witnesses, and ending it by de facto conceding Trump did it but they weren't finding him guilty because they didn't want to.

This has always been a campaign of obstruction and obfuscation from the Republicans at every level.

 

[Agema]

Maybe so, but Clinton still faced those same impeachment trials and he still came up smelling like roses decades after the fact. The worse in hindsight is ruining the reputation of a young intern over half his age where she took the smear and he still treated as God's gift to politics.

He's got a (D) next to his name. As far as academia and the media are concerned, there hasn't been a bad Democrat since Andrew Johnson. It's sort of how sports fan's treat a star player in a sex scandal when he's on their team vs when he plays for a rival. I expect entire generations to die out before Donald Trump is allowed to be considered a medium president when ranking presidents.

FYI, contrary to what you say, Carter is almost uniformly regarded as sub-par (3rd quartile) in that Wikipedia entry. I look at that chart, and it all seems reasonable to me: you can't pretend that successful Republican presidents like Eisenhower and Reagan aren't getting credit.

* * *

To compare Clinton and Trump, Clinton has his sex scandals. But let's not forget Trump's - all those accusations of sexual assault (and acknowledged infidelities), plus the Mueller probe and Ukraine scandals. Underneath this is the perpetual underlying stink of corruption, constant lies, deranged Tweets and speeches, intense political, inflammatory aggravation.

What does Trump have going for him? Pretty much only the economy. Even there he fares modestly. To compare to Clinton, GDP growth was approaching 4% a year on average under. What's Trump at: 2-2.5%? Clinton cut the national debt from ~50% down to ~30%: Trump has (so far) expanded it, with no apparent decline in sight. Clinton's foreign policy was okay: busied himself with a series of petty conflicts, some of which turned out well enough (e.g. Balkans) and otherwise kept a mostly clean sheet in foreign affairs. By comparison, foreign policy under Trump mostly looks like a series of non-events and failures, plus all those attacks on the alliances and global systems the USA itself created and through which it has exercised postwar influence... with no apparent replacement.

Even Clinton's presidency is sufficiently close to make it hard to assess, as some long-term effects take decades to play out. But by any number of metrics, they were conspicuously good years when Americans generally felt optimistic and happy. Trump's presidency is most likely to be looked back on as a period of anger, hostility, instability and chaotic governance that will overshadow the decent economy.

 

[Hades]

Maybe so, but Clinton still faced those same impeachment trials and he still came up smelling like roses decades after the fact. The worse in hindsight is ruining the reputation of a young intern over half his age where she took the smear and he still treated as God's gift to politics.

He's got a (D) next to his name. As far as academia and the media are concerned, there hasn't been a bad Democrat since Andrew Johnson. It's sort of how sports fan's treat a star player in a sex scandal when he's on their team vs when he plays for a rival. I expect entire generations to die out before Donald Trump is allowed to be considered a medium president when ranking presidents.

I don't think Trump will ever be considered a medium president. The more history moves forward the harsher Trump will get judged by it. Historically demagogues are rarely painted in a positive light and Trump very much plays the part of a demagogue. He has numerous damaging traits such as an almost open form of corruption and a habit of demonizing those that oppose him. Trump benefits from the current polarization but once this period of strife passes I think America won't look back with fondness on his period, and for better or worse Trump embodies this era of polarization. Right now the economy is good but future historians that don't benefit from this themselves will likely find that of lesser importance than Trump's numerous flaws and his classification as a demagogue.

 

[tstorm823]

I don't think Trump will ever be considered a medium president. The more history moves forward the harsher Trump will get judged by it.

No history could possibly judge Trump harsher than he's judged right now. You make a good case that they might call him bad forever, but I don't think there's anything a serious scholar could put in a history book as overblown as Jim Carrey on a red carpet fantasizing about beating Trump to death with a golf club.

 

[SupahEwok]

I don't think Trump will ever be considered a medium president. The more history moves forward the harsher Trump will get judged by it.

No history could possibly judge Trump harsher than he's judged right now. You make a good case that they might call him bad forever, but I don't think there's anything a serious scholar could put in a history book as overblown as Jim Carrey on a red carpet fantasizing about beating Trump to death with a golf club.

He hasn't actually been shot. Unlike some presidents.

 

[Agema]

I don't think Trump will ever be considered a medium president. The more history moves forward the harsher Trump will get judged by it.

To be fair, I don't think that's true. Those that have excited the extremes of opinion in their time tend to have their long-term reputations moderated. If the nationalist right become significantly more powerful, they'll probably pour a lot of time and love into his reputation.

But I would suggest there are three measures by which presidents are well received:
a) successful policy (and the bigger the policy the more the impact)
b) a happy population (good economy and general morale)
c) being well respected (i.e. clean, honest, etc.)

Trump scores very low on the first and third; on the second he's got a decent economy but this is undercut by him antagonising and infuriating most of his population needlessly.

 

[Trunkage]

I don't think Trump will ever be considered a medium president. The more history moves forward the harsher Trump will get judged by it.

No history could possibly judge Trump harsher than he's judged right now. You make a good case that they might call him bad forever, but I don't think there's anything a serious scholar could put in a history book as overblown as Jim Carrey on a red carpet fantasizing about beating Trump to death with a golf club.

Ah... it's highly likely we don't know all what Trump got up to. I'd wait til everything is declassified

Also, I remember Obama being called a foreign Muslim terrorist communist that was literally destorying America. And that still is being said to this day by Fox and friends and Trump. But no, Trump, of all people, is the most persecuted

 

[Trunkage]

Yep gonna need a citation.

Prepare to be shocked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

Scholars frequently rank Woodrow Wilson in the top 10 presidents of all time. Jimmy Carter comes pretty close to being poorly received, with a decided "meh" rating, but in all of those tables with quartile ratings, no Democrat since Andrew Johnson is in a bottom quartile overall. Not Obama who you criticize. Not Clinton, the impeached sex offender. Not Carter, the punchline president. Not Lindon Johnson, the all around terrible human being who also put us in Vietnam (also sometimes makes the top 10). Not Wilson who resegregated the White House. The bottom rated presidents are all average Republicans and people who supported slavery.

So I counted them. I think there was sixteen surveys in total with 2 having Woodrow in the top ten.

Also, anyone with LBJ in the top ten clearly is taking into account only his presidency, not anything from his life outside. He was a horrible bully who treated everyone with disrepect. Just becuase you signed the Civil Rights law doesn't make Vietnam okay. Also, Andrew Jackson? You've done bad historians

I seem to remember Coolidge and Harrison regarded as being good Republicans presidents. Focused on protecting rights, some corporate control to spread power back to the people, good foreign policy. Harrison had raised tarrifs but that was common for countries at the time. He also paved the way for Teddy's anti Trust reforms but also his imperialistic ones

 

[Silvanus]

Also, Andrew Jackson? You've done bad historians

Andrew fucking Jackson? If he's anywhere near the top of the list of good presidents, the list is bullshit.

 

[Saint of M]

Also, Andrew Jackson? You've done bad historians

Andrew fucking Jackson? If he's anywhere near the top of the list of good presidents, the list is bullshit.

He's done both good and bad, but history rightly remembers him as a monster. He was the president that ordered the "Trail of Tears" ona group of people that for all intensive purposes had acclimatized to the paleskins way of life, many of which fought, bled, and died beside him in the War of 1812. Showing up with a twenty to their casinos is insulting to this day.

He did many of his reforms simply to spite his enemies in polatics which may have saw him out of debt during his term but the following ones not even close with the repercussions. He was noted for being in dozens if not hundreds of duels which he could be easily goaded into. One was even covered in an episode of WTF 1-0-1 where he one, but had a lead ball lodged near his lung causing him no end of the pain for the rest of his life. In his later years, when a man tried and failed to assassinate him (both his pistoles james) the former president had be held back from beating the man to death with his cane.