The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[jamil]

Yeah, that's probably true.

ETA:
Now that you mention it, the response to the Watergate incident was probably as close as we've come to a coup in modern USian history. Even then, the efforts were legal.

But, it was a group of political leaders moving against the legitimate government.

Again, they were backed up by actual legal mechanisms, so it still wasn't an ACTUAL coup. And Nixon's resignation removed any need for one.

ETA2:
Or, if we're going to adopt Trump's usage, the impeachment of Clinton was also a coup.

Not really. I think a lot of people believed the president was a crook after more information came out about Watergate. It was really hard to be a partisan supporter of someone you believed was a crook. At least that's how I remembered it being a young teen living in a Nixon supporting household.

 

[T.Lex]

But, the House would never have drawn up articles of impeachment if it were controlled by Democrats. The appearance of partisanship works both ways. It appears to the right that the House is being partisan, which I think the facts clearly support. But to the left, the Senate will appear to be partisan when it dismisses the charges. And it will be partisan. The only way either side acts bipartisan, at least these days, is if it becomes apparent that they're completely full of **** to their own side. Not as likely to happen with all the hyper-partisan division going on.

But at least with Clinton, the Dems were penned into a "Yeah..., but..." situation. "Yeah, it was perjury, but it wasn't THAT big of a deal."

That provided significant cover for the Republicans to push forward with impeachment.

With this, there's nothing comparable IMHO.

I seriously doubt I'm suffering any partisan confirmation bias regarding Trump. If there was a legitimate way to impeach him, I'd be in favor of it. But this isn't that.

 

[jamil]

By your parametrization, impeachment is the wrong word. You argue that words should have meanings and further that the currently accepted meaning or usage should hold sway. But you have also indicated that impeachable offense has no meaning or such an over broad definition as to have no meaning - to whit, the house could impeach a president for anything it desires; high crimes and misdemeanors not required. I don't think that qualifies as the sincere and serious idea that people believe that impeachment should be, the meaning of the word has not morphed into clown show

I think the right word actually is coup, a movement by a dedicated band of true believers intent on regime change by methods that may lead to violence

I think it's more that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is subjective enough that a hostile congress could impeach a president just because they don't like him. But, there are political consequences for that. And that's why every congress sitting in opposition of the president doesn't impeach him just because they don't like him. They'd probably lose their jobs if the public didn't also get behind it. The public WAS behind impeaching Nixon. That was more of a bipartisan effort than Clinton or Jackson. The effort to impeach Trump isn't a bipartisan effort. And they're using their imaginations to find something they can say are high crimes and misdemeanors. They do have some public support. They got Kut believing.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Not really. I think a lot of people believed the president was a crook after more information came out about Watergate. It was really hard to be a partisan supporter of someone you believed was a crook. At least that's how I remembered it being a young teen living in a Nixon supporting household.

A LOT of people think THIS president is a crook. And it's they're not just Democrats. Despite there being plenty of Republicans that also think that way, those persons are dismissed as being part of the "establishment" or the "Deep States." Today "partisan" sides are pretty much Trump supporters and everybody else.

 

[jamil]

But at least with Clinton, the Dems were penned into a "Yeah..., but..." situation. "Yeah, it was perjury, but it wasn't THAT big of a deal."

That provided significant cover for the Republicans to push forward with impeachment.

With this, there's nothing comparable IMHO.

I seriously doubt I'm suffering any partisan confirmation bias regarding Trump. If there was a legitimate way to impeach him, I'd be in favor of it. But this isn't that.

Is that really the way you meant to word that. It sounds awfully partisan.

I would say, if I believed Trump really did something I thought raised to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, I'd be in favor of impeachment. But I'm not looking for any excuse that smells legitimate.

 

[BugI02]

Not really. I think a lot of people believed the president was a crook after more information came out about Watergate. It was really hard to be a partisan supporter of someone you believed was a crook. At least that's how I remembered it being a young teen living in a Nixon supporting household.

People associated with a president's re-election efforts broke the law to spy on and get dirt on his opponents, and then Nixon became directly involved in trying to limit the damage. Watergate has much more in common with Russiagate/Clinton/Obama than anything else extant

 

[T.Lex]

Is that really the way you meant to word that. It sounds awfully partisan.

I would say, if I believed Trump really did something I thought raised to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, I'd be in favor of impeachment. But I'm not looking for any excuse that smells legitimate.

To me, that's semantics (and probably your own personal filter). A "legitimate way to impeach him" means a "legitimate way." Not just "a way that I think is legitimate." Objectively legitimate - or as near as you can get. Like Clinton's perjury.

 

[KLB]

A LOT of people think THIS president is a crook. And it's they're not just Democrats. Despite there being plenty of Republicans that also think that way, those persons are dismissed as being part of the "establishment" or the "Deep States." Today "partisan" sides are pretty much Trump supporters and everybody else.

Where is the "tape" for Trump? The opposition keeps looking and digging, but nothing has come up.

With Nixon, the people heard him recorded saying the things he was accused of. Plain English. No interpretation needed.

 

[Ingomike]

A LOT of people think THIS president is a crook. And it's they're not just Democrats. Despite there being plenty of Republicans that also think that way, those persons are dismissed as being part of the "establishment" or the "Deep States." Today "partisan" sides are pretty much Trump supporters and everybody else.

Well, if he is a crook, he not doing well. Obama increased his net worth exponentially, while, the last reports I saw said Trump was losing NW...

 

[jamil]

A LOT of people think THIS president is a crook. And it's they're not just Democrats. Despite there being plenty of Republicans that also think that way, those persons are dismissed as being part of the "establishment" or the "Deep States." Today "partisan" sides are pretty much Trump supporters and everybody else.

Well. Why shouldn't they? The press thinks he's literally Hitler and they print **** that they later that they have to retract later, that many people never read. They painted him as a racist after the Charlottesville thing by purposely omitting words from what he actually said. Hell, I'd guess you still believe the printed version. And it ain't like I am a fan of Trump. But you people keep saying **** that makes me have to defend him. Stop it.

"Plenty" should be quantified. A poll came out the other day which showed support towards impeachment increased 13% from where it was. About 42% said impeachment proceedings should commense. 42% said no. The rest were undecided or said they didn't have enough information to say. The latter of the undecided ones were the most intellectually honest, but I digress. The poll also showed the sides were highly partisan. nearly all the "yes" were left leaning or democrats. Likewise with the "no". So yes, there appears to be some republican or right leaning people who read the tea leaves the same way you do. Not very many. But maybe that's "plenty" enough for you.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, if he is a crook, he not doing well. Obama increased his net worth exponentially, while, the last reports I saw said Trump was losing NW...

Ever heard of an Italian guy named Ponzi? If you have, you'll understand the relevance to you post.

 

[KG1]

We still do not not have a vote, so impeachment is still just talk.

Keep in mind that Nancy Pelosi hasn't formally pulled the trigger on a full House vote authorizing the impeachment inquiry that her party says it is undertaking, as is the precedent.

By forgoing a full House vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry, Mrs. Pelosi has amped up the partisanship. Instead of moving ahead with the full backing of the elected representatives of the American people, she has launched the Trump impeachment by personal ukase. Even more remarkable, it has been greeted with a collective ho-hum. True, the Constitution does not require a House vote. It’s also true, however, that Mrs. Pelosi has no precedent for what she has done, and by eliminating a House vote, she has denied the House minority the opportunity to be heard before Congress begins exercising its most formidable constitutional power short of declaring war the process of removing an elected president.

Oh there is no doubt that Pelosi's call for an "impeachment inquiry" before a full house vote to authorize is disingenuous political wrangling. This is an attempt to pull a fast one being perpetrated by the flimflam con artist Democrat leadership.

That fake Pelosi even had the nerve to lament about this "impeachment inquiry' as she fast tracks it through.

“This is a very sad time for our country. There is no joy in this,” said Nancy Pelosi Saturday. “We must be somber. We must be prayerful. … I’m heartbroken about it.”

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well. Why shouldn't they? The press thinks he's literally Hitler and they print **** that they later that they have to retract later, that many people never read. They painted him as a racist after the Charlottesville thing by purposely omitting words from what he actually said. Hell, I'd guess you still believe the printed version. And it ain't like I am a fan of Trump. But you people keep saying **** that makes me have to defend him. Stop it.

"Plenty" should be quantified. A poll came out the other day which showed support towards impeachment increased 13% from where it was. About 42% said impeachment proceedings should commense. 42% said no. The rest were undecided or said they didn't have enough information to say. The latter of the undecided ones were the most intellectually honest, but I digress. The poll also showed the sides were highly partisan. nearly all the "yes" were left leaning or democrats. Likewise with the "no". So yes, there appears to be some republican or right leaning people who read the tea leaves the same way you do. Not very many. But maybe that's "plenty" enough for you.

You people????

ialh

 

[jamil]

People associated with a president's re-election efforts broke the law to spy on and get dirt on his opponents, and then Nixon became directly involved in trying to limit the damage. Watergate has much more in common with Russiagate/Clinton/Obama than anything else extant

The watergate tapes revealed the president had more direct involvement than just trying to hide it. And I think that was the primary reason why he lost the people's support. I mean. We're all biased. I know you don't want to think your guy did anything wrong (which is why I advocate not to have a 'your guy') and as long as you can have plausible denial, you're really not confronted much with incontrovertible evidence. But the mother****er had it on tape! And his behavior just made it really hard for bias to overcome. Plausible denial just wasn't many places to be found except with the extreme partisans.

But we're no where near that with Trump. It's clearly biased based. I look at this and I see people on the left thinking Trump can't do anything that's not corrupt. And that's not evident at all. But on the right, I see people thinking Trump can do no wrong, despite evidence that he's got some sizeable faults and has done some questionable things. But, I don't think he's done anything that rises to the level of the Kut-mongering. I think all that is outcome driven. Don't like Trump. Kick him out for whatever excuse can work. Hate the game not the playah. **** the voters.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

You people????

ialh

I don't know this acronym

 

[T.Lex]

ialh

Crap.

I'm so old that I can't tell if something is a typo or new internet lingo.

 

[T.Lex]

I don't know this acronym

Ok. Now I don't feel as bad.

 

[ghuns]

...Stop doing that. Stop it...

Thanks for the advice Bob...

[video=youtube;4BjKS1-vjPs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BjKS1-vjPs[/video]

 

[jamil]

To me, that's semantics (and probably your own personal filter). A "legitimate way to impeach him" means a "legitimate way." Not just "a way that I think is legitimate." Objectively legitimate - or as near as you can get. Like Clinton's perjury.

That last part doesn't help you much. As much as I can't stand the Clintons, he shouldn't have been impeached for that. It was a perjury trap. It was purely partisan. If you're going to impeach a president, Impeach him for something that rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Lying about getting a ******* from an intern isn't that. So it was done in a legitimate way, but there also has to be some kind of element of propriety. Just saying "legitimate" doesn't communicate that.

 

[KG1]

You people????

ialh

I knew this was coming when I read it.