Nancy Pelosi says impeachment of Trump 'just not worth it'

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There are very few "undecided" people these days. Most people have an opinion on Trump by now so you aren't going to be influencing anyone and neither will I.
In American Politics in the Trump era, I can't say I disagree...
I typically post in the theology sections where the undecided lurkers are numerous... Just passing by this thread and felt like chiming in, but if my words help even one person make a choice for themselves, whether or not their choice agrees with me, then I'm grateful to have assisted.

I also find vigorous debate on any topic only hones my own knowledge of said topic.

But again, I get that it's not for everyone.. and most people prefer to preach their message to folks who will lap it up voraciously without question, instead of people who will challenge them on it.

Not me. I much prefer to have my views challenged as much as possible as it forces me to constantly dig deep, think about, question and test my views against as many differing views as I can find.

For me, I can't think of anything more monotonous, boring and intellectually regressive than "preaching to the choir".

Trump on the other hand?
He sure appears to get his energy, sense of self worth, and general personal affirmation by preaching to his choir as often and as long as possible, and avoids as often and as long as possible having to defend himself from anyone who wants to level a challenge..

He and I are polar opposite personalities in that, and many ways.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Invalidusername

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2018
1,373
662
Battle Creek
✟70,201.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
In American Politics in the Trump era, I can't say I disagree...
I typically post in the theology sections where the undecided lurkers are numerous... Just passing by this thread and felt like chiming in, but if my words help even one person make a choice for themselves, whether or not their choice agrees with me, then I'm grateful to have assisted.

I also find vigorous debate on any topic only hones my own knowledge of said topic.

But again, I get that it's not for everyone.. and most people prefer to preach their message to folks who will lap it up voraciously without question, instead of people who will challenge them on it.

Not me. I much prefer to have my views challenged as much as possible as it forces me to constantly dig deep, think about, question and test my views against as many differing views as I can find.

For me, I can't think of anything more monotonous, boring and intellectually regressive than "preaching to the choir".

Trump on the other hand?
He sure appears to get his energy, sense of self worth, and general personal affirmation by preaching to his choir as often and as long as possible, and avoids as often and as long as possible having to defend himself from anyone who wants to level a challenge..

He and I are polar opposite personalities in that, and many ways.

Just because I don't care about fruitless arguments doesn't mean I want to preach to the choir. I just know that it is pointless. I tend to prefer to debate people who are reasonable and not overly emotional about their retorts and are capable of making logical and sound arguments instead of flinging mud.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Just because I don't care about fruitless arguments doesn't mean I want to preach to the choir. I just know that it is pointless. I tend to prefer to debate people who are reasonable and not overly emotional about their retorts and are capable of making logical and sound arguments instead of flinging mud.

Oh... I didn't necessarily mean you specifically. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of your stated reasons for retreating from the debate.
It's Just what I have found to be the most common case over the past 2 decades here on CF with people who prefer to take their ball and go after only half a dozen posts back and forth.

In contrast, I've been having the same debate with the same members, (albeit the threads come and go, but its the same debate) for the bulk of the 17 years I've been posting here...sometimes the debates get heated, sometimes mud is slung... none of us have changed our minds, all of us have grown in knowledge, and many many lurkers have been helped in their own journey to the truth.

It's what will cause me to log back in tomorrow as I enter year 18 here...
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldenBoy89
Upvote 0

Invalidusername

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2018
1,373
662
Battle Creek
✟70,201.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Oh... I didn't necessarily mean you specifically. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of your stated reasons for retreating from the debate.
It's Just what I have found to be the most common case over the past 2 decades here on CF with people who prefer to take their ball and go after only half a dozen posts back and forth.

In contrast, I've been having the same debate with the same members, (albeit the threads come and go, but its the same debate) for the bulk of the 17 years I've been posting here...sometimes the debates get heated, sometimes mud is slung... none of us have changed our minds, all of us have grown in knowledge, and many many lurkers have been helped in their own journey to the truth.

It's what will cause me to log back in tomorrow as I enter year 18 here...

Haha good on you. I recently joined this site last spring I think.

Unfortunately for the last few years I was spending a good portion of my time on other forums that was full of ungodly chatter. Time wasted when I could've been chatting to other Christians instead of unbelievers.

At least I did learn one thing out of all of that and that is fruitless arguments from two entrenched points of views are just as pointless as preaching to the choir and much less satisfying.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That’s correct we the people have the power of impeachment every 4 years with regards to POTUS.
and every 4 years the people have the power to acquit the POTUS
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Haha good on you. I recently joined this site last spring I think.

Unfortunately for the last few years I was spending a good portion of my time on other forums that was full of ungodly chatter. Time wasted when I could've been chatting to other Christians instead of unbelievers.

At least I did learn one thing out of all of that and that is fruitless arguments from two entrenched points of views are just as pointless as preaching to the choir and much less satisfying.

It’s interesting how different things satisfy different people ..

Well, I do apologize if we got off on the wrong foot and for any uncharitable comments I made toward you. I’m not at all perfect, I’d get passionate and I have a huge problem controlling my disdain for hypocrisy, double standards and the pot calling the kettle black.. sometimes to the point of assuming that is what’s happening before digging deeper to find out for sure...
I do my best to ask clarifying questions so I do not fall into the over emotional trap of saying something I may regret, like it seems I may have Done with you.
I hope you find a home here where you feel you can learn, grow and teach.
CF is mostly a good place to fellowship. I hope your short experience with me doesn’t turn you away.

Come on over to the Eschatology board if you want to debate whether or not Jesus already came back...
;)
Cheers!
 
Upvote 0

Invalidusername

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2018
1,373
662
Battle Creek
✟70,201.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
It’s interesting how different things satisfy different people ..

Well, I do apologize if we got off on the wrong foot and for any uncharitable comments I made toward you. I’m not at all perfect, I’d get passionate and I have a huge problem controlling my disdain for hypocrisy, double standards and the pot calling the kettle black.. sometimes to the point of assuming that is what’s happening before digging deeper to find out for sure...
I do my best to ask clarifying questions so I do not fall into the over emotional trap of saying something I may regret, like it seems I may have Done with you.
I hope you find a home here where you feel you can learn, grow and teach.
CF is mostly a good place to fellowship. I hope your short experience with me doesn’t turn you away.

Come on over to the Eschatology board if you want to debate whether or not Jesus already came back...
;)
Cheers!

It's water under the bridge.

Disagreements happen and that's why I didn't want to let it get out of control.

Have a great evening!
 
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,560
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Well, he's scum.

We are to love our neighbor, even our enemy. When our politics cause us to cease reflecting the one we serve, we probably need to get away from politics.


They have evidence but they need for the trials to be complete to see if there is enough to convict. That doesn't mean they can have a successful impeachment proceedings. If there are not enough GOP votes in the Senate it will end there and give Trump, at least in his mind, a victory.

If they had evidence, they would use it. They would smear him and destroy any chance of reelection. The fact that Muellar's investigation is coming to an end, and she is saying there isn't enough to impeach, says that a lot of what we have heard, a lot of what causes you to use a word like scum, probably isn't true anyway. If they had evidence they would kill him with it.... but they don't, so they can't.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
It's funny because if you watch a video of Trump when he was younger, he seems to talk differently and has a different vocabulary.

Apparently, it's not intentional...

Trump wasn’t always so linguistically challenged. What could explain the change?
STAT reviewed decades of Trump’s on-air interviews and compared them to Q&A sessions since his inauguration. The differences are striking and unmistakable.


Research has shown that changes in speaking style can result from cognitive decline. STAT therefore asked experts in neurolinguistics and cognitive assessment, as well as psychologists and psychiatrists, to compare Trump’s speech from decades ago to that in 2017; they all agreed there had been a deterioration, and some said it could reflect changes in the health of Trump’s brain.

In interviews Trump gave in the 1980s and 1990s (with Tom Brokaw, David Letterman, Oprah Winfrey, Charlie Rose, and others), he spoke articulately, used sophisticated vocabulary, inserted dependent clauses into his sentences without losing his train of thought, and strung together sentences into a polished paragraph, which — and this is no mean feat — would have scanned just fine in print. This was so even when reporters asked tough questions about, for instance, his divorce, his brush with bankruptcy, and why he doesn’t build housing for working-class Americans.

Trump fluently peppered his answers with words and phrases such as “subsided,” “inclination,” “discredited,” “sparring session,” and “a certain innate intelligence.” He tossed off well-turned sentences such as, “It could have been a contentious route,” and, “These are the only casinos in the United States that are so rated.” He even offered thoughtful, articulate aphorisms: “If you get into what’s missing, you don’t appreciate what you have,” and, “Adversity is a very funny thing.”

Now, Trump’s vocabulary is simpler. He repeats himself over and over, and lurches from one subject to an unrelated one, as in this answer during an interview with the Associated Press last month:

“People want the border wall. My base definitely wants the border wall, my base really wants it — you’ve been to many of the rallies. OK, the thing they want more than anything is the wall. My base, which is a big base; I think my base is 45 percent. You know, it’s funny. The Democrats, they have a big advantage in the Electoral College. Big, big, big advantage. … The Electoral College is very difficult for a Republican to win, and I will tell you, the people want to see it. They want to see the wall.”
Trump used to be more articulate. What could explain the change?

It's notable that many people who have worked with Trump in the WH have disparaged his intelligence. It might be something more troubling than innate stupidity.

The rambling, often unconnected performance at CPAC was disturbing, even to some of his followers. It's like a crazy old uncle everyone is accustomed to hearing him say strange and inappropriate things; we're now accustomed to a president who confabulates whatever it is he wants to believe at the moment.


 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: archer75
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Invalidusername

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2018
1,373
662
Battle Creek
✟70,201.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Apparently, it's not intentional...

Trump wasn’t always so linguistically challenged. What could explain the change?
STAT reviewed decades of Trump’s on-air interviews and compared them to Q&A sessions since his inauguration. The differences are striking and unmistakable.


Research has shown that changes in speaking style can result from cognitive decline. STAT therefore asked experts in neurolinguistics and cognitive assessment, as well as psychologists and psychiatrists, to compare Trump’s speech from decades ago to that in 2017; they all agreed there had been a deterioration, and some said it could reflect changes in the health of Trump’s brain.

In interviews Trump gave in the 1980s and 1990s (with Tom Brokaw, David Letterman, Oprah Winfrey, Charlie Rose, and others), he spoke articulately, used sophisticated vocabulary, inserted dependent clauses into his sentences without losing his train of thought, and strung together sentences into a polished paragraph, which — and this is no mean feat — would have scanned just fine in print. This was so even when reporters asked tough questions about, for instance, his divorce, his brush with bankruptcy, and why he doesn’t build housing for working-class Americans.

Trump fluently peppered his answers with words and phrases such as “subsided,” “inclination,” “discredited,” “sparring session,” and “a certain innate intelligence.” He tossed off well-turned sentences such as, “It could have been a contentious route,” and, “These are the only casinos in the United States that are so rated.” He even offered thoughtful, articulate aphorisms: “If you get into what’s missing, you don’t appreciate what you have,” and, “Adversity is a very funny thing.”

Now, Trump’s vocabulary is simpler. He repeats himself over and over, and lurches from one subject to an unrelated one, as in this answer during an interview with the Associated Press last month:

“People want the border wall. My base definitely wants the border wall, my base really wants it — you’ve been to many of the rallies. OK, the thing they want more than anything is the wall. My base, which is a big base; I think my base is 45 percent. You know, it’s funny. The Democrats, they have a big advantage in the Electoral College. Big, big, big advantage. … The Electoral College is very difficult for a Republican to win, and I will tell you, the people want to see it. They want to see the wall.”
Trump used to be more articulate. What could explain the change?

It's notable that many people who have worked with Trump in the WH have disparaged his intelligence. It might be something more troubling than innate stupidity.

The rambling, often unconnected performance at CPAC was disturbing, even to some of his followers. It's like a crazy old uncle everyone is accustomed to hearing him say strange and inappropriate things; we're now accustomed to a president who confabulates whatever it is he wants to believe at the moment.

You guys will just do anything and believe anything in order to hate Trump. It's a bit ridiculous. Just looking forward to him winning 2020 again while you guys continue to debate his IQ.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You guys will just do anything and believe anything in order to hate Trump.

I'm not the one who brought it up. Someone else mentioned his decline in articulate speech. I'm just showing that it's consistent with cognitive decline, and could explain why he "lies" constantly. It could be he no longer knows those are lies.

It's a bit ridiculous.

Dispite the constant negative press, covfefe.

Just looking forward to him winning 2020

It's not impossible. Nixon won twice, so could happen.
 
Upvote 0

Invalidusername

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2018
1,373
662
Battle Creek
✟70,201.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I'm not the one who brought it up. Someone else mentioned his decline in articulate speech. I'm just showing that it's consistent with cognitive decline, and could explain why he "lies" constantly. It could be he no longer knows those are lies.



Dispite the constant negative press, covfefe.



It's not impossible. Nixon won twice, so could happen.

People like you are precisely WHY he will win again.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Gigimo
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
People like you are precisely WHY he will win again.

Given that he's repeatedly losing now, I'm wondering what you think will change. Pelosi handled him very well when he tried to shut down the government, and now she seems to have beaten him again on his "emergency" declaration:

It’s very likely that the Trump administration will lose a Senate vote later this week after the House passed a resolution today to disapprove the president’s national emergency declaration on the alleged “border crisis.”
Will Republicans Save Trump From an Embarrassing Vote on Emergency Declaration?

She's pretty well isolated him on this issue. The House won't support him, the Senate appears to be ready to reject him, and the American people won't support him.


emergency-wall.png

Not even close. He's let her maneuver him into a corner, again.


 
Upvote 0

Invalidusername

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2018
1,373
662
Battle Creek
✟70,201.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Given that he's repeatedly losing now, I'm wondering what you think will change. Pelosi handled him very well when he tried to shut down the government, and now she seems to have beaten him again on his "emergency" declaration:

It’s very likely that the Trump administration will lose a Senate vote later this week after the House passed a resolution today to disapprove the president’s national emergency declaration on the alleged “border crisis.”
Will Republicans Save Trump From an Embarrassing Vote on Emergency Declaration?

She's pretty well isolated him on this issue. The House won't support him, the Senate appears to be ready to reject him, and the American people won't support him.


emergency-wall.png

Not even close. He's let her maneuver him into a corner, again.


I also remember CNN gave him 1% chance to win the election in 2016. Polls don't seem to be indicative of actual facts but rather what the media wants the public to believe.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Gigimo
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

EpiscipalMe

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 1, 2017
1,763
1,299
USA
✟171,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
I also remember CNN gave him 1% chance to win the election in 2016. Polls don't seem to be indicative of actual facts but rather what the media wants the public to believe.
Source?

When in the election cycle did CNN say 1%? Would be very different if early in the primaries as opposed to the days before the general election.

Was this a CNN pundit or actual polls that suggested 1%? We all know pundits just say stuff that they believe or want us to believe, but data is data. The polls did show that Clinton would win the popular vote, which she did. However, they did not account for the electoral college, which is where Trump one (the only place it matters in the end).

Polls do matter, they do provide a snapshot of where people are at, but they need to be interpreted correctly.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I also remember CNN gave him 1% chance to win the election in 2016.

(Barbarian checks) Nope. In fact, every poll said it was going to be close. You didn't know that? Real Clear Politics sums up major polls and had Clinton up by 3 points in the popular vote, which is very close to what happened. So that excuse won't fly for you.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

Polls don't seem to be indicative of actual facts but rather what the media wants the public to believe.

See link above. Someone's taken advantage of your trust. Last election, the polls were off by 1%. How is that going to erase a 66% to 34% deficit? At some point, you're going to have to accommodate reality here.
 
Upvote 0

Invalidusername

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2018
1,373
662
Battle Creek
✟70,201.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Source?

When in the election cycle did CNN say 1%? Would be very different if early in the primaries as opposed to the days before the general election.

Was this a CNN pundit or actual polls that suggested 1%? We all know pundits just say stuff that they believe or want us to believe, but data is data. The polls did show that Clinton would win the popular vote, which she did. However, they did not account for the electoral college, which is where Trump one (the only place it matters in the end).

Polls do matter, they do provide a snapshot of where people are at, but they need to be interpreted correctly.

The only reason Hillary won the popular vote is because of California and Hollywood. If California would just hurry up and secede then we would not have this problem. Literally free 55 electoral votes from California along with popular vote and democrats still managed to lose.

(Barbarian checks) Nope. In fact, every poll said it was going to be close. You didn't know that? Real Clear Politics sums up major polls and had Clinton up by 3 points in the popular vote, which is very close to what happened. So that excuse won't fly for you.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton



See link above. Someone's taken advantage of your trust. Last election, the polls were off by 1%. How is that going to erase a 66% to 34% deficit? At some point, you're going to have to accommodate reality here.

Nobody has taken advantage of my trust. There was plenty of polls that gave Trump less than 20% chance to win and there was indeed a poll that gave Trump a 1% chance to win.

Analysis: Trump has 1% chance of nomination - CNNPolitics
 
Upvote 0

EpiscipalMe

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 1, 2017
1,763
1,299
USA
✟171,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
The only reason Hillary won the popular vote is because of California and Hollywood. If California would just hurry up and secede then we would not have this problem. Literally free 55 electoral votes from California along with popular vote and democrats still managed to lose.

Are you suggesting that Californians are not Americans who are allowed to have a say in who is president?

Nobody has taken advantage of my trust. There was plenty of polls that gave Trump less than 20% chance to win and there was indeed a poll that gave Trump a 1% chance to win.

Analysis: Trump has 1% chance of nomination - CNNPolitics

This is CNN reporting on the findings of a third party. And, as I suspected, it was early in the campaign season - a full 16 months before the general election.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Invalidusername

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2018
1,373
662
Battle Creek
✟70,201.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Are you suggesting that Californians are not Americans who are allowed to have a say in who is president?



This is CNN reporting on the findings of a third party. And, as I suspected, it was early in the campaign season - a full 16 months before the general election.

It still shows how ridiculous polls are and how we should not rely on them. We are using polls right now to predict that Trump isn't going to win 2020 and I was pointing out the folly of that.

Californians are definitely not rooting for Christian values so you must forgive me for not valuing their opinions. Especially since California is heavy influenced by Hollywood itself.
 
Upvote 0