The impeachment goat and pony show

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

ICYMI: Week 1 of Dems' latest impeachment stall -> PR on racial/ethnic/gender diversity of the impeachment manager(s) in the Senate. 

 

 

 

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

[TBoneTX 43,435]

A post treading on the Terms of Service has been removed.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

10 hours ago, laylalex said:

To be clearer, I am not convinced given what limited information is available that there was a "coup" attempt or anything quite as nefarious as you allege.

 

Let's conduct a memory test, and see how limited the information really is.

 

Do you remember November 2016, the media outlets telling us there was no way Trump could win the election?

 

Do you remember the night that he in fact DID win the election?  There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.  Women all over America claimed they would not be safe to go outside their abodes the next day, because Trump = bad man, and all men were gonna try to grab them.

 

Do you remember (my memory is a little fuzzy as to the exact when) shortly after he was elected, the dems started talking about impeaching the president?  

 

Because I do.  Yes, there have been multiple attempts.  All have failed.  But the tryers will not stop trying, even if their actions are more illegal than the accused.

[laylalex 7,263]

I still see no evidence of a coup but that's okay. None of those three examples you give rise to the level of attempted coup (especially the first two, which quite honestly baffle me how they indicate anything more than (1) well, that was surprising and (2) people expressing their rights to free speech/assembly).

 

And even impeachment talk by representatives early on was limited to a few outliers. There were certainly people calling for Obama's impeachment too and that went nowhere. Also, impeachment is not the same thing as a coup, and you know that. Words have definitions and these aren't synonyms. 

 

It's good for us to express ourselves here. We can disagree. I disagree with you and that is fine with me. 😊

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

4 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Let's conduct a memory test, and see how limited the information really is.

 

Do you remember November 2016, the media outlets telling us there was no way Trump could win the election?

 

Do you remember the night that he in fact DID win the election?  There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.  Women all over America claimed they would not be safe to go outside their abodes the next day, because Trump = bad man, and all men were gonna try to grab them.

 

Do you remember (my memory is a little fuzzy as to the exact when) shortly after he was elected, the dems started talking about impeaching the president?  

 

Because I do.  Yes, there have been multiple attempts.  All have failed.  But the tryers will not stop trying, even if their actions are more illegal than the accused.

Can't do a memory test if you don't want to have a memory and only read the things you want to read.

 

 

https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/01/collusion-against-trump-timeline/

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/469504-the-curious-timeline-for-taking-down-trump

 

(Two seconds to find it)

 

I've sat here endlessly discussing, watching, researching (this one is key because alas, lefties are a demographic and psychographic that companies we work for still want to sell products to and thus spend time learning how they think+manipulating their own way), since Trump's election, and there's little ambiguity (for me) what's going on anymore. People have Google (and especially DuckDuckGo) at their disposal, about important issues they have plenty of opinions on, they don't pretend not to have enough information unless they don't want it, and that's what's really going on. Think of it like Memento where it looks like everyone is taking advantage of the memory guy but in reality he's the one pulling all the strings that matter. Similarly, it looks like the left are innocents being conned/puppeted by the media+bureau partnership trying to exercise their influence to decide Presidents (and the employ of their power against someone for daring to run anyways without their blessing), but in reality they're just giving the left what they want, orange man bad + see no evil when taking him down. This is why the left play up every conspiracy against Trump and play down+play dumb on every revelation of corruption and abuse wielded against the Trump campaign. Don't care, don't know, don't want to know, just give me my way, and I'll gladly just take in every piece of soothing confirmation bias until its over. There's still plenty of independents, moderates, and conservatives in denial about where the left are, after all these fake assertions (Russia, Mueller's gonna get Trump, Cohen, Avenatti, etc.) not materializing, after the clear games being played by Pelosi, the staged hearings with Schiff/Nadler, with Ukraine+impeachment -- Occam's Razor, they are quite aware that this is a sham and they don't care. People in these three groups need to simply move on and move forward, don't talk to them like they're unaware, talk to them like they're complicit (because they are), and focus on what's being done about the corruption, because there's plenty of it in the GOP as well.

Edited December 27, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

So sorry, Assange, you're on the wrong side (once you started publishing things that went against my team), and by fake news or otherwise, therefore you're working with Trump, and are an agent of Putin, and you've got to go:

 

 

"No repercussions"

 

Dat partnership.

Edited December 27, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

I still see no evidence of a coup but that's okay. None of those three examples you give rise to the level of attempted coup (especially the first two, which quite honestly baffle me how they indicate anything more than (1) well, that was surprising and (2) people expressing their rights to free speech/assembly).

 

And even impeachment talk by representatives early on was limited to a few outliers. There were certainly people calling for Obama's impeachment too and that went nowhere. Also, impeachment is not the same thing as a coup, and you know that. Words have definitions and these aren't synonyms. 

 

It's good for us to express ourselves here. We can disagree. I disagree with you and that is fine with me. 😊

So you refuse to see that there exists a group of people who have been doing their best to discredit Trump from the very beginning, and while will stop at nothing to try and have him removed from office?

 

Yes, it is fine to disagree.  It is a free country, after all.  Just like the flat-earthers will never admit that the earth is actually round.  Or those who choose to believe we never landed on the moon.  It's  ALL about choices.  

[laylalex 7,263]

6 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Can't do a memory test if you don't want to have a memory and only read the things you want to read.

 

 

https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/01/collusion-against-trump-timeline/

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/469504-the-curious-timeline-for-taking-down-trump

 

(Two seconds to find it)

 

*snip*

Okay, opinion pieces are now "facts." I have put that away in Layla's Filing Cabinet for later use. 

 

I do read, and widely. I read on the left and the right. I read publications that have little skin in the game. I read domestic and international sources. I follow links. I peruse primary sources. I draw my own conclusions, thank you. I may be only a woman, but I'm perfectly capable of coming to analyses that are informed and yet differ from yours. That's fine. I thank you for bringing alternative sources into the mix for me. I appreciate understanding what is out there. But I also reserve the right to discern whether the source is useful, well-founded and/or unbiased. We might disagree in our assessments, but it doesn't mean we haven't both (hopefully) taken our time to consider our conclusions. 

5 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

So you refuse to see that there exists a group of people who have been doing their best to discredit Trump from the very beginning, and while will stop at nothing to try and have him removed from office?

 

Yes, it is fine to disagree.  It is a free country, after all.  Just like the flat-earthers will never admit that the earth is actually round.  Or those who choose to believe we never landed on the moon.  It's  ALL about choices.  

Of course there are people who are working for the removal of Trump. I'm not a blithering idiot. But I *do* know the difference between legitimate methods (impeachment, the ballot box) and illegitimate methods (a putsch, for example). What we have seen are legitimate methods in play. Now, you may not agree with the basis of the articles of impeachment, or believe that the case wasn't sufficiently made for the articles to be adopted. But the process itself was legitimate. It is literally in the Constitution. A coup implies illegitimate, extrajudicial means of removing a head of state. That simply has not happened here. If you disagree with the basis, it is still possible to understand that the means were legitimate. 

 

Is it possible to find intelligent, insightful legal scholars who believe that the process was illegitimate? I'm sure you can. But my understanding is that the vast majority who have expressed an opinion not only believe the process was legitimate, the articles were too. (Elites! What do they know! 😛)

 

It is about choices. I disagree with your opinion, but I wouldn't be quite so rude as to imply you're a flat-earther or that you think Kubrick was behind the set design of the moon landing. But I'm kind of nice like that, or so I am told. 😊

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

So this is what "her truth" means.

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, laylalex said:

Okay, opinion pieces are now "facts." I have put that away in Layla's Filing Cabinet for later use. 

 

I do read, and widely. I read on the left and the right. I read publications that have little skin in the game. I read domestic and international sources. I follow links. I peruse primary sources. I draw my own conclusions, thank you. I may be only a woman, but I'm perfectly capable of coming to analyses that are informed and yet differ from yours. That's fine. I thank you for bringing alternative sources into the mix for me. I appreciate understanding what is out there. But I also reserve the right to discern whether the source is useful, well-founded and/or unbiased. We might disagree in our assessments, but it doesn't mean we haven't both (hopefully) taken our time to consider our conclusions. 

Of course there are people who are working for the removal of Trump. I'm not a blithering idiot. But I *do* know the difference between legitimate methods (impeachment, the ballot box) and illegitimate methods (a putsch, for example). What we have seen are legitimate methods in play. Now, you may not agree with the basis of the articles of impeachment, or believe that the case wasn't sufficiently made for the articles to be adopted. But the process itself was legitimate. It is literally in the Constitution. A coup implies illegitimate, extrajudicial means of removing a head of state. That simply has not happened here. If you disagree with the basis, it is still possible to understand that the means were legitimate. 

 

Is it possible to find intelligent, insightful legal scholars who believe that the process was illegitimate? I'm sure you can. But my understanding is that the vast majority who have expressed an opinion not only believe the process was legitimate, the articles were too. (Elites! What do they know! 😛)

 

It is about choices. I disagree with your opinion, but I wouldn't be quite so rude as to imply you're a flat-earther or that you think Kubrick was behind the set design of the moon landing. But I'm kind of nice like that, or so I am told. 😊

I wasn't implying that YOU are a flat earther or anything.  Rather that some people won't see the truth even though it is right in front of them.  I see a group of establishment politicians who have been dead-set on getting Trump out of office since BEFORE he was elected, and you seem not to.  Which I find hard to believe because you DO seem rather smart on many other issues.  Perhaps it's just what each of us wishes to believe, and at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter, because Trump is gonna be president for 5 more years I predict, and we will have many, many more things to debate about in regards to him.

[laylalex 7,263]

2 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

I wasn't implying that YOU are a flat earther or anything.  Rather that some people won't see the truth even though it is right in front of them.  I see a group of establishment politicians who have been dead-set on getting Trump out of office since BEFORE he was elected, and you seem not to.  Which I find hard to believe because you DO seem rather smart on many other issues.  Perhaps it's just what each of us wishes to believe, and at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter, because Trump is gonna be president for 5 more years I predict, and we will have many, many more things to debate about in regards to him.

Phew! Have you seen that flat-earther documentary on Netflix?* Alex made me watch it with him and I had to leave the room an hour in because I was so infuriated. What made me angry was not that these people believed something so preposterous, but that these were intelligent people who chose to believe this nonsense, and had clearly put in so much time into researching false premises to support their beliefs. Somewhere along the line, their otherwise fine brains got taken off the track of the sane and onto a parallel track straight to Crazytown. 

 

*For the purposes of complete transparency, we watched this when I was still using my ex's Netflix account.

[90DayFinancier 910]

5 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

So this is what "her truth" means.

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

[Dashinka 23,390]

7 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

But Nancy says she and her side do not hate anyone.