Senate acquits Trump in historic vote as re-election battle looms

[JHolmesJr]

A tip for all Trump supporting bros:

We all know that this is now OVER.

However trump bashers will continue to troll

with talking points supplied by their favorite

MSM talking heads. This is the only recourse left to them

now that acquittal cannot be undone.

 

It will take great restraint but we should seriously

think about disengaging from these discussions and leave them

in their own echo chamber of denial and outrage.

 

God give me the strength to do what Im proposing.

I will however reserve the right to post about new developments

and express my satisfaction/dissatisfaction with how the counter

investigations go. I will however try my best not to discuss the acquittal.

Read my lips...that chapter is closed.

[Tippaporn]

36 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

Hold on for a second. This is Washington we are talking about. It is not true that only 1 possibility can be true. In fact, I would wager my left arm that both allegations are true. Namely, Biden was corrupt (name a politician at his level who isn't) and Trump was going after an investigation to harm a political opponent. (Again, name a politician at his level who hasn't done that.)

 

The real issue is that since both points of view are likely correct in substance, which one is more in line with the reality of how politics operates today?

 

I have no doubt Trump was probably guilty. I just don't think there was ever any hope of convicting him, because what he did simply did not rise to the level of abhorrence necessary for an impeachment. Just like my buddy Bill. So what if he got fellatio in the oval office and lied about it. Hardly something that I could not see anyone doing. And so what if Trump decided to press a questionable investigation for political advantage. Again, hardly something to get worked up over.

 

I have engaged many Trump supporters in reasoned conversation. Without all the snarling and spitting that occurs on this forum, and the above is basically what you find. 

 

If the Democrats want to impeach Trump, they need to find an impeachable offense. Show him torturing babies and you'll get a conviction.  The issue is that politicians have such a bad reputation these days that nobody believes Biden wasn't deserving of an investigation. And they don't particularly care that Trump tried to use the situation for political gain. 

 

Show me dead baby carcasses, and you'll get that impeachment.

 

Short of that, concentrate on the future. This is flogging a dead horse. The Democrats lost this one because they were pandering to their supporters for political reasons. There was never any expectation of a conviction.

I made this statement in my post:  There are (at least) two possibilities concerning intention.

 

Rather than list out a multitude of possibilities for the sake of brevity I used only two possibilities and defined them.  If those were the only two probabilities then yes, either A) is true and B) is false or vice versa.

 

The entire purpose of my post was not to consider a myriad of possibilities but to introduce the concept of possibilities and to point out how many posters here rule out the concept that another explanation may be possible.  Hence the argument ad nauseam that the Bidens have no relevancy.  Which, given the idea of various possibilities, is logically false.

 

I don't see any snarling or spitting in my post so go ahead and point it out for me.  As to having conversations with Trump supporters I'm assuming those conversations you mention are face-to-face.  People behave quite differently face-to-face than they do as faceless, anonymous people on a forum.  They don't have to fear getting their block knocked off when they behave in disgusting manners.

 

Edit:  Also, I'm hoping that perhaps the use of reasoned logic would help bridge the divide between these divergent viewpoints since, to be frank, the use of logic when debating is sorely lacking IMHO.  I have my doubts (sirineou didn't take to kindly to it) but I'll give it a whirl.

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, candide said:

Which evidence?

I think you're pulling my leg with that question.

[candide]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I think you're pulling my leg with that question.

I can answer for you. The only ones are the comments made by Z. They have been quite diplomatic in substance and with a phrasing allowing to easily reverse its meaning, I did not feel, etc...and also made under in a context of high dependence.

[Crazy Alex]

10 hours ago, Farangwithaplan said:

I hope everyone enjoyed their democracy while it was available. Republicans have just handed Trump a mandate not just to do what he wants because he was already doing that to some extent, but a mandate to know do whatever he wants with absolutely no option for recourse.

 

There is an old saying " beware what you wish for because you just might get it." Well, Republicans have got it.

Of course there is recourse. There is an election in November.

[sirineou]

28 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Yes, the possibility that Trump was fighting corruption exists.  You just proved my entire post . . . Dems do not believe in any other possible explanations for, perhaps anything, other than the explanations they believe to be true.  You're going to have a very, very tough time getting others to go along with you.  No one wants to live in a one-sided world where others (Dems) get to decide what's real and what is not.  Good f^ing luck.

 

If you don't understand my post then I can only assume that you would not understand any explanation I would give you for the slew of other questions you put forth.  I'll save myself the trouble.

Only in your mind  ,

  It has being conclusively proven that he was not just fighting corruption unless as I said ,you suggest that corruption only happened in the Ukraine , and in the Ukraine only happened by the Bidens , and also suggest that such corruption fighting can only be proven by call Hunter Biden, the whistleblower , and Adam Schefft  to testify, and preventing all the principal players from testifying.

Come on, think about , even you must admit it is very funny.  

Also you would need to ignore all the republicans who openly admitted that trump did what he was accused of doing but  abuse of power did not rise to the level of impeachment.  

 

[Crazy Alex]

3 hours ago, earlinclaifornia said:

The FOUNDERS had no say what so ever! The republican party solely were responsile for voting to acquit! Some people just make stuff up because they think is sounds GOOD! LOl

By the same token, the Democrats were solely responsible for the impeachment in the House. Impeachment and removal (failure) were both partisan.

[Logosone]

Whatever you think of Trump, I like his US nationalism very little, but one can't argue that his policies aren't working. His tariff war with China was a clean and convincing win. 

 

To make China give such humiliating concessions in so little time was remarkable.

 

I'm just curious if the US can keep it's position as leading world economy or if China will at some point take over anyway.

[Cryingdick]

9 hours ago, PatOngo said:

Of course he will, which shows just how low the electorate has sunk! Ah but he's given his total endorsement to the 2nd Amendment of the constitution, the carnage will continue! NRA, NRA, NRA! 

 

Trump might defend the second amendment, however the dems are the party that make the second amendment an absolute necessity. 

[AussieBob18]

Access Hollywood=Fail
Recount=Fail
Daniels=Fail 
Avenatti=Fail 
Cohen=Fail 
Omarosa=Fail 
Scaramucci=Fail 
Manafort=Fail 
Trump Tower Meeting =Fail

Kavanaugh = Fail 
Comey=Fail

Russia=Fail 
Mueller=Fail 

IS Report = Fail
Whistleblower=Fail 
Yovanovitch=Fail
Bolton= Fail 
Impeachment=Fail

 

Trump=2020

 

Dems=0

[Crazy Alex]

55 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Whatever you think of Trump, I like his US nationalism very little, but one can't argue that his policies aren't working. His tariff war with China was a clean and convincing win. 

 

To make China give such humiliating concessions in so little time was remarkable.

 

I'm just curious if the US can keep it's position as leading world economy or if China will at some point take over anyway.

What's wrong with nationalism, whether American or that of any other country? The planet has different countries for a reason. Nationalism goes hand-in-hand with sovereignty.

[chokrai]

37 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Trump might defend the second amendment, however the dems are the party that make the second amendment an absolute necessity. 

Yes, the Dems have shown us over and over the last 3 years why the second amendment is so important. Why do you think they hate it so much.

[Crazy Alex]

6 minutes ago, chokrai said:

Yes, the Dems have shown us over and over the last 3 years why the second amendment is so important. Why do you think they hate it so much.

Unarmed peasants are easier to control.

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, Crazy Alex said:

What's wrong with nationalism, whether American or that of any other country? The planet has different countries for a reason. Nationalism goes hand-in-hand with sovereignty.

 

I didn't say I don't like nationalism, there is of course nothing wrong with nationalism. I said I didn't like Trump's nationalism.

 

Nationalism and sovereignty do go hand in hand and can be good. 

 

But nationalism is not per se good, just like investment funds or cars are not per se good, it depends what you do with them.

 

The United States as the world's largest economy does have an effect on the rest of the world. Trump's policies have been so one-sided, drastic and dangerous that one has to concede that Trump's policies have been reckless, dangerous and not beneficial for the world at large. My own view is that nationalism is only good if it benefits all of the members of the family of nations. 

 

There is nothing wrong in pursuing your self interest. There is a lot wrong with pursuing your self-interest at a catastrophic cost to others, who are your friends and family. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Logosone

[candide]

2 hours ago, Logosone said:

To make China give such humiliating concessions in so little time was remarkable.

Which humiliating concessions? China only made promises everyone knows they will not hold. Trump put his pants down, as usual. Same as with NK.

[Gweiloman]

6 minutes ago, candide said:

Which humiliating concessions? China only made promises everyone knows they will not hold. Trump put his pants down, as usual. Same as with NK.

If China made concessions, you can be sure there was some quid pro quo lol

[Crazy Alex]

6 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

You can look at nationalism in history and say it is dangerous. You can also look at nationalism and say that it created many beautiful things, was very useful and even that many of the modern comforts of today, jet travel for instance, can be traced back to wars.

 

Nationalism is not good or bad per se. It depends what people do with it. It can create unity, build a nation up, or it can tear a nation, and its neighbours down. 

 

 

Two great responses. I think you've touched on the line where good and bad meet. Nationalism is fine until it reaches the point that others are unnecessarily harmed or killed. I'll elaborate on what is necessary and what is not using the immigration issue. Countries can and should enforce their borders and immigration as they see fit. We have a relatively new thread here about El Salvador and people getting killed there after being deported. Too bad for them. Enforcing our borders and immigration is necessary. They day we begin shooting them down at the border, I assume we will both be there protesting.

[Crazy Alex]

4 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

If China made concessions, you can be sure there was some quid pro quo lol

Of course there would be. That's how negotiations work.

[Cryingdick]

I seem to have taken a wrong turn and stumbled into China negotiations. Anyway Trump** about to speak about the impeachment. This should be fun. 

[PatOngo]

2 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Let's just keep to the topic. My one liner was meant to be rhetorical.  Trump was acquitted and is taking his victory lap on TV now. 

Strutting like a peacock, no doubt!  Love him or loathe him, I don't really care, I just happen to be of the latter!       

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, PatOngo said:

Strutting like a peacock, no doubt!  Love him or loathe him, I don't really care, I just happen to be of the latter!       

 

Yeah it is a little different than the time Clinton had his after impeachment event. 

[PatOngo]

2 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Yeah it is a little different than the time Clinton had his after impeachment event. 

After the trial concluded, President Clinton said he was “profoundly sorry” for the burden his behavior imposed on Congress and the American people.

 

Has the Don apologised yet? He'd be more likable if played saxophone!

[Cryingdick]

2 minutes ago, PatOngo said:

After the trial concluded, President Clinton said he was “profoundly sorry” for the burden his behavior imposed on Congress and the American people.

 

Has the Don apologised yet? He'd be more likable if played saxophone!

 

Trump has nothing to apologize for. That's the difference. Clinton knew he was truly wrong. Feels weird having to explain that to a grown man.

[PatOngo]

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Trump has nothing to apologize for. That's the difference. Clinton knew he was truly wrong. Feels weird having to explain that to a grown man.

Mitt Romney seems to get it!

 

The president asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival. The president withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so. The president delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders. The president’s purpose was personal and political. Accordingly, the president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.

 

To be perfectly honest with you, I don't give a **** what Americans do to each other!

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Trump might defend the second amendment, however the dems are the party that make the second amendment an absolute necessity. 

 

3 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Unarmed peasants are easier to control.

Right.  We've all seen how having lots of armed civilians has protected Thais against tyranny.

[JHolmesJr]

27 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Let's just keep to the topic. My one liner was meant to be rhetorical.  Trump was acquitted and is taking his victory lap on TV now. 

 

He's conducting a regular staff meeting with cameras...it's like casual Friday minus jeans.

No teleprompter...just riffing....he might just go on for another hour or two.

Love it....it's gonna drive the media insaaaane.

Edited February 6, 2020 by JHolmesJr

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, AussieBob18 said:

That is called diatribe - 'a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something."

Thanks for sharing why you hate Donald Trump - there is not enough words to describe why I like him.

But to answer a few points:  

Clinton was proven guilty and the offenses were worthy of impeachment - but the Dems said no - big difference.

Legal Immigration is good - I am a legal immigrant - but the issue is illegal immigrants and fake refugees.

The rest of your diatribe is like the Dems Impeachment - full of innuendo and false accusations without proof.

 

Why do you think that lying about an illicit affair is an impeachable offense, but inviting a foreign power to interfere in a US election is not?

 

Impeachment is meant to be for conduct so egregious it presents a threat to US security and democracy.  How did Clinton's BJ do that?

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, riclag said:

Didn't you watch the house hearings ! Everyone agreed under questioning that Ukraine and corruption were thicker than sap on a rubber tree! It wasn't hard to judge Barisma's  story and time line for suspicion and proved corruption  ,especially with  biden bragging of what he did. Anyway its official  the senate has started ,it is asking for HB docs from the state department .

Yes, lots of corruption in Ukraine. Why is it the only corruption Trump showed interest in was an old case that indirectly involved a political opponent?

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Of course there is recourse. There is an election in November.

Trump said he wouldn't accept any outcome as legitimate except his victory in 2016.  Do you think he'll do any different this time?

[Cryingdick]

2 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

He's conducting a regular staff meeting with cameras...it's like casual Friday minus jeans.

No teleprompter...just riffing....he might just go on for another hour or two.

Love it....it's gonna drive the media insaaaane.

 

Yeah it's too much winning. lol