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

[Schadrach]

The courts ruled against him every step of the way, up to SCOTUS, who basically set a time limit for when Trump could file to have it heard before SCOTUS and blocked it until it gets resolved. This wasn't some victory for Trump using his crony court - this was only a delay.

To which he'll try for another delay. I understand the Supreme Court tried to put on a show of a guideline. I just don't think Trump will follow it.

And frankly, I don't believe the Supreme Court will push it any further than motions and the like. I swear to God, I hope I'm wrong, but the Elected Republicans haven't shown me that they are as free from the partisanship they love to accuse Democrats of having.

"Here's the deadline to file a petition for us to hear the case, let's stop what's happening until it's resolved." is not exactly an uncommon move for the court to make. But here's the thing you seem to be avoiding - Trump can certainly choose not to file the petition, but then when the deadline hits the lower court decision (which he has then explicitly chosen not to contest) takes effect. The one in which he lost.

The very best he can do for himself is drag the process out as long as possible, and maybe try to be somewhere that won't extradite when his term ends.

If his pet court was as controlled as you think it is, they'd have accepted the case with all haste and shut it down, instead of telling him to file his petition in time for next term (willing to bet you right now that if Trump does file that petition that either they'll refuse to hear it [meaning Trump loses, because the lesser court decision stands] or that 1) Trump will lose and 2) it won't be a 5-4 vote, likely a 7-2 if even that). Also, they would have killed off the concept of "separate sovereigns" in Gamble v US, which they had every opportunity to do but voted 7-2 against. Interestingly, Ginsburg and Gorsuch were the only dissenting justices in that case - strange bedfellows indeed.

They absolutely can not do that. There's still a semblance of Law and Order. It's like when a corrupt cop has to bring in the gang leader who is paying him off because everyone saw the Leader beat a man unconscious. The officer can't just tell everyone they didn't see what they saw. He has to make a show of it or else he gets in trouble.

Except in this case, it would be like if the only difference between Leader and any other similar criminal is that Leader gets his court date set a few weeks later than typical so he gets to out on bond for longer.

Again, my offer for a wager stands - either Trump will not file the petition and be forced to comply with the lower court, he will and SCOTUS refuses to hear the case, or he will and will lose clearly (at least 7-2, maybe 8-1 or 9-0 depending on how much Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are willing to pull for Trump). SCOTUS will definitely not decide that subpoenas cannot be enforced.

Remember, Justices can also be impeached [https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx].

They can, but not agreeing with the result of a case is not grounds for impeachment.

I read the Gamble VS US case, and I honestly don't understand why you are bringing it up. I mean this with no disrespect. But we're talking about a random guy who had drugs and a handgun with no political sway at all, and the Partisanship of the United States with the Republicans vote Republican and the Democrats vote Democrats. We're talking about how the Republicans aren't even arguing the facts of the issue any more and are just committing themselves to acquitting the President instead of unbiasedly looking at the evidence and judging on the basis of that.

So, you know when Trump was being investigated and there was a tendency to hang state charges over people that might flip on Trump? Specifically state charges because Trump has no authority to pardon those and thus couldn't protect them?

Yeah, Gamble happened before all of that but after Kavanaugh joined SCOTUS. Without the concept of "separate sovereigns" (the idea that both state and federal law can be enforced separately, even if the same conduct violates both and that doing so is not double jeopardy - which is what Gamble was over, he was arguing that being separately tried for state and federal law violations for the same conduct was double jeopardy), any of those state charges being used as leverage could have simply been pardoned by Trump (and the POTUS has broad and largely unrestricted power to pardon violations of federal law) if the same conduct also happened to be a federal crime.

Unfortunately little came of that investigation in terms of action against Trump, but that wasn't known going in. If the court were Trump-owned as much as you think, that judgement wouldn't have been 7-2, with one dissenter being Ginsberg.

And we're talking about how even when the President was caught dead to rights, the Supreme Court extended him a lifeline for no real reason other than he's their Boy and they want to help him out anyway they can. Gamble is a guy with drugs.

Again, the Supreme Court did nothing further than give him a deadline to file his petition, and prevent the action the court battle is over from being resolved until at least then. They were a bit generous on how long they gave for that sort of thing, but otherwise that's not exactly an uncommon thing to do.

This is the best course because while everything looks political (and it is), the closer to Election, the more it looks like the Democrats are losing and are trying to do anything to get rid of Trump. Not to mention this is a vast abuse of power. You don't sit on this. Especially with the mindsets of your average voter. Who will honestly ask "If this was such a big deal and you knew about it then, why didn't you do anything then? This seems sketchy".

I agree with that sentiment.

Again, assuming the Senate is highly unlikely to actually remove the POTUS from office (and noting that unsurprisingly, McConnell is wanting to do this as fast as possible and is in full cooperation with Trump's defense). Seems like Senate GOP thinks that getting it over with quickly and letting Trump shout "EXONERATED! MOST INNOCENTEST PRESIDENT EVER! DEMOCRAT WITCH HUNT!" from the top of his lungs for 10 months is the best result for them.

The actual Senate trial is going to be an utter sham though, since you could dance around the first article if you tried hard enough but the second (obstruction of Congress) is very clearly true and very publicly demonstrated. Which also ties into GOP wanting to do it as fast as possible - make it ancient history before elections come around so the sham trial doesn't cost them as many votes.

If by some miracle Trump does get voted out of office, he'd be fucked but good. His base would be irrelevant there. Because he'd be removed from office, and barred from holding further office.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

The courts ruled against him every step of the way, up to SCOTUS, who basically set a time limit for when Trump could file to have it heard before SCOTUS and blocked it until it gets resolved. This wasn't some victory for Trump using his crony court - this was only a delay.

Here's where I think you and I are diverging.

I believe in the rule of law. I think it should be applied to everyone. Much like you.

I know Trump thinks he's not subject to the same laws that we all are. I think he's padded the Supreme Court with an actual crony (won't past judgement on the others because they have voted consistently for years) which tips the scales to the Republicans favor. We've all seen him abuse and misuse delay tactic after stalling after bs time and time again.

I don't think this is a victory as much as you don't think it's a victory. To a dimwitted Narcissist like Trump, I believe it's ample proof to his silly mind that he can find a way to get his way done. Again, I understand is a delay is a delay in the real world.

I do not believe Trump lives in the real world and takes every small thing as proof to why he can do what he wants.

"Here's the deadline to file a petition for us to hear the case, let's stop what's happening until it's resolved." is not exactly an uncommon move for the court to make. But here's the thing you seem to be avoiding - Trump can certainly choose not to file the petition, but then when the deadline hits the lower court decision (which he has then explicitly chosen not to contest) takes effect. The one in which he lost.

The very best he can do for himself is drag the process out as long as possible, and maybe try to be somewhere that won't extradite when his term ends.

As Trump Lawyers shownthey will ask for a delay upon delay [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/06/justice-ginsburg-puts-temporary-hold-on-trump-financial-records-dispute.html] to make sure whatever is there isn't out. It was granted, of course, but only up to today.

And yup, I'm very keenly aware that Ruth spoke on this. Christmas Card list is going to get dark this year.

Anyway, as it is, the House is citing Election Security
as a measure to get Trump's Subpoenas enforced. At this moment, all that is left is to see if the Court will come through, or will more stalling occur.

And you must understand. I hope you're right. I won't have a victory in being correct about this. In fact, we will all be severely harmed if I am.

Except in this case, it would be like if the only difference between Leader and any other similar criminal is that Leader gets his court date set a few weeks later than typical so he gets to out on bond for longer.

Again, my offer for a wager stands - either Trump will not file the petition and be forced to comply with the lower court, he will and SCOTUS refuses to hear the case, or he will and will lose clearly (at least 7-2, maybe 8-1 or 9-0 depending on how much Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are willing to pull for Trump). SCOTUS will definitely not decide that subpoenas cannot be enforced.

The problem is that I believe his lawyers will pull delays, stays, misdirects,

I don't believe he'll go "Aww, Shucks. Got me". He might eventually be backed into a corner which he can not escape.

Former Counsel John McGahn has been shielded since last April from Testifying [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/25/judge-says-ex-white-house-counsel-mcgahn-must-appear-before-congress-for-testimony.html], told "Bull, you are", and how did the White House Respond?

"It is clear to this Court," Jackson said, "that, with respect to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist."

"Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that presidents are not kings," added the judge, an Obama appointee.

McGahn's attorney, William Burck, said his client "will comply with Judge Jackson's decision unless it is stayed pending appeal."

Minutes later, Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec confirmed to CNBC that the agency will appeal the ruling and seek to halt it from taking effect in the meantime.

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham argued in a statement that Jackson?s ruling "contradicts longstanding legal precedent established by administrations of both political parties."

"We will appeal and are confident that the important constitutional principle advanced by the administration will be vindicated," Grisham said.

We have to wait for Jan 3rd, but I feel another stay or whatever coming on.

And the fact that this crap hasn't swayed the opinion of his base astounds me. I've been told that I have nothing to complain about if I'm searched and I have nothing to hide. And it's suspicious that I don't want to share what I have. That doesn't seem to extend to the Administration at all.

They can, but not agreeing with the result of a case is not grounds for impeachment.

Hence why they wouldn't just end something that has actual political standing because it will be bad for their side. They have to appear impartial, but we all know they are anything but.

So, you know when Trump was being investigated and there was a tendency to hang state charges over people that might flip on Trump? Specifically state charges because Trump has no authority to pardon those and thus couldn't protect them?

Yeah, Gamble happened before all of that but after Kavanaugh joined SCOTUS. Without the concept of "separate sovereigns" (the idea that both state and federal law can be enforced separately, even if the same conduct violates both and that doing so is not double jeopardy - which is what Gamble was over, he was arguing that being separately tried for state and federal law violations for the same conduct was double jeopardy), any of those state charges being used as leverage could have simply been pardoned by Trump (and the POTUS has broad and largely unrestricted power to pardon violations of federal law) if the same conduct also happened to be a federal crime.

Unfortunately little came of that investigation in terms of action against Trump, but that wasn't known going in. If the court were Trump-owned as much as you think, that judgement wouldn't have been 7-2, with one dissenter being Ginsberg.

And how would they actually explain said ruling? To you. To me. To everyone who thinks this is a pile? "Hey, look, we know where we stand on this, but if we don't find for this guy Gamble, we can't find for Trump in the future. So of course we're going to vote in favor of Gamble even though it looks like the biggest load there is. You'll understand which Trump comes before us again".

Again, assuming the Senate is highly unlikely to actually remove the POTUS from office (and noting that unsurprisingly, McConnell is wanting to do this as fast as possible and is in full cooperation with Trump's defense). Seems like Senate GOP thinks that getting it over with quickly and letting Trump shout "EXONERATED! MOST INNOCENTEST PRESIDENT EVER! DEMOCRAT WITCH HUNT!" from the top of his lungs for 10 months is the best result for them.

The actual Senate trial is going to be an utter sham though, since you could dance around the first article if you tried hard enough but the second (obstruction of Congress) is very clearly true and very publicly demonstrated. Which also ties into GOP wanting to do it as fast as possible - make it ancient history before elections come around so the sham trial doesn't cost them as many votes.

If by some miracle Trump does get voted out of office, he'd be fucked but good. His base would be irrelevant there. Because he'd be removed from office, and barred from holding further office.

How many Democrats forgave Hillary for what was done to Bernie [https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/11/why-bernie-sanders-voters-like-me-stayed-home/#1e554aba539f]? How many forgive Bernie for what his supporters did for the 2016 election [https://www.insidesources.com/we-wish-hed-go-away-n-h-dems-havent-forgiven-or-forgotten-bernies-2016-campaign/]?

What is ancient history to you is a life-long vendetta for other people.

And in all honesty, if Americans by and large can forgive and forget this willfully blatant mockery of our most sacrosanct values of fairness and the rule of law due to greedy cronyism, then light this trashfire and let it burn. If America needs timely Spectacle more than Time-Worn Truth, The idea of America has officially and utterly died. Burn it down and let something better come.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I get that Impeachment is political. We all do. It all depends on whether Your Political Party has the numbers to bear the weight of the charges brought along side you.

I know that people can look at the same evidence and see two different things.

But when you have Senators saying that they don't need to see Witness or any more Evidence, that their mind is made up and nothing will sway them [https://nypost.com/2019/12/15/ted-cruz-says-hell-be-impartial-in-senate-trial-graham-says-his-mind-already-made-up/] and the Senate Majority Leader fully stating that he is working with total coordination with the White House over Impeachment [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mcconnell-work-total-coordination-white-house-impeachment-trial/story?id=67707430]... That's it, isn't it? Game, Set, and Match on even the semblance of fairness in Government.

To be candid, this would be the exact same thing as you getting in front of a Judge who doesn't like the look of you and telling you and the public listening that no matter how people vote, he's going to make sure you go to jail.

I officially do not believe in America any more.

 

[tstorm823]

To be candid, this would be the exact same thing as you getting in front of a Judge who doesn't like the look of you and telling you and the public listening that no matter how people vote, he's going to make sure you go to jail.

It's not the exact same thing because this isn't a criminal court, this is a political process. The votes cast have just as much to do with representing constituents as they do with the actual facts of the case.

But disregarding that, do you find it equally questionable that they were counting votes for impeachment before making the investigation official? Do you have the same opinion of the House Democrats, who coordinated to make sure that impeachment would pass the House before voting to start the investigation? McConnell has at least seen the evidence from the House play out before making that kind of statement, Pelosi wanted a virtual guarantee from the rest of her party before even agreeing to public hearings. Is that not like the police and prosecutors deciding that they're going to prosecute someone before they investigate no matter the outcome of the investigation?

And if, say, the police did that to someone, picked up the suspect and then did everything in their power to make them guilty, would you be upset at a judge or jury that dismissed the case?

 

[Agema]

It's not the exact same thing because this isn't a criminal court, this is a political process. The votes cast have just as much to do with representing constituents as they do with the actual facts of the case.

Well, yes and no. It is de facto political, and politicians will play to their constituents.

However the intention was that honest and responsible legislators provide proper oversight of the executive office with the same seriousness and rigour that a judge and jury should take over a normal court case.

For the Senate to disregard the scrutiny is a dereliction of duty, albeit a legal one.

But disregarding that, do you find it equally questionable that they were counting votes for impeachment before making the investigation official? Do you have the same opinion of the House Democrats, who coordinated to make sure that impeachment would pass the House before voting to start the investigation? McConnell has at least seen the evidence from the House play out before making that kind of statement, Pelosi wanted a virtual guarantee from the rest of her party before even agreeing to public hearings. Is that not like the police and prosecutors deciding that they're going to prosecute someone before they investigate no matter the outcome of the investigation?

Police check whether there is sufficient justification in pursuing investigations all the time - and indeed, many are dropped.

The Democrats surely checked with their representatives for whether there was the will to impeach, but you're overreaching to claim the decision to impeach was already set before the evidence rolled in.

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

I love how some people in America reward people for doing shitty stupid things.

Rape someone
=President
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Ask Reagan to start a drug war that dis-proportionally hurts minorities
=Front-runner to oppose the above in 2020.
https://theintercept.com/2019/09/17/the-untold-story-joe-biden-pushed-ronald-reagan-to-ramp-up-incarceration-not-the-other-way-around/

Started a war that killed at minimum 80000 civilians for no reason
=Hugged by Ellen, and gets two terms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Iran-Contra, douche that started this line of asshole presidents
=Two Terms POTUS

Beginning of allowing a repressive country join the WTO, and increased the economy of a repressive country
=Two Terms POTUS

The elites in America are fucking crazy.

 

[tstorm823]

I love how some people in America reward people for doing shitty stupid things.

The elites in America are fucking crazy.

Why post this? You have to know you're taking things the worst possible way, giving no consideration to circumstances or the potential lies of others. You have to know that people aren't rewarded for bad things, and that these people did a whole bunch right that you aren't mentioning. Does it make you feel better imagining the world is a horrible place terrorized by horrible people? Have you considered not being utterly miserable?

 

[Seanchaidh]

I love how some people in America reward people for doing shitty stupid things.

The elites in America are fucking crazy.

Why post this? You have to know you're taking things the worst possible way, giving no consideration to circumstances or the potential lies of others. You have to know that people aren't rewarded for bad things, and that these people did a whole bunch right that you aren't mentioning. Does it make you feel better imagining the world is a horrible place terrorized by horrible people? Have you considered not being utterly miserable?

Did they do a whole bunch "right"? Or did they do things that functioned to get them into power irrespective of morality?

"That's miserable" doesn't address the truth of the matter. Or one might say that facts don't care about your feelings.

 

[tstorm823]

Did they do a whole bunch "right"? Or did they do things that functioned to get them into power irrespective of morality?

"That's miserable" doesn't address the truth of the matter. Or one might say that facts don't care about your feelings.

"That's miserable" absolutely addresses the truth of the matter.

 

[Silvanus]

Does it make you feel better imagining the world is a horrible place terrorized by horrible people? Have you considered not being utterly miserable?

Wowzer. If I could just decide that everything was fine and to stop being "miserable" about it, I wouldn't need the pills.

Unfortunately, we live in a world in which some people don't have homes, and other people have more money than they could spend in a dozen lifetimes, even if they spent 50 grand a day. This situation exists with the resigned acceptance of some, and the enthusiastic encouragement of others.

...Hell, even if I could just look the other way and not be "miserable" about it, I would almost consider that a dereliction.

 

[tstorm823]

Wowzer. If I could just decide that everything was fine and to stop being "miserable" about it, I wouldn't need the pills.

Unfortunately, we live in a world in which some people don't have homes, and other people have more money than they could spend in a dozen lifetimes, even if they spent 50 grand a day. This situation exists with the resigned acceptance of some, and the enthusiastic encouragement of others.

...Hell, even if I could just look the other way and not be "miserable" about it, I would almost consider that a dereliction.

You can decide to stop being miserable about things, whether things are fine or not, that is completely within your control. Don't equate depression with pessimism, that's not accurate.

 

[Thaluikhain]

You have to know that people aren't rewarded for bad things

Half the history of the entire world is people doing bad things and benefiting from it.

Pretending things aren't broken is the first step in not fixing anything.

 

[Trunkage]

So far is this thread, you have accused the Dems only doing this through bad faith and us not accepting your version of events as gospel as bad.

Yet, you post this somehow without understanding how you are doing the only seeing the negative in the whole Democratic Party and us.

Also, while Iroh is smart, this is a simplistic quote that still sees things as only black and white. For example, Trump helped steel workers. Great. At the expense of companies using steel and farmers. Not great. Picking one of these positions is just being black and white. And Iroh suggests picking one side without considering the other sides nuance.

Edit: This reading might be too complex for a kids show

Like, the Democrats are using this impeachment for political gain, Also, they don?t like foreign influences or bribery (which is highly likely what Trump did, after he got the offical impeachment recently). Should Biden?s son be on a foreign board of directors? Sounds like a terrible idea to me. Did he actually curry favour? Possibly, but no evidence has been provided yet, so I... wait for further evidence.

As I?ve said before, the Dems shot themselves in the foot 25 years ago with Clinton. Being Impeached will probably mean nothing. You can abuse the Office and that mean nothing. It probably depends on those Republicans who aren?t clearly Trump stooges who are wondering if Trump will push them from the party. Because, if they think they will be replaced by someone more aligned with Trump, it?s in their best interests to get him out of Office. Not what the evidence says

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

I love how some people in America reward people for doing shitty stupid things.

The elites in America are fucking crazy.

Why post this? You have to know you're taking things the worst possible way, giving no consideration to circumstances or the potential lies of others. You have to know that people aren't rewarded for bad things, and that these people did a whole bunch right that you aren't mentioning. Does it make you feel better imagining the world is a horrible place terrorized by horrible people? Have you considered not being utterly miserable?

I posted this because of the mainstream media, and the elites in America don't have a conscious. It all about money, and power.

You can literally kill thousands of children, and get away with it as the president, and no one bats an eye. But the moment you propose helping people in America.

Socialist!!! how are we going to pay for it???
But god forbid we ostracize the person who started Iraq War.

You can ignore the human rights of a country in favor of offshoring jobs of people with little power.
But as soon as Trump wins it's because of LGBTQ rights, and the SJWs. Not because of you offshore lots of jobs to places with dismal human rights records for $$$.

Fuck Bush, Fuck Ellen, Fuck Trump.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Trump has officially been impeached. [https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/18/politics/house-impeachment-vote/index.html]

As the article points out, this likely won't mean much. With how narrow the margin was to impeach, and the fact that the Senate is Republican-controlled, the chances of Trump being removed from office are extremely unlikely. That said, I can't imagine his impeachment being a non-factor in the reelection campaign.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Trump has officially been impeached. [https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/18/politics/house-impeachment-vote/index.html]

As the article points out, this likely won't mean much. With how narrow the margin was to impeach, and the fact that the Senate is Republican-controlled, the chances of Trump being removed from office are extremely unlikely. That said, I can't imagine his impeachment being a non-factor in the reelection campaign.

When I read the news I was like "HOLY FUCK!" And then I read about it and was like "oh this didn't mean he's out of office now". I will say this is quite a surprising development. I've been alive to witness two of the three impeachments in US history.

Also, the prospect of Pierce being president horrifies me. That in 2020 we would have an openly homophobic president.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Lol at the tweet Trump currently got pinned to his twitter feed. I wonder if the resemblance to the old Uncle Sam "We need you" posters is coincidental or intentional. I'm assuming the latter. He looks like a twit either way.

Spoiler: Seriously tho, what a ponce...

Although that's only to be expected. The common North American Trump is known to inflate its neckpouch and emit aggravated tweets when threatened.

 

[tstorm823]

Half the history of the entire world is people doing bad things and benefiting from it.

Pretending things aren't broken is the first step in not fixing anything.

The person I was quoting was specifically referring to people being electorally rewarded for bad things, which is not half of history.

Pretending things are irredeemable is the first step to burning everything to the ground.

So far is this thread, you have accused the Dems only doing this through bad faith and us not accepting your version of events as gospel as bad.

Yet, you post this somehow without understanding how you are doing the only seeing the negative in the whole Democratic Party and us.

Nah, you misunderstand. I'm not seeing only the negative of the whole Democratic Party. I understand their perspective. The Democrats leading the charge, and more importantly their constituents, see Trump as a serious threat to the entire country and will do anything in their power to weaken his position and avoid a repeat in 2020. And some of them have been pretty darn honest about that since the day he took office. I disagree with them, I think this impeachment is one of the dumbest moments in US history, but with the exception of Schiff who is an exceptional piece of crap, I think they're doing what they think is best for the country.

Does that have anything to do with Ukraine? Nah. Nothing at all. They're just using whatever excuse the can to make a case for impeachment, because they think it will help prevent Trump's reelection, because they think Trump is a terrible person doing real damage to America. It's very similar to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson: they basically made up a crime to charge him with, but they did so because they couldn't remove him from office for giving amnesty to confederate officers and vetoing civil rights legislation. Like, the means there weren't totally honest, but Andrew Johnson was terrible and deserved to be removed from office. The Democrats see Trump the same way: they hate all sorts of crap he does that they can't actually impeach him for, so they made up offenses to make it happen.

It's not all negative, I don't believe they're acting against their consciences here, I'm just not pretending for a second that any politician in DC genuinely felt mandated by the Constitution to remove the president from office over that phone call.

Also, while Iroh is smart, this is a simplistic quote that still sees things as only black and white. For example, Trump helped steel workers. Great. At the expense of companies using steel and farmers. Not great. Picking one of these positions is just being black and white. And Iroh suggests picking one side without considering the other sides nuance.

No, I think you just displayed the quote just fine. If you're only looking at the negative (like lots of people are), you freak out about Trump's trade war hurting farmers and write headlines asking why farmers would ever vote for someone who is hurting them with his evil and incompetent protectionist policies. Like, there is no shortage of people on the internet right now who will not even acknowledge that any good has come of Trump policies for anyone at all. Literally, if you try and look up Trump helping steel workers, you have to dig past multiple articles about how Trump totally hasn't helped steel workers before you find the guy saying they were hemorrhaging jobs before and just added 500 to our plant, so it's been good for them. You looked for the light in a gray situation and found it easily. People aren't doing that. Black and white is simplistic, but if you see gray, then there's some white in there. Some people see only black.

Like, the Democrats are using this impeachment for political gain, Also, they don?t like foreign influences or bribery (which is highly likely what Trump did, after he got the offical impeachment recently). Should Biden?s son be on a foreign board of directors? Sounds like a terrible idea to me. Did he actually curry favour? Possibly, but no evidence has been provided yet, so I... wait for further evidence.

As I?ve said before, the Dems shot themselves in the foot 25 years ago with Clinton. Being Impeached will probably mean nothing. You can abuse the Office and that mean nothing. It probably depends on those Republicans who aren?t clearly Trump stooges who are wondering if Trump will push them from the party. Because, if they think they will be replaced by someone more aligned with Trump, it?s in their best interests to get him out of Office. Not what the evidence says

Trump did not commit bribery, not even close. Put it out of your mind. The Ukrainians were trying to win Trump over. US officials tried to win Trump over for them. Giuliani told them things they could do to make Trump like them. Yermak treated it like an exchange, no exchange was ever made. Trump never asked anything of Ukraine nor told someone else to during any time in which Ukraine knew things were being withheld; when Trump asked for a favor, the Ukrainians were grateful aid was on the way and thought the White House visit was just suffering scheduling difficulties. There's no bribery at all.

And being impeached will mean something, but not the thing you probably want. Donald Trump is now fully legitimized. He was narrowly elected by a weird coalition of voters against the will of many more legitimate Republicans all and only because people don't like Hillary Clinton. He's been a clown a lot of the time in office. But nothing turns a clown into a statesman quite like an enemy, and House Democrats just declared war on him. Republicans are going to vote for him this time, probably all of us, because Democrats just gave Trump the unwavering support of everyone who doesn't like House Democrats. That's Republicans, that's a lot of independents, that's even some of the Democrat base. Trump is no longer a weird fluke in history, no longer a divide in the Republican Party, he's a real Republican president now.

 

[Silvanus]

And being impeached will mean something, but not the thing you probably want. Donald Trump is now fully legitimized. He was narrowly elected by a weird coalition of voters against the will of many more legitimate Republicans all and only because people don't like Hillary Clinton. He's been a clown a lot of the time in office. But nothing turns a clown into a statesman quite like an enemy, and House Democrats just declared war on him. Republicans are going to vote for him this time, probably all of us, because Democrats just gave Trump the unwavering support of everyone who doesn't like House Democrats. That's Republicans, that's a lot of independents, that's even some of the Democrat base. Trump is no longer a weird fluke in history, no longer a divide in the Republican Party, he's a real Republican president now.

That's funny, considering polls show about 10+ percent of Republican voters and 40+ percent of independents supporting impeachment.

I think you're wildly underestimating the antipathy towards him outside of his core base.

 

[CaitSeith]

Half the history of the entire world is people doing bad things and benefiting from it.

Pretending things aren't broken is the first step in not fixing anything.

The person I was quoting was specifically referring to people being electorally rewarded for bad things, which is not half of history.

Pretending things are irredeemable is the first step to burning everything to the ground.

If things were irredeemable, people wouldn't be spending time and effort in impeachments and elections; and I would be telling to every American to escape ASAP from there before it's too late.

Trump has framed the Democrats as "the enemy of the people" for years; making your idea that Trump has been a clown all this time unfounded. I don't know from where you got that he was a divide in the Republican party, since he steamrolled the primary elections. Anyone who saw Democrats as the enemy have been supporting Trump for years. There are lots of people who don't like the Democrats, but would rather die than support Trump (or most likely will die in a near future due to GOP's policies on healtcare). Similar arguments as yours were made about Nixon after Watergate happened, and they were mere delusions.