A BIG Question

1. 83

   gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago

   
   President Trump seems to be quite blasé about his impeachment.   Trump contends that he won't be impeached as there is a Republican senate majority who has his back.   There are those who vehemently believe that because of the partisan nature of the impeachment, Trump will win big in 2020.   Do you believe that the impeachment will hurt or harm the Democratic Party in 2020 & in future years?   Conversely, do you believe that the impeachment will stain the Republican party in 2020 & in future years?  Why?  Why not?

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It begins to appear that Pelosi is going to try and hold off until after Trump is re-elected and then try and claim he is impeached.
      
      Rather than harm the Republican party it appears more and more that they will come out of the farce way ahead.   When their primary opposition is more interested in playing political games than performing their required duties, and the Republicans shut them down, it could be quite a feather in their cap.
      
      Now if only the R's would quit playing games and get to business...

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Three-quarters of those surveyed want to hear from witnesses in the Senate trial, so I fail to see how Mitch's proclaimed goal of protecting the president by calling no witnesses will help the GOP.
         
         Like I keep saying, bring in Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, and Giuliani to testify under oath that Trump is innocent of all charges as he has proclaimed. That would make the Democrats look like rabid, partisan fools and clinch another four years for Trump and  return the House to GOP control.
         
         Call Mitch and urge him to end this nonsense.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            IMHO Democrats aready look like rabid, partisan fools and have already virtually clinched another four years for Trump.  R's may even regain control of the House, who knows?
            
            There just seems no reason at all to give the D's purely partisan farce any credit at all.  Ignore it to the maximum extent possible (simply vote on the non-evidence they've provided) and move on with real business.  Playing their silly political games can only serve to provide some legitimacy to those games - something we don't need.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               It seems odd that you would think it counterproductive to definitively settle the question of the president's guilt or innocence once and for all.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  His guilt is unproven; at this time it is only the overactive imaginations of Democrats wishing to remove him from the next election that gives any hing of guilt.
                  
                  So why would it be "productive" to attempt and prove a negative?  It is already assumed true under our justice system, and negatives are notoriously hard to prove.  Why waste the time, then, with nothing to gain?  Besides, nothing could ever be said or found that will convince the Trump haters out there - they don't care about guilt or innocence, only that he not be re-elected.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     "....at this time it is only the overactive imaginations of Democrats wishing to remove him from the next election that gives any hing of guilt." You forgot  multiple  credible people who testified under oath.
                     
                     The rest is just your nonsensical opinion.

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        Not a single "witness" testified that they read his mind and discovered his purpose was to affect the next election.  THAT was the crime, and it purely imagination by the Dem's.
                        
                        It is "nonsensical" that it is difficult to prove a negative?  Any student of logic will deny that.  That Trump haters actually care about the truth?  If they did, they wouldn't be insisting that he was guilty, and would not have begun crying for impeachment 2 years before the crime happened, now would they?

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           This is just silly. If my husband says, I'd love a grilled cheese sandwich I know for absolute certainty he is asking me to make him one. Sondland and others knew exactly what Trump wanted.
                           
                           You're expecting thinking people to suspend reason to give your man a sliver of unreasonable doubt. I know that works for you Trumpeters because you've made a habit of it, but the rest of us prefer to
                           exercise our reason.

                           replyreport
                           1. 96

                              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              Thank you.  You've made the case better than I could.  No reasonable doubt in a Trump haters mind, whether there is direct evidence or not.  Never has been (even before any testimony), isn't now and never will be.  Even after a 2 year witch hunt supported by the weight of the US government there still is zero evidence of Trump colluding with Russia or Putin to fix the last election...but the haters still insist he did so.
                              
                              Tell me again why they would be interested in testimony as to innocence?
                              
                              You may well know your husband's mind in simple things, things like making a sandwich.  Does that mean you think Sondland and others have lived in intimate contact with Trump for years and fixed innumerable other elections for him?

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                 It is not "reasonable" to believe multiple career professionals with impeccable reputations and a wealthy Trump donor turned ambassador would all lie under oath. It is not "reasonable" to believe a proven liar over them.
                                 
                                 But, you know that. You prefer to pretend any sliver of possible doubt is "reasonable" because you desperately want Trump to be innocent . You want it so desperately you invent rationalization for preventing the testimony of the very people who could prove his innocence and remove all doubt.
                                 
                                 Oh well,here we go again. More evidence is coming out, so I'll await your next twisted rationale for rejecting it.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 96

                                    wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                    Why not (lie)?  The entire Democratic congress (save 3) did - why not witnesses testifying to what they did not see or hear?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                       

                                       report
                                       1. 96

                                          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                          Yes - "rolleyes" indeed.  Every one I heard in their closing arguments made the same claim you have - that Trump made his phone call to help fix the next election.  Because their crystal ball told them that was the motive.
                                          
                                          Which makes every one of them a liar, because they cannot know that. 
                                          
                                          (I see memes that Dem's are the first to impeach without criminal behavior reflected in the articles of impeachment.  Is that true?  Have they set a new standard for impeachment?  Wonder how that will work out for Democratic presidents.)

                                          report
                                          1. 0

                                             PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                             New evidence is emerging. I look.forward to your next rationalization. Maybe you will surprise me.

                                             report
                                             1. 96

                                                wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                                "New" evidence?  Do you mean more opinions extended as absolute fact?  Or something that is really evidence this time?
                                                
                                                PP, even your own witnesses have admitted they didn't hear or see anything untoward.  It was only their conclusions, most based on a desire to harm the White House, that was untoward.  Which is exactly what I said.

                                                report
                                                1. 59

                                                   Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                                   What was their motive to harm the WH, Dan. Did they just "hate" him?

                                                   report
                                                2. 0

                                                   PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                                   You're something else. 
                                                   
                                                   Hope you have a Merry Christmas.

                                                   report
                           2. 82

                              GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              "unreasonable doubt"
                              
                              That's a good one. I like it.
                              
                              GA

                              replyreport
                        2. 59

                           Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           I buy logic problem books by the dozen Dan, and I've witnessed plenty of evidence against Trump during the hearings. His lack of furnishing witnesses and documents say a lot about his quilt or innocence.
                           
                           I can see no reason why the highly respected witnesses would simply lie about their testimony. Perhaps you can explain why Vindman was unbelievable and why he would lie?
                           
                           Again with the Limbaugh/Hannity "hater" charge. Just like the House Republicans, you have nothing left to defend the criminal with.

                           replyreport
                           1. 96

                              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              Buying the books, but not reading them, right?
                              
                              Is Pelosi and the rest of the Dem's in congress "highly respected"?  Because they sure lied - through their teeth in closing arguments if not before.
                              
                              That's all right that I have nothing to defend with, for I have no intention of defending OR making accusations.  Besides, there is nothing to defend against.

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                 The newly released--though highly redacted--emails say different, Dan.
                                 
                                 And I do indeed solve all of the logic problems. You should try it sometimes as it keeps the mind sharp.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                    I love logic problems.  I can't solve all of them, but I do manage to solve most of them.  I also love to play Sudoku.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 59

                                       Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                       I always keep a logic problem mag in the john as that's the only time I really know what I'm doing.

                                       report
      2. 67

         Eastwardposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I've also seen speculation that Pelosi is holding back the articles of impeachment in order to time a Senate trial against the favor of the progressive Senators, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (since their senatorial duties would take precedent and keep them out of upcoming debates). Of course it's just speculation at this point, but if that would come to pass, the Democrats will lose a lot of support from their own base.

         replyreport
2. 60

   TessSchlesingerposted 4 years ago

   I believe that the absence of morality and ethics have so vanished from the political viewpoint in the USA that impeachment counts for nothing.
   
   For many years now, the real battle in the USA hadn't been about right and wrong, but about win and lose.
   
   It doesn't matter how you win, do long ad you win.
   
   With that ethos in mind, I think Trump will win 2020 because, as a result of the way voting blocks have been organised, the system is rigged in favour of Republicans.
   
   I find it sad because the USA has list the respect of the western world.

   replyreport
3. 62

   ginosblogposted 4 years ago

   So true. Everything the dem's have done they have accused President Trump of the exact same thing. Personally, I hope the Democratic Party dissappears. They have not stopped lying since Lincoln.

   replyreport