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

[jamil]

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.

Show me a smoking gun that there was pay for play and I'll jump on the impeachment bandwagon. I know it happens. And if Trump did that, he wasn't the first president. I'm sure the last president did it. Biden obviously did it. I want our executive branch to just knock that **** off. Impeaching would be appropriate for that. But lets be consistent. Let's have whistle-blowers who just don't blow whistles for people they don't like. Let's blow whistles for your own as well. Obama should have had that ***whistle blown up his ass. But his ship was way too tight for there to be any leaks. He went after leakers hard.

 

[T.Lex]

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.

I think I mentioned this elsewhere on here, but my opinion on the Clinton impeachment has evolved. At the time, I was full-throated in favor of it.

But my point is that your post confirms what I said: the consensus was that he did commit perjury. Maybe it was a big deal, maybe it wasn't. Labeling it a "perjury trap" doesn't really inform anything. He lied under oath. That's perjury. So, at least it was a crime.

At that point, the House properly gets to decide if it is "high" enough. Then the Senate gets a bite at that same apple.

Impeachment in the US will always be a partisan effort, because the party of the POTUS is incredibly unlikely to vote up articles of impeachment. But that doesn't de-legitimize the process. Its in the constitution. The framers, while wary of factions in the first place, probably understood that there would never be a "friendly" impeachment.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't know this acronym

inserting a little humor

 

[BugI02]

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.

Much like the Dems came to regret Reid's emasculation of the filibuster, I believe we will all come to regret the trivialization of impeachment (those of us who don't already) as the new normal

In this case, I believe mutually assured destruction requires someone or something to be destroyed in order to retain its deterrent capability. I certainly hope it is progressivism and the current Democratic party

 

[BugI02]

inserting a little humor

Oh. I interpreted it as 'I am losing hope'

 

[Leadeye]

I see the whole impeachment deal as more of a shield/cover for the dc machine to fight President trump. Your not going to see the uber wealthy power brokers in this operation step up and yell at the president about attacking their privileges. It looks like a partisan issue but if we could follow the money/machine connections we would probably find that it crosses party lines many times.

 

[KLB]

I think I mentioned this elsewhere on here, but my opinion on the Clinton impeachment has evolved. At the time, I was full-throated in favor of it.

But my point is that your post confirms what I said: the consensus was that he did commit perjury. Maybe it was a big deal, maybe it wasn't. Labeling it a "perjury trap" doesn't really inform anything. He lied under oath. That's perjury. So, at least it was a crime.

At that point, the House properly gets to decide if it is "high" enough. Then the Senate gets a bite at that same apple.

Impeachment in the US will always be a partisan effort, because the party of the POTUS is incredibly unlikely to vote up articles of impeachment. But that doesn't de-legitimize the process. Its in the constitution. The framers, while wary of factions in the first place, probably understood that there would never be a "friendly" impeachment.

Needing a supermajority to convict all but ensures it is not going to happen based upon faction.

 

[KG1]

Show me a smoking gun that there was pay for play and I'll jump on the impeachment bandwagon. I know it happens. And if Trump did that, he wasn't the first president. I'm sure the last president did it. Biden obviously did it. I want our executive branch to just knock that **** off. Impeaching would be appropriate for that. But lets be consistent. Let's have whistle-blowers who just don't blow whistles for people they don't like. Let's blow whistles for your own as well. Obama should have had that ***whistle blown up his ass. But his ship was way too tight for there to be any leaks. He went after leakers hard.

I'm sure alot of unseemly information could have been gathered about pretty much any POTUS and leaked. The amount of that information leakage just depends on how friendly the people are surrounding the administration. It seems that Trump has alot of covert political enemies with to much access

 

[jamil]

You people????

ialh

What? Why question that? You people should know by now that I am an advocate of retaining legitimate language, and I don't allow society to take away words from legitimate use to say they mean things that they don't mean.

"You people" is synonymous with "y'all", "you all". "You people" refers to the group of people I am addressing, which is easily inferred from the context. If you think it means anything else, or you're borrowing some societal context which doesn't apply, well, I'm short on ****s to give.

And I have no ****ing idea what ialh means. Institute on Aging and Lifelong Health? Dude, I am probably at least a decade or so older than you but age has nothing to do with it.

 

[jamil]

Crap.

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

Only think I could find was institute on aging and lifelong health. So yeah. You're old.

 

[Kutnupe14]

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.

I think acting with corrupt intent meets that standard. We can go in circles about how that applies to Trump, but at the end of the day, it will be that I think he's impeachable and you don't.

 

[jamil]

Thanks for the advice Bob...

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

That's where I got that from actually. It keeps playing in my head from time to time.

 

[KG1]

Much like the Dems came to regret Reid's emasculation of the filibuster, I believe we will all come to regret the trivialization of impeachment (those of us who don't already) as the new normal

In this case, I believe mutually assured destruction requires someone or something to be destroyed in order to retain its deterrent capability. I certainly hope it is progressivism and the current Democratic party

Well this past election cycle has certainly been fraught with the trivialization of the impeachment process by elements of the Democrat party and the msm. They've pretty much been calling out everything Trump has done as an impeachable offense ever since he took office.

 

[jamil]

I knew this was coming when I read it.

Yeah, that's kinda retarded. Societally banned words which have legitimate use should be used as often as possible legitimately.

 

[BugI02]

“Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,”

Seems a 'prescient' prediction about Trump's problems so far

 

[KG1]

What? Why question that? You people should know by now that I am an advocate of retaining legitimate language, and I don't allow society to take away words from legitimate use to say they mean things that they don't mean.

"You people" is synonymous with "y'all", "you all". "You people" refers to the group of people I am addressing, which is easily inferred from the context. If you think it means anything else, or you're borrowing some societal context which doesn't apply, well, I'm short on ****s to give.

And I have no ****ing idea what ialh means. Institute on Aging and Lifelong Health? Dude, I am probably at least a decade or so older than you but age has nothing to do with it.

Seems we've been down this road before. It looks familiar.

 

[jamil]

Seems a 'prescient' prediction about Trump's problems so far

Yeah, because tit-for-tat with the administrative branch is what the intelligence community should be engaging in.

 

[ghuns]

That's where I got that from actually. It keeps playing in my head from time to time.

Yeah. Mine too. But when I actually verbalize it, usually to my wife, it goes badly.

 

[printcraft]

inserting a little humor

TWSS

 

[jamil]

Much like the Dems came to regret Reid's emasculation of the filibuster, I believe we will all come to regret the trivialization of impeachment (those of us who don't already) as the new normal

In this case, I believe mutually assured destruction requires someone or something to be destroyed in order to retain its deterrent capability. I certainly hope it is progressivism and the current Democratic party

Honestly, I think the true believers, people like Kut, really believe Trump is as corrupt as they're accusing. So to them, I don't think it's trivializing impeachment. But I do think that the Democrat leaders know what they're doing. It is they who really need to relearn the principle of mutually assured destruction (MAD). They need to have it done to them so that everyone can reenter the mutually agreed upon rules of sane discourse.