33 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I am not saying those are the facts, I am saying that will be how people who support Trump will see it.

 

I don't think all people who voted for Trump will support him no matter what. I don't think all Trump supporters are quite willing to disregard anything whatsoever. I don't believe you know how people will feel, or that you speak for them. Some, undoubtedly, will conform to your descriptions - but not all. And while considering what Trump supporters want and feel is  of paramount importance, it does not invalidate how others see things, and what the rules say.

41 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

. . . .

And since you've now slandered my good name in public, steve, I would expect an apology.

 

Steve, I see that you've reacted to my post, so I assume you've read it.  It was an innocent event in truth.  Why would you not want to apologize for being in such gross error and then casting me in a false poor light?

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't think all people who voted for Trump will support him no matter what. I don't think all Trump supporters are quite willing to disregard anything whatsoever. I don't believe you know how people will feel, or that you speak for them. Some, undoubtedly, will conform to your descriptions - but not all. And while considering what Trump supporters want and feel is  of paramount importance, it does not invalidate how others see things, and what the rules say.

My overall point is that this will not help the polarity in America. Of course you are upbeat and hopeful because you are on the opposite side. I hope it works out as well as you imagine it will. Wasn't it you that said america already had a civil war and the country survived. That is a very positive spin I must say.

48 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I quoted your post before you edited it.  And never saw your edit.  And that's the truth.

 <snip>

 

The timeline shows differently.

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

The timeline shows differently.

You are mistaken, my friend.

 

As long as a post is quoted in a response before the author edits it then the original quote will be what appears in the quoted response.  That's just how it works, Steve.  It's happened to me as well when I've edited my post before someone grabbed it for their response.  Ask anyone here and you'll get the same explanation because, as I said, that's just how it works.

 

And this is further illustration as to how people are able to distort the truth of an event due to their bias or perhaps even a simple, innocent lack of understanding.

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

My overall point is that this will not help the polarity in America. Of course you are upbeat and hopeful because you are on the opposite side. I hope it works out as well as you imagine it will. Wasn't it you that said america already had a civil war and the country survived. That is a very positive spin I must say.

 

Your "point" is an opinion. You tend to present your opinions as facts. And yet again, you do not actually address my post, but hold an imaginary dialogue.

 

I am not "upbeat". Things in the USA are depressing. And even if Trump was out the door tomorrow, it would take some time getting things back on track. And I'd agree that there's not a single candidate which seems up to the task of doing a great job of it. I just don't share your doomsday predictions with regard to the aftermath.

 

Unless mistaken, it was another poster that went on about the Civil War. If you want a reference to that, I'll just point out that divisions back then were more fundamental, the fabric holding the nation together thinner, and obviously, there now an historical precedent to be aware of. So no, I don't think Trump and his fans going on about a Civil War is something to worry about. It does show the mindset of some, though.

Link: Donald Trump sets Twitter record as White House fights off impeachment inquiry

"Amid calls for his impeachment and preparations for his reelection bid, Trump tweeted or retweeted nearly 800 times during an eventful September, about 100 posts beyond what he published in any previous month of his presidency, according to a USA TODAY analysis."

 

Contrary to what many people believe I think Twitter is doing the US a huge favor. If it weren't for Trumps manic use of it imagine what kind of trouble he would have had the time to get the country in.

Think of it as Don's pacifier!

10 minutes ago, Becker said:

Link: Donald Trump sets Twitter record as White House fights off impeachment inquiry

"Amid calls for his impeachment and preparations for his reelection bid, Trump tweeted or retweeted nearly 800 times during an eventful September, about 100 posts beyond what he published in any previous month of his presidency, according to a USA TODAY analysis."

 

Contrary to what many people believe I think Twitter is doing the US a huge favor. If it weren't for Trumps manic use of it imagine what kind of trouble he would have had the time to get the country in.

Think of it as Don's pacifier!

 

Doesn't he have a country to run?

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Your "point" is an opinion. You tend to present your opinions as facts. And yet again, you do not actually address my post, but hold an imaginary dialogue.

 

I am not "upbeat". Things in the USA are depressing. And even if Trump was out the door tomorrow, it would take some time getting things back on track. And I'd agree that there's not a single candidate which seems up to the task of doing a great job of it. I just don't share your doomsday predictions with regard to the aftermath.

 

Unless mistaken, it was another poster that went on about the Civil War. If you want a reference to that, I'll just point out that divisions back then were more fundamental, the fabric holding the nation together thinner, and obviously, there now an historical precedent to be aware of. So no, I don't think Trump and his fans going on about a Civil War is something to worry about. It does show the mindset of some, though.

You don't know how the right would react, nobody knows. Historically the right is much better at working things out without the need for rallies, shutdowns, and strikes. But a popular president being removed has never happened before. Sometimes <deleted> gets real in America. They are messing with something that patriotic Americans feel very strongly about.

Like Trump or not, but by far,  he is not the worst....nor the best, I agree......but the US house of REps is acting like a bully mafia clan... and that is wrong..........there is a saying (that I just invented)...that one get's the leader, one deserves !!..

Link: Another whistleblower has come forward, this time alleging ‘inappropriate steps’ were taken to influence Trump’s tax audit

 

"Another whistleblower complaint has been lodged, this time alleging that there were "inappropriate efforts to influence" the mandatory audit of the Trump and Vice President Mike Pence's tax returns by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)."

 

It just keeps piling up for poor old Don. Couldn't happen to a better person! 

 

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Doesn't he have a country to run?

Perish the thought! Real presidents do that, Don plays golf and tweets.

7 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

Like Trump or not, but by far,  he is not the worst....nor the best, I agree......but the US house of REps is acting like a bully mafia clan... and that is wrong..........there is a saying (that I just invented)...that one get's the leader, one deserves !!..

I disagree. He is by far the worst president in the history of the nation.

3 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

You don't know how the right would react, nobody knows. Historically the right is much better at working things out without the need for rallies, shutdowns, and strikes. But a popular president being removed has never happened before. Sometimes <deleted> gets real in America. They are messing with something that patriotic Americans feel very strongly about.

 

I did not claim to know how the "right" would react. You did. I'm not even sure that there's a "right" as in being of the same mind on this issue. The "historically" bit relies on this implied assertion, plus there's nothing whatsoever on offer to support it. Sounds more like a hollow statement, rather than something relying on fact.

 

As pointed out on this topic (and others), Nixon was effectively removed. He was more popular than Trump. Don't recall any Civil War breaking out as a result.

 

And then there's that loaded "patriotic Americans". As if Americans having different views, or simply not supportive of Trump aren't patriotic.

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

You are mistaken, my friend.

 

As long as a post is quoted in a response before the author edits it then the original quote will be what appears in the quoted response.  That's just how it works, Steve.  It's happened to me as well when I've edited my post before someone grabbed it for their response.  Ask anyone here and you'll get the same explanation because, as I said, that's just how it works.

 

And this is further illustration as to how people are able to distort the truth of an event due to their bias or perhaps even a simple, innocent lack of understanding.

As I said, I edited almost 15 minutes ago before you quoted. Maybe you waited with posting? We'll have to wait till tomorrow when the timeline is in dates and times again. If I'm wrong I'll be happy to apologise.

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I did not claim to know how the "right" would react. You did. I'm not even sure that there's a "right" as in being of the same mind on this issue. The "historically" bit relies on this implied assertion, plus there's nothing whatsoever on offer to support it. Sounds more like a hollow statement, rather than something relying on fact.

 

As pointed out on this topic (and others), Nixon was effectively removed. He was more popular than Trump. Don't recall any Civil War breaking out as a result.

 

And then there's that loaded "patriotic Americans". As if Americans having different views, or simply not supportive of Trump aren't patriotic.

Nixon was guilty of a little more than a procedural gaffe

1 minute ago, canuckamuck said:

Nixon was guilty of a little more than a procedural gaffe

 

The "procedural gaffe" label is a talking point. Addressed on this topic and others. It's not a fact.

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The "procedural gaffe" label is a talking point. Addressed on this topic and others. It's not a fact.

The fact was Nixon was removed for a more serious issue. But you can continue to split hairs. I'm avoiding work so I got all the time in the world.

2 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

The fact was Nixon was removed for a more serious issue. But you can continue to split hairs. I'm avoiding work so I got all the time in the world.

 

It's not a fact, it's your opinion. Plus  Trump's removal is still pending, charges included. I appreciate you trying your best to establish a narrative - it simply doesn't hold. What is work?

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It's not a fact, it's your opinion. Plus  Trump's removal is still pending, charges included. I appreciate you trying your best to establish a narrative - it simply doesn't hold. What is work?

It is not a fact that what Nixon did was more serious than what Trump is accused of?

I don't know what you mean by trying to establish a narrative? We are having a discussion. Should I not try to reiterate my points in different ways in the hope of reaching some common ground or to learn of the errors in my reasoning. Do you wish only your own opinion reflected back to you so that you can feel good about your confirmation bias.

 

Work is a years long project that I told myself I would get back into today. so far I have not.

7 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

It is not a fact that what Nixon did was more serious than what Trump is accused of?

I don't know what you mean by trying to establish a narrative? We are having a discussion. Should I not try to reiterate my points in different ways in the hope of reaching some common ground or to learn of the errors in my reasoning. Do you wish only your own opinion reflected back to you so that you can feel good about your confirmation bias.

 

Work is a years long project that I told myself I would get back into today. so far I have not.

Trump held up $400 million in Congressional approved aid for Ukraine, sent Giuliani to meet with Ukrainian officials to explain what Trump wanted President Zelinski to do, then asked for a "favor" when Zelinski brought up needed military aid during the phone call.  Seems like abuse of power and blackmail to me and many others.

 

The favors (plural) were to investigate a bizarre conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton's email somehow being in Ukraine and an investigation of long discredited allegations of VP Biden improprieties during the Obama administration.  The requests were transparent attempts to muddy the waters regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election and to dig up dirt on an opponent in the 2020 election.  These abuses strike me as worse than Nixon's incompetent cover-up of a "third rate burglary".

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

No matter the outcome of this latest "gate" the Dems will never admit defeat.  They could not accept Clinton's loss, they could not accept their loss of the Russia collusion hoax, and they will not be able to accept a loss here as well.

 

I think you stated it very truthfully and perceptively, stevenl, and I thank you (no sarcasm attached to my statement or the thank you).   . . . . nothing will come of it because the Republicans have lost their moral compass.  All of the losses experienced by the Dems will forever be blamed on anything and everything other than themselves.  As if they live in a world without mirrors.

Do you mean the Democrats will never accept Trump's election as legitimate?  Wrong, it is accepted.  However Democrats are keeping a close eye on a President who ignores accepted norms of conduct and transparency and who has a history of shady business dealings and associates.

 

Contrast that with Republicans who never accepted that Obama's Presidency was legitimate and kept up that birther nonsense.  What was the name of the orange blowhard who eventually led that whacko conspiracy theory?

3 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

So that is your angle, coming at it with maximum spin and tenuous connectivity.

This is how the other side will spin it. Trump, in a person to person phone call, brought up the subject of Biden's blackmail and interference in the government of the Ukraine. Biden, who bragged on stage about this blackmail was making a very obvious interference of a foreign countries affairs to protect his son's fake position at Burisma. Trump wanted to get some information about that. As it should be the right of a president to investigate the crimes of the former VP. No threats or blackmail were made. It was an open and understandable conversation.

Apparently the way in which this occurred was the wrong process to request information and on that technicality Trump gets impeached.

This is a far cry from Watergate, or Clinton in his rape trials and diddling Monica in the oval office. It was a procedural error. The lamest excuse ever to impeach a president. But we know the dog has its bone and it will never let it go.

Biden did not blackmail Ukraine, he implemented US policy.  Ukraine was attempting to borrow a lot of money and the US and other countries wanted a notoriously incompetent prosecutor out before they would approve the loan.

 

The new prosecutor investigated the company Biden's son worked for and found nothing wrong.

 

Trump knew or should have known the above.  He is either ignorant or corrupt.  Either way he should not have frozen $400 million in congressionally approved aid to Ukraine in order to extort a new Biden investigation.

Oh, the life in Ivory Tower--pleasure for peasants.

Today I learned that asking for information is more serious crime than using campaign funds to finance burglary on your presidential rivals offices and secretly taping the opposing candidates meeting during an election.

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

As I said, I edited almost 15 minutes ago before you quoted. Maybe you waited with posting? We'll have to wait till tomorrow when the timeline is in dates and times again. If I'm wrong I'll be happy to apologise.

I did search the Internet for the Samuel Adams quote I included in my response so it was not a swift reply.  But any delay in my posting wouldn't really matter.  It's not the delay in posting which causes an unedited post to be shown, only the time between a post appearing and the "Quote" button being activated.

 

If someone posts and someone else hits the "Quote" button immediately after the post appears on their monitor then that original post will appear in their response.  The original poster's future edits will not appear.  Not only that but the person responding with the original post will not be able to see the edited version until they refresh the site, which would usually be after they hit the "Submit Reply" button.

 

Also, the poster who responded with that original quote will not be aware of the edit to what they quoted unless they happened to go back to the edited post.  In fact, I wasn't even aware that you had edited your post until you mentioned it.  I then went back and of course saw what I expected to see; your edited post.

 

On my monitor your post appears as the 2nd to last post of page 41.  There was a single post between yours and my response.  My response ended up as the 1st post on page 42.  Which means that for me to see your edit I would have to return to page 41.  The chances of mne seeing your edited post are even less as I don't flip back to previous pages unless I need to for reference.

 

I do appreciate your offer, Steve, to apologize if you agree that this is what had in fact happened.  Then again, it's a hard-nosed world and I am hardened to it.  You see me here, often by my lonesome for hours, up against a brigade of posters who relish degrading and belittling others and I receive a fair amount of their vile abuse.  I have zero problem hanging in with nothing more than reason, rationale and common sense.  So I would not believe Becker's pathetic trolling post in which he mockingly creates a made up fantasy where I'm crying about being wronged and offering me a handkerchief.  I don't stoop to the level of treating other posters in a vile and disgraceful manner.  I don't need to.  I've got reason and logic to use as weapons of defense.  Our views may be opposing in a severe degree but I will respect you, the poster, nonetheless.  Heck, I'd even have a beer with ya.  I believe you're a decent bloke.  Such a sin that politics is used to pit good people against each other.

 

I've said it often.  I'm not Dem or Republican or Libertarian or any other label.  I'm not left, right, center.  I'm not pro Trump and neither am I anti Trump.  My fight is only for truth and freedom.  And I will fight against those who use the people as pawns, prod and encourage them to fight amongst each other, divide them, for their own twisted ends.  And those people you will find in every political party and on every end of the political spectrum.  I sincerely hope that there's a special place in h__e_ll for what they are doing.

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

You don't know how the right would react, nobody knows. Historically the right is much better at working things out without the need for rallies, shutdowns, and strikes. But a popular president being removed has never happened before. Sometimes <deleted> gets real in America. They are messing with something that patriotic Americans feel very strongly about.

I'm sorry but I am confused how do you draw the conclusion that he is a popular president?

Correct me if I am wrong but he lost the popular vote and his approval rating has never exceeded 46%!

Legitimate president yes, popular nahh

A troll baiting post has been removed

4 minutes ago, Waterloo said:

I'm sorry but I am confused how do you draw the conclusion that he is a popular president?

Correct me if I am wrong but he lost the popular vote and his approval rating has never exceeded 46%!

Legitimate president yes, popular nahh

For a rock band to be considered popular do they have to have more than 50% of the nations approval?

Trump has his base and in it he is popular. 46% is more than a few eh?

44 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

It is not a fact that what Nixon did was more serious than what Trump is accused of?

I don't know what you mean by trying to establish a narrative? We are having a discussion. Should I not try to reiterate my points in different ways in the hope of reaching some common ground or to learn of the errors in my reasoning. Do you wish only your own opinion reflected back to you so that you can feel good about your confirmation bias.

 

Work is a years long project that I told myself I would get back into today. so far I have not.

 

It's a fact that you insist on it. By itself, no - what you assert is not a fact. And that's even considering your assertion is loaded to begin with.

 

You're not having a discussion. You keep trying to sneak in facts in the guise of loaded statements and phrases. You ignore previous posts and rehash issues which were addressed. When something doesn't suit you simply gloss over it and move on. You do not actually address points others make, but simply repeat  your own views.

 

I meant work in general. It wasn't a very serious question or comment. Just fell out of the habit of having a boss (the Mrs. aside)