Re: Sanctimonious defense of injustice by Christtianity Today
Faith writes:
I think Moose meant that Trump's conman-style incompetence (and he left out paranoia and narcissism and a lot of others) is what led to his committing impeachable acts (against the advice of many aides), not that being a incompetent conman was an impeachable offense.
OK, but all that exists only in the imagination of the Left. I see no conman in Trump,...
You've already received a number of replies enumerating some of Trump's conman activities. His biggest con is to make about half the country believe not just that he's a respectable businessman, but also that none of his cons are cons. These people are experiencing true Trump derangement syndrome.
I don't even see any incompetence,...
His businesses have had to declare bankruptcy six times. He couldn't run a charity without breaking laws.
...he's accomplished a lot for the country in his short time in office despite being attacked viciously every minute of every day.
I think Trump deserves acknowledgement for everything he's done both good and bad. Strong economy? Good. Huge increase in deficit? Bad. Lying about the origins of the the strong economy that originally took off way back in 2010 under Obama? Bad. Cutting taxes? Good. Cutting taxes for the rich far more than the middle class? Bad. Maintaining ownership of his businesses while president? Bad. Taking over the Republican Party and turning it's members and followers into zombies who blindly approve everything he does? Unbelievable accomplishment, but bad. Issuing condemnations of the dearly departed and young girls and Gold Star families and so forth? Bad. Coercing foreign countries into assisting in his personal political fortunes? Bad.
He has no paranoia at all,...
Of course Trump has no paranoia. We can see this in the measured and temperate way he handles all criticism.
...in fact he trusts people way too easily in my opinion,...
I think it would be more accurate to say that he puts his trust in the wrong people, most recently Rudy Giuliani, who if he were one of he witnesses before the Senate would guarantee Trump a good long vacation. But will there even be any Senate witnesses?
...and he's no narcissist.
He's a classic narcissist. His picture should be next to the word in the dictionary. Many words have already been written in threads here about Trumps's acute narcissism. For just one example, there's his belittlement of anyone who he perceives as opposing or criticizing him, which he does to make himself feel bigger. You might recall that in the Trump/Fox-News versus Democrats/mainstream-media attacks/insults that Trump outdid them by something like 29-1 (from memory).
All that exists only in the imagination of his enemies. And he committed NO impeachable offenses whatever.
Re: Sanctimonious defense of injustice by Christtianity Today
and if you believe that you'll also believe he didn't cheat on his wives.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
Re: Sanctimonious defense of injustice by Christtianity Today
I see no conman in Trump,
did you miss him paying out a $2 million settlement cause he stole from a charity? or the $25 million settlement for defrauding the students of his "university"
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
Re: Sanctimonious defense of injustice by Christtianity Today
and if you believe that you'll also believe he didn't cheat on his wives.
And he even kept the receipts.
Well, it was his ex-fixer, Michael Cohen, who kept the receipts. But Trump still has the title of "unindicted co-conspirator" for that crime for which Cohen is serving time. Once Trump loses his OLC "stay out of jail free" card then he can become the indicted co-conspirator for that crime, plus the leading role in several other indictments awaiting him the moment he leaves office.
There are several possible scenarios for what will happen when Trump has to leave office. Two primary reasons why he must run for re-election is 1) to make all the more money from campaign contributions (including bribes masquerading as "contributions") and 2) to keep using those OLC memos to stay out of jail and 3) to get his ego stroked at his rallies.
When Trump finally has to leave office, most likely by losing the 2020 election, he will be facing indictments from a myriad of investigations into his criminal activities (truly, the most extremely shtupid thing he has ever done in his entire life was to become President, since that brought all his criminal activity out into the open daylight). One possible scenario will be for him to flee the country to escape prosecution. The next question will be how we are supposed to retrieve Air Force One and its crew from Russia.
Re: Sanctimonious defense of injustice by Christtianity Today
(Having watched that video) Actually Trump having a code name of "Humble" would be an excellent idea. Because nobody who knows anything about Trump could ever guess it.
It would be like Faith adopting the code name of "Reasonable".
Re: Sanctimonious defense of injustice by Christtianity Today
Why is the Left always bringing up things that have nothing to do with tgovernment, the impeachment and so on?
One of the major problems in the impeachment was what to charge Trump with. The problem is an embarrassment of riches. From even before Day One Trump has committed so many impeachable acts day after day that it is virtually impossible to keep track of each and every one. The most apt description of Trump is to say that he is "self-impeaching", every day, in every way, he is getting more and more self-impeaching (allusion to his family's membership in Norman Vincent Peale's "positive thinking" congregation).
A fundamental problem is that the case for impeachment and removal has to ultimately be made to the American public. The fundamental question was whether to bring everything out or to concentrate on a narrower narrative. The public can follow a narrow narrative, whereas the broad entirety of Trump's misdeeds would overwhelm them and confuse them.
Of course, all that will go completely over your head. But normals reading this will understand what I am saying.
Obviously because notning ever sticks, it's all made up, so you just move on and move on and move on to anything that suggests some kind of wrongdoing, and it's only your own jaundiced opinion that there was wrongdoing, I have no reason to accept anything you say.
Ever hear the old saying that a tiger cannot change its stripes? So if you take a sleazy con-man who has been "bending" the law every single one of the several decades of his life (having been mentored by a mob lawyer, Roy Cohn, in the ways of Mafia-style legalistics) and you put him into the highest office in the land, how could you expect him to suddenly and completely change at the most fundamental levels?
Trump is a crook. He has always been a crook. He is still a crook.
Trump is corrupt. He has always been corrupt. He is still corrupt.
Did you ever bother to watch that video of the interview with David Fahrenthold? No, I didn't think so, blind as you are to the truth. But our lurkers are not as self-inflictedly blind as you are.
It's a theme (in German: Leitmotif (an important concept in opera)) that keeps playing itself out. Democrats keep trying to dig up the facts of what actually happened. Republicans try to block that fact-finding and keep trying desperately to divert everybody's attention away from the actual facts as they complain constantly about procedure.
Every trial lawyer and prosecutor knows for a solid fact that when the facts are on your side then you pound the facts, but when the facts are not on your side then your attack the procedures, and when that fails you merely pound the table.
In all these proceedings, no Republican has ever addressed the facts of the case. Instead, all they have ever done has been to attack the process. None of Trump's "defenders" have attempted to defend his character in any way. Even Trump has attacked his supporters for not supporting him on the facts of the case, but nobody has done that for him. Because there is no possible defense for his deeds.
Re: Christianity Today on Impeachment -- just another tool of the Left
Faith writes:
Whilie I get that reasoning, a full trial would bring out the necessary information that should come out.
Right. Call your Congressman and Senators (it might be better to use the "Contact Us" link on their webpages). Your Senators are Democratic, but I think Nevada is a purple state, so explaining your position is important. Even if your Congressman is Democratic, contact him, too, it won't hurt.
We need a full, free and fair trial in the Senate, and we definitely need public opinion to come to bear on those Senators who have declared that even after taking an oath, they'll still be biased jurors determined to acquit the president regardless of any evidence.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Clarify last sentence, wasn't clear which noun went with which verb.
Re: Christianity Today on Impeachment -- just another tool of the Left
... I think a trial would do the most good though, as you say. But there is nothing for him to hide so there have to be other reasons if he doesn't want a trial. ...
... or he is guilty as charged. His best defense if he is innocent is to allow subpoenaed witnesses to testify. His best defense if he is guilty is to keep stonewalling and preventing witnesses to testify.
... Whilie I get that reasoning, a full trial would bring out the necessary information that should come out.
Provided that all witnesses with knowledge of the situation/s are allowed to testify.
Call the Bidens and Schiff and watch the accusations get refuted or be shown to be pointless ... again (remember Bengazi, when Republicans could not make a single imagined accusation stick).
Call Rudy and Mick and Pompeo and the others on Schumer's list and watch the evidence of corruption grow.
Start the 3 ring circus, and watch popular opinion go against the wild accusations of the GOP while the case for removal grows.
Re: Putin on Trump's side? Oh you Gullible Lefties
JonF writes:
There's no evidence the Ukrainian government was involved.
It's also worth mentioning that when Robert Mueller hired Internet sleuths to trace the social media interference, the origins were found to be the Russian Internet Agency and related Russian organizations. No interference traced back to the Ukraine.
Giuliani and Trump are pushing a conspiracy theory that has no evidence. They're doing this because they know their Republican lapdogs and the conservative news media will keep pushing the same conspiracy theory, leading the American people to believe that where's so much smoke there must be fire. Many Americans can repeat the disinformation without blinking an eye.
Dishonesty on this scale is Trump's personal innovation, and I don't think anyone ever imagined that the American people would be so susceptible to it. There literally is no there there, and yet roughly half of Americans believe Ukraine helped Hillary, that Russian interference was a hoax, that the Mueller investigation exonerated Trump, that no meaningful evidence was presented at the Trump impeachment hearings, that Mitch McConnell is a honest broker, and so on.
There is no doubt that the Ukraine interfered for Hillary in the +2016 election. If you dismiss the Politico article you still have to recognize that there was a court case in Ukraine that specifically said so.
My other comment here is that Nixon was facing criminal charges, and Clinton was actually impeached on the basis of specific criminal charges, REAL obstruction of justice and REAL perjury in the case of Clinton. The charges against Trump are both made up out of thin air, have absolutely no legal or Constitutional standing whatever. Whether this justifies his refusing to respond to subpoenas or not time will tell but that is WHY he's refused. Sham impeachment seems reason enough to treat it as a sham impeachment. The Left is inventing its own laws these days, don't know how far they can get with that.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
