41 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

How wrong this is has been pointed out to you in this thread and many, many, many other times in other threads you've been on.

The fact you are still punting this ridiculous point shows either complete willful ignorance, delusion to a worrying degree or just plain old trolling. I can't work out which one it is but if you are proven wrong time and time again as you have been here, can you at least move on to a more challenging counter argument?

Feel free to put me on your ignore list and to read the federalist article I posted.  I will return the favor.

1 hour ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

The person who should have been investigating if there was any wrongdoing by the Bidens in the Ukraine - Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, that's who.

 

According to Bloomberg News, who interviewed him:

 

 

If there were any evidence that Biden "peddled favours for aid" (which as mentioned above, there isn't) then the way to get an investigation into it started, would be to present something providing reasonable grounds for suspicion (difficult because once again, there is no such evidence) to the relevant US authorities, who I believe would be the FBI and/or DoJ.

 

If those authorities felt there was something worth looking at they would then start an investigation. They might even, as part of their investigation, work with the State Department to contact the relevant legal authorities in the country where a US citizen was suspected of a criminal offence.

 

However what is not allowed (because it's a criminal offence in and of itself) is for a person involved in a federal election to directly ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival.

As President of the United States, Trump would have been recalcitrant in his duties had he not brought up Biden's conduct during that phone call.  That video of Biden bragging about withholding money unless the Ukraine prosecutor investigating his son was fired was evidence enough of wrongdoing. 

Trump is right to refuse to comply until Pelosi takes a full vote on an impeachment inquiry.  Right now the inquiry is illegitimate. 

2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

What I like to ask the Trump supporters here:

Don't you think he has mental problems?

Or do you think his behavior is rational?

And do you care to have a president with a sound mind?

 

There is obviously a lot to argue about his politics. But let's forget that for a moment. I think he is just mentally unfit and it's hard for me to believe that people want to have a president (with nuclear codes) with that state of mind.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

And then there's this...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-dares-congress-brandishing-deep-red-2016-election-map-try-to-impeach-this

Pubic opinion may well be shifting toward support of the inquiry, but the cash is heading to Trump and the RNC.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/01/trump-campaign-republican-national-committee-raised-125-million-in-the-3rd-quarter-ap-reports.html?__source=sharebar|twitter&par=sharebar

1 minute ago, johnnybangkok said:

Yeah his actual removal would require some Republican Senators to suddenly grow a pair and vote with their conscience, respecting the office rather than their own self interest.

Since that's not going to happen (and it's going to show them up for who they truly are) but Congress IS still going to see this through, perhaps on a similar vein to what you suggested we could get an apology from Trump. Something along the lines of 'sorry for the Campaign Finance Violation, my Honest Services Fraud (look it up), my borderline extortion and my attempt to intimidate the current whistleblower (Witness Intimidation), my Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller case, my siding with Dictators at the expense of trusted allies, my VERY obvious racism, my general dividing of a nation, my Twitter tantrums, my science denying, my cashing in at taxpayers expense by getting everyone to stay at my hotels, my having a go at Meryl Streep. I'm sorry. I'm truly, truly sorry.   

 

And we shall all be grateful and forgiving for at least he didn't call anyone 'deplorable'.

 

Ahh...not a good start.

26 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The 45 fans wouldn't see a something burger if it slapped them in the face. The facts based world realizes there has been a massive sea change in recent days but never mind the true believers carry on with willful ignorance. Funny actually.

 

Already the majority of Americans support impeachment of 45. And this has only just begun. The Nixon public opinion change wasn't nearly this fast.

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

Your team is going to have to persuade millions of Trump supporters to come over to your side to get a conviction in the Senate.  Insulting Trump supporters as you have done in many of your posts is not going to help.  Put another way, you need us but we don't need you.

"There’s a lesson here for Trump’s opponents, too. If they want impeachment to be followed by removal, they are going to have to persuade millions of voters who are currently in his corner. Impeachment can’t be seen as an act of culture-war vengeance – a judgment on voters for being stupid and racist enough to choose Trump – if it is to succeed."

https://news.yahoo.com/why-trumps-removal-wouldnt-lead-194533639.html

13 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

I find the two posts above (@EVENKEEL and @Kelsall) to be fascinating, instructive and horrifying.

 

it is fascinating to me that one could comment on the current situation of the occupant of the White House and not include a word on ethics, values, principles or morals. Has American politics really become an ethical wasteland where the pursuit of power is an end itself, without any need for scruples along the way? I find this most often in the debate around judges, especially Supreme Court judges. It has been my experience that the 'Right' wants judges in order to get a favourable ruling (in their eyes) on abortion. Now, I respect that some people feel very strongly about abortion (even though I respectfully disagree), but does their desire to see the practice outlawed come with any ethics/principles attached? Is it worth running over all other factors just to get what they want? Do the ends justify the means?

 

It is instructive reading these pages on the US 'Right'. With very few exceptions, all the arguments that I see coming from that side are generally negative, devoid of fact, information and/or debate. Rather, it is a process of identifying someone/something they don't like (a 'Left-wing radical', a 'Feminazi', a 'SJW with pink hair', etc) and then demonizing that person/thing; rarely do I see/read a reasoned argument as to why a course of action is valid or not. Are there not any positive arguments for Trump's policies?

 

Finally, it is horrifying that in the US the level of political discourse has devolved to the point whereby one merely states that he/she is a member of a certain 'tribe' and does not feel a need to put forth any more discussion. Are there not any reasons why Trump supporters like something? Is it good enough to say that a 'SJW' doesn't agree, thus it is good? Are there not any positive arguments for what you want to see?

 

A TVF member made the point to me the other day that there are many people who like Trump's policies/actions without liking the man, and I said 'okay'. But, on further thought, I don't think it is 'okay'. To me, you cannot separate the message/actions from the messenger and wash your hands of responsibility. Any leader, no matter how evil, does some good things; how can one support all the terrible things, but clap loudly at the good things, and sleep at night? Is there not a moral/ethical view of Trump?

 

So, back to the news article above. I think all Senators MUST vote when the Articles of Impeachment come from the House of Representatives (and, they will). Senators, especially Republican Senators, you have to state for the record if you still believe in the principles, values, ethics and oaths you have espoused. And remember, your vote will be tattooed (proverbially) on your forehead until the day you die.

 

Comments?

If it comes to it, Senators will vote to convict or not convict based on what their constituents want.  The Trump haters are going to have to persuade millions of Trump supporters to come over to their side. So start playing nice.  You need us, but we don't need you.

Interesting article that points out for Trump to be thrown out of office, his opponents are going to have to persuade millions of Trump supporters to come over to their side.  So if you want Trump supporters to call their congressmen and senators to vote to impeach and then convict Trump, better start playing nice :).  An apology from Hillary for the nickname "deplorables" might be a good start.

From the article:  "There’s a lesson here for Trump’s opponents, too. If they want impeachment to be followed by removal, they are going to have to persuade millions of voters who are currently in his corner. Impeachment can’t be seen as an act of culture-war vengeance – a judgment on voters for being stupid and racist enough to choose Trump – if it is to succeed."

https://news.yahoo.com/why-trumps-removal-wouldnt-lead-194533639.html

This is another one of those "the beginning of the end for Donald Trump" things we have heard since he won the election. 

As I wrote elsewhere, this is yet another nothing-burger.

What a surprise.

A relationship in Thailand that's all about money.