LA Times Opinion: Impeachment could be history's takeaway on Donald...

Albion · Nov 11, 2019

Halbhh said:
This guy in the video below (who I was a huge supporter of as a teen) got a lot of loyalty, but it seems to me there was a different....atmosphere/spirit to it. Did Reagan demonize or slander innocent and desperate immigrants?

I don't think so, but neither does the current president, so what's the point of this?

GoldenBoy89 · Nov 11, 2019

Albion said:
I don't think so, but neither does the current president, so what's the point of this?

I’m guessing “s***hole countries” was just him telling it like it is, huh?

RocksInMyHead · Nov 11, 2019

Albion said:
Testimony and credibility doesn't count for much if its all second-hand, third-hand, opinion, and/or contrary to the evidence. And it isn't even credible if whatever is said is not given in open hearings.

Good thing the testimony so far is more than that, then. And the open hearings start Wednesday.

durangodawood · Nov 11, 2019

Albion said:
I don't think so, but neither does the current president, so what's the point of this?

Re Mexico...."They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

This is generalizing Mexican immigrants as horrible people, with the decent ones as some barely relevant minority. I could forgive this if he specifically apologizes for it. Its disgusting.

Albion · Nov 11, 2019

durangodawood said:
Re Mexico...."They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

This is generalizing Mexican immigrants as horrible people, with the decent ones as some barely relevant minority. I could forgive this if he specifically apologizes for it. Its disgusting.

People who believe what you've written here are either responding to the Media who altered his statement in order to then comment on it and criticize OR ELSE they believe what they want to believe about it or in order to be in step with the politicians who, in the telling, made it out to be something it was not--just like Charlottesville and dozens of other incidents and comments that have been altered in the telling in order to make something seem other than it actually was.

The statement itself (and it is especially obvious when listened to rather than read in the way some other person chose to punctuate the president's words) says only that those who are rapists are bringing problems to this country--a comment that no person I know personally would dispute, and probably none that you know, either.

durangodawood · Nov 11, 2019

Albion said:
People who believe what you've written here are either responding to the Media who altered his statement in order to then comment on it and criticize OR ELSE they believe what they want to believe about it or in order to be in step with the politicians who, in the telling, made it out to be something it was not--just like Charlottesville and dozens of other incidents and comments that have been altered in the telling in order to make something seem other than it actually was.

The statement itself (and it is especially obvious when listened to rather than read in the way some other person chose to punctuate the president's words) says only that those who are rapists are bringing problems to this country--a comment that no person I know personally would dispute, and probably none that you know, either.

Whats the un-altered statement?

I mean, I've heard this. And the sentiment upon hearing is no different than from reading it.

GoldenBoy89 · Nov 11, 2019

Albion said:
People who believe what you've written here are either responding to the Media who altered his statement in order to then comment on it and criticize OR ELSE they believe what they want to believe about it or in order to be in step with the politicians who, in the telling, made it out to be something it was not--just like Charlottesville and dozens of other incidents and comments that have been altered in the telling in order to make something seem other than it actually was.

The statement itself (and it is especially obvious when listened to rather than read in the way some other person chose to punctuate the president's words) says only that those who are rapists are bringing problems to this country--a comment that no person I know personally would dispute, and probably none that you know, either.

How did anyone misconstrue his “s***hole countries” comment?

SimplyMe · Nov 11, 2019

grasping the after wind said:
The Starr investigation is analogous to the Mueller investigation. Not to any House proceedings. You should be comparing how the House ran the impeachment of Clinton to this thing that is going on in the House that does not resemble that process very much.

Except, with Clinton's Impeachment, the House did not investigate. This impeachment hearing is comparable, and roughly unfolding a similar way, to the Nixon impeachment hearings -- where the House did investigate.

With Clinton, the investigation was done by Ken Starr and the impeachment was based on Starr's report, not on any House investigation. The House is starting open hearings this week but it is still in the investigative stage, once they draft Articles of Impeachment I suspect you'll find the procedure is similar to that used against Clinton.

SimplyMe · Nov 11, 2019

Albion said:
It's the House vote that is already decided. It's been tested several times and the votes counted, so when the vote is taken on impeachment itself, there is no question about where the votes will fall. In the Senate, we may guess and presume, but that remains open for the time being.

That aside, it is as I said. The House action has already marked the process as a sham, a phony thing. The House leadership COULD have done it otherwise but chose not to do so, for some reason. The most obvious reason is that, being a phony process, they didn't feel there was much choice left to them--crimes that are not crimes, a "whistleblower" who is not a whistleblower, a committee chairman who has previously told the world that he had indisputable evidence against the president in the Russia scam only to have the Mueller committee pull that rug out from under him, etc.

But I still think it could have been made to look legitimate--or something close to that--and they did not do that. So in history it will be seen as a raw exercise in political vengeance on the part of the party of the losing candidate (somewhat like history's verdict concerning the Andrew Johnson impeachment but unlike the Nixon impeachment, even though the Democrats were out to get Nixon from years before there was any Watergate).

I can't agree that the House has already decided. We've seen a couple of different impeachment resolutions, brought up by individuals, voted down by the House a couple of times in the last year. This most recent time, the House determined an impeachment inquiry is warranted. While it is believed that the House will vote to convict, that it largely based on the information currently available; not just because the House is desperate to impeach Trump (again, they refused to twice already).

Additionally, it looks bad when you have Republican Senators claiming they will refuse to even read the transcripts of the hearings that have occurred in the House. Now, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt -- that they don't feel they need to since it is likely the same witnesses will testify in the Senate trial. But you have to admit that it looks bad, to the point that it makes it appear some may have predetermined their vote.

grasping the after wind · Nov 11, 2019

SimplyMe said:
Except, with Clinton's Impeachment, the House did not investigate. This impeachment hearing is comparable, and roughly unfolding a similar way, to the Nixon impeachment hearings -- where the House did investigate.

With Clinton, the investigation was done by Ken Starr and the impeachment was based on Starr's report, not on any House investigation. The House is starting open hearings this week but it is still in the investigative stage, once they draft Articles of Impeachment I suspect you'll find the procedure is similar to that used against Clinton.

If the Mueller report was insufficient to open up impeachment proceedings why is the House investigating? The House is not an investigative agency but the Legislative branch of the government. I can only assume that the House leadership , intent upon finding any excuse to impeach or to use the House as a tool of political opposition research, was so disappointed that there was no evidence of wrongdoing from the Mueller report that they decided they needed to continue to search until they could find something somehow even if it was only speculation, hearsay, assumption of guilt or projection.

GoldenBoy89 · Nov 11, 2019

grasping the after wind said:
If the Mueller report was insufficient to open up impeachment proceedings why is the House investigating? The House is not an investigative agency but the Legislative branch of the government. I can only assume that the House leadership , intent upon finding any excuse to impeach or to use the House as a tool of political opposition research, was so disappointed that there was no evidence of wrongdoing from the Mueller report that they decided they needed to continue to search until they could find something somehow even if it was only speculation, hearsay, assumption of guilt or projection.

Fortunately Trump basically handed them a reason to impeach with his phone call to the Ukrainian President so now they don’t have to keep searching.

grasping the after wind · Nov 11, 2019

GoldenBoy89 said:
Fortunately Trump basically handed them a reason to impeach with his phone call to the Ukrainian President so now they don’t have to keep searching.

There is nothing in that phone call that is a legitimate excuse for impeachment. Now had he told a foreign leader he would be more flexible in negotiations after an election you might have a point.

Albion · Nov 11, 2019

grasping the after wind said:
If the Mueller report was insufficient to open up impeachment proceedings why is the House investigating?

Well, of course, impeachment is the objective. The REASON for an impeachment is almost incidental. Leading members of the House majority have long said, in public, that whatever they want to say is impeachable...is impeachable.

But in order to be somewhat conventional, they have moved from one so-called impeachable offense to another to another to another, as needed. It was supposed to be "Russia Russia Russia" and collusion, but that failed, so it became obstructionism related to that failed scheme.

Since then it's been Ukraine and then even more recently "Extortion and Bribery."

If all of those fizzle, there will be a new one within days.

GoldenBoy89 · Nov 11, 2019

grasping the after wind said:
There is nothing in that phone call that is a legitimate excuse for impeachment.

We’ll find out this week. I trust the House’s judgment in these matters a bit more than randos on the internet but maybe I’m just weird in that regard.

Now had he told a foreign leader he would be more flexible in negotiations after an election you might have a point.

If I felt that was true I’d be pretty upset if my congressman didn’t push to impeach him when that happened.

whatbogsends · Nov 11, 2019

Albion said:
People who believe what you've written here are either responding to the Media who altered his statement in order to then comment on it and criticize OR ELSE they believe what they want to believe about it or in order to be in step with the politicians who, in the telling, made it out to be something it was not--just like Charlottesville and dozens of other incidents and comments that have been altered in the telling in order to make something seem other than it actually was.

The statement itself (and it is especially obvious when listened to rather than read in the way some other person chose to punctuate the president's words) says only that those who are rapists are bringing problems to this country--a comment that no person I know personally would dispute, and probably none that you know, either.

Wrong. What he said plainly, unedited, was that by and large, Mexican immigrants were bad.

Specifically he said : "Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. "

Trump: Mexico Not Sending Us Their Best; Criminals, Drug Dealers And Rapists Are Crossing Border

It's right here, in full context. The language is plain. He characterizes immigrants as "They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.", with the small disclaimer "And some, I assume, are good people." Your mischaracterization of his comments is noted.

Trump says:
They are bringing drugs.
They are bringing crime.
They are rapists.

And some, he assumes, are good people.

Halbhh · Nov 11, 2019

Albion said:
I don't think so, but neither does the current president, so what's the point of this?

What does this seem to you to be communicating:

"They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

"Some" means a lot less than "most", right?

This is apparently an old view of Trump:

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Sadly, the overwhelming amount of violent crime in our major cities is committed by blacks and hispanics-a tough subject-must be discussed.
1:05 AM - 5 Jun 2013

The idea: crime is racially caused (instead of the normal view that crime comes from neighborhoods, regardless of race, even white neighborhoods sometimes, etc.)

Doesn't this concern you? I asked you above: why do you put an extreme loyalty or faith in Trump of all people?

grasping the after wind · Nov 11, 2019

GoldenBoy89 said:
We’ll find out this week. I trust the House’s judgment in these matters a bit more than randos on the internet but maybe I’m just weird in that regard.

If I felt that was true I’d be pretty upset if my congressman didn’t push to impeach him when that happened.

I never considered Obama's saying he would be more flexible after the election to be an impeachable offense so I never pushed my Congressperson to call for impeachment proceedings. Trusting the House's judgement over mine is most likely a mistake. You see I am not invested in a political agenda or trying to advance my personal political fortune in any way while the House leadership is.

TLK Valentine · Nov 11, 2019

grasping the after wind said:
Would you be ok if I answered questions in writing if I accused you of doing something wrong because someone else told me you said something ? Would you be ok if I was allowed to do that and no one was allowed to know where I got my information or who I was? Would you be ok that your Constitutional right to face your accuser was removed from you?

I'm not even ok with the punctuation and sentence structure of the question... try again?

durangodawood · Nov 11, 2019

grasping the after wind said:
....Trusting the House's judgement over mine is most likely a mistake. You see I am not invested in a political agenda or trying to advance my personal political fortune in any way while the House leadership is.

I trust that the senate trial will bring out the relevant facts, and those facts will validate or invalidate the articles of impeachment.

I dont trust the senate vote at all in that regard tho. The R senate is mostly party above country of late.

grasping the after wind · Nov 11, 2019

whatbogsends said:
Wrong. What he said plainly, unedited, was that by and large, Mexican immigrants were bad.

Specifically he said : "Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. "

Trump: Mexico Not Sending Us Their Best; Criminals, Drug Dealers And Rapists Are Crossing Border

It's right here, in full context. The language is plain. He characterizes immigrants as "They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.", with the small disclaimer "And some, I assume, are good people." Your mischaracterization of his comments is noted.

Trump says:
They are bringing drugs.
They are bringing crime.
They are rapists.

And some, he assumes, are good people.

You missed a word there when you explained what he characterizes. He clearly only characterizes illegal immigrants as such. Who is it that he characterizes as the best and finest? Is he speaking of legal immigrants? I don't know as your quote is insufficient for me to find that out. He even allows that some illegal immigrants, despite the fact they are lawbreakers, are good people. I don't know why he assumes that as many people would say, (not me as I am not about to be that judgmental) if one is a lawbreaker they ought not to be considered good people

LA Times Opinion: Impeachment could be history's takeaway on Donald...

Facilitator

We're Still Here

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Dis Member

Facilitator

Dis Member

We're Still Here

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

That's grasping after the wind

We're Still Here

That's grasping after the wind

Facilitator

We're Still Here

Senior Veteran

Everything You say is Life to me

That's grasping after the wind

I've already read the books you want burned.

Dis Member

That's grasping after the wind

Similar threads