Trump

[Masterbagger]

Aside from some sniping on twitter President Trump hasn't gotten distracted by the impeachment sham. He was speaking today at the march for life. First President to show up in person.

Here is his speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5T4NCsbRFk

I don't offer my opinion on abortion much but I think it can made an example of a larger problem. Like all the things the progressive left upholds as virtuous they have taken abortion to an extreme. What has happened here is like other policies the left puts on a pedestal to worship. The "right" to an abortion has been defended without limit. There is no point where they will stop and claim that they have enough abortion and that going any further starts being wrong. To a person who follows the religion of radical progressivism abortion is a sacred tenet. President Trump has repeatedly made reference to some views by democrats about late term abortion. That is not the vast majority of abortions that take place where a mother terminates an early pregnancy for her own convenience but it is an example of going too far. Right now to everyone who thinks abortion or just late term abortion is bad President Trump is the only person running in 2020 who agrees with them. None of the dems are going to take any view that Trump has even if a lot of Americans think it is correct.

[red assassin]

The "late term abortion" thing is a masterclass in manufacturing nonsense to get people outraged. Abortions past 20 weeks happen extremely infrequently and pretty much only in cases of life threatening complications. Effectively nobody is voluntarily terminating pregnancies that late, even in the few jurisdictions it's actually allowed. It's a total non issue. (Most nations set a 20 week limit for elective abortions. A few have 24. A couple have no limits. In the US, most states have 20 or 24 week limits.) Some stats here. Note that some abortions continue to happen past the limits where applicable because abortions for medical reasons are also included in these stats. And yet loads of people seem utterly convinced that pregnancies are being willfully terminated seconds before delivery left right and centre? It'd just be weird if it wasn't being used to get support for laws denying people basic healthcare. Nobody talking about "late term abortions" just wants a law that, say, standardises the 24 week elective abortion limit across the US to stop the fraction of a percent of abortions this actually affects and otherwise thinks US abortion law is just fine.

Also, if you want to reduce abortion rates, the evidence is pretty clear on what actually works: better education and access to contraceptives, and better conditions and support for mothers. On the latter, in the US, provision of maternity leave and addressing the enormous medical bills for birth would be a good start.

[RegisterMe]

I think Trump is a reprehensible man who shouldn't be President of the USA. That having been said I find myself pretty impressed by the lawyers defending him in these impeachment hearings. It would be interesting to hear a lawyer's view as to the legitimacy of their various positions.

[Vertigo 7]

The "late term abortion" thing is a masterclass in manufacturing nonsense to get people outraged. Abortions past 20 weeks happen extremely infrequently and pretty much only in cases of life threatening complications. Effectively nobody is voluntarily terminating pregnancies that late, even in the few jurisdictions it's actually allowed. It's a total non issue. (Most nations set a 20 week limit for elective abortions. A few have 24. A couple have no limits. In the US, most states have 20 or 24 week limits.) Some stats here. Note that some abortions continue to happen past the limits where applicable because abortions for medical reasons are also included in these stats. And yet loads of people seem utterly convinced that pregnancies are being willfully terminated seconds before delivery left right and centre? It'd just be weird if it wasn't being used to get support for laws denying people basic healthcare. Nobody talking about "late term abortions" just wants a law that, say, standardises the 24 week elective abortion limit across the US to stop the fraction of a percent of abortions this actually affects and otherwise thinks US abortion law is just fine.

Also, if you want to reduce abortion rates, the evidence is pretty clear on what actually works: better education and access to contraceptives, and better conditions and support for mothers. On the latter, in the US, provision of maternity leave and addressing the enormous medical bills for birth would be a good start.

I can't have much sympathy for anyone on the "pro-life" side of the argument. The same people that don't want everyone to have access to healthcare, they don't want everyone to have access to food, but they do want everyone to be able to bebop down to the neighborhood Walmart and buy themselves a gun. I just really don't get how they can reconcile all of their attempts at "pwning libs" when they're so contradictory.

The only common thread I can see in all of their arguments is it ignores, if not encourages, the suffering of others. It's almost like they get off to it. Someone stubs their toe, and the hillbilly gets a chubby.

[Vertigo 7]

In other news. I find this hilarious.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ch ... ovanovitch

Ukraine won't announce an investigation into Biden, but they've announced one into Rudy Colludy.

Suck it, Trump.

[felter]

What this guy has to say about the impeachment trial, is pretty interesting. He is an actual lawyer, but he specialises in copyright law. I've watched a few of his videos where he explains the ins and outs of a lot of cases. He even has his own case going right now where someone claimed one of his videos as their copyright, pretty ironic really as the one person who you don't want to make a false copyright claim against, is a copyright lawyer.

[fiksal]

None of the dems are going to take any view that Trump has even if a lot of Americans think it is correct.

Hopefully that number of Americans will be further reducing. This isnt 1920s anymore. It's time to fade.

[Masterbagger]

I think Trump is a reprehensible man who shouldn't be President of the USA. That having been said I find myself pretty impressed by the lawyers defending him in these impeachment hearings. It would be interesting to hear a lawyer's view as to the legitimacy of their various positions.

You are watching theater. The objective isn't to remove Trump and the Ukraine narrative the dems are pushing is a lie. The only purpose is to generate media attention and keep the desperate hope alive that Trump can be stopped. For the dems nothing is forbidden when it comes to stopping democracy from reelecting their worst nightmare. They are a party that would reduce America to a smoking pile of garbage if it meant they got to rule over it.

Hopefully that number of Americans will be further reducing. This isnt 1920s anymore. It's time to fade.

That is a sad thing to say. America is exceptional and worth defending.

[RegisterMe]

You are watching theater. The objective isn't to remove Trump and the Ukraine narrative the dems are pushing is a lie. The only purpose is to generate media attention and keep the desperate hope alive that Trump can be stopped. For the dems nothing is forbidden when it comes to stopping democracy from reelecting their worst nightmare. They are a party that would reduce America to a smoking pile of garbage if it meant they got to rule over it.

That's a little melodramatic isn't it? Anyway, if you're right that it's "just theatre", then presumably none of the witnesses, and none of the evidence that the House managers want subpoenaed, would support the fact that there's a problem here, would it? So why not let it be produced?

[Grim Lock]

So the US government is so ****** up, that people can get sent to jail, investigations opened, an entire impeachment trail can happen, all for the sake of theatre?

[Vertigo 7]

You are watching theater. The objective isn't to remove Trump and the Ukraine narrative the dems are pushing is a lie. The only purpose is to generate media attention and keep the desperate hope alive that Trump can be stopped. For the dems nothing is forbidden when it comes to stopping democracy from reelecting their worst nightmare. They are a party that would reduce America to a smoking pile of garbage if it meant they got to rule over it.

That's a little melodramatic isn't it? Anyway, if you're right that it's "just theatre", then presumably none of the witnesses, and none of the evidence that the House managers want subpoenaed, would support the fact that there's a problem here, would it? So why not let it be produced?

Because facts and truth go against the Trumpanzie narrative and desires. After all, "What you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening."

[Chips]

So the US government is so ****** up, that people can get sent to jail, investigations opened, an entire impeachment trail can happen, all for the sake of theatre?

Think he means it's all trumped up to stop Trump winning an election. The problem is that is precisely what Trump wants people to believe, otherwise the alternative is that it's true and he's a douche.

Wait, being true and his douchiness are actually independent of each other.

[Masterbagger]

That's a little melodramatic isn't it? Anyway, if you're right that it's "just theatre", then presumably none of the witnesses, and none of the evidence that the House managers want subpoenaed, would support the fact that there's a problem here, would it? So why not let it be produced?

I don't think I'm mistaken about what I am seeing. Every day since Trump beat them the dems have established a pattern of closing ranks to support one lie after another to cause maximum disruption. They did it with the Russia lies, the Kavanaugh lies, and now this plot Schiff cooked up in secret. This entire time they have been promising to impeach Trump before he was even sworn in. None of this has been done in good faith. If they wanted witnesses they should have called them when they started this circus and not demanded them after they ceded control of this witch hunt to the senate. Every time Nadler or Schiff or any of them get in front a microphone they claim there is overwhelming evidence that Trump is guilty. Why do they need more then? This is all being done to cause chaos before an election they know they are going to lose. They want it drag out. Having this handled quickly and decisively is the worst possible outcome for them.

[fiksal]

America is exceptional and worth defending.

It's the only thing I agree on

[Olterin]

That's a little melodramatic isn't it? Anyway, if you're right that it's "just theatre", then presumably none of the witnesses, and none of the evidence that the House managers want subpoenaed, would support the fact that there's a problem here, would it? So why not let it be produced?

I don't think I'm mistaken about what I am seeing. Every day since Trump beat them the dems have established a pattern of closing ranks to support one lie after another to cause maximum disruption. They did it with the Russia lies, the Kavanaugh lies, and now this plot Schiff cooked up in secret. This entire time they have been promising to impeach Trump before he was even sworn in. None of this has been done in good faith. If they wanted witnesses they should have called them when they started this circus and not demanded them after they ceded control of this witch hunt to the senate. Every time Nadler or Schiff or any of them get in front a microphone they claim there is overwhelming evidence that Trump is guilty. Why do they need more then? This is all being done to cause chaos before an election they know they are going to lose. They want it drag out. Having this handled quickly and decisively is the worst possible outcome for them.

Are we conveniently forgetting that (some of) the Trump administration explicitly refused to appear as witnesses before Congress (correct my terminology if applicable, I mean the lower house) and would only do so in a Senatorial trial proceeding? That might be why the Democrats are asking for them, you know. In a vacuum (I know we're not in one, but bear with me), this looks a lot like "we're going to use our majority to crush a fair and unbiased trial before it gets started". And, regardless of all the stuff that exists outside of our hypothetical vacuum, doing so will do irreparable damage to the American Democracy because it will set the precedent that whoever controls the Senate, controls the Presidency in the sense of "you're on our side, we'll never impeach you no matter how much wrong you do". Now, whether or not this is a justifiable position with Trump is up for debate, but that debate must be had and not swept under a rug. Or more accurately - it's up on trial, and that trial must be held, properly and in an unbiased manner. Which all the Senators swore to do, but that's not what I'm seeing from outside the US, I'm seeing a lot of bias in there.

Imagine that we live in a world where Trump and the GOP win the impeachment proceedings and nothing happens. Now imagine that the US has a Democrat president and a Democrat-majority Senate. Now, further imagine that the President does equally questionable things like Trump (I shall skip listing it all for the sake of brevity). Let's say the GOP has the majority to start impeachment proceedings to get rid of such a bad President. Would you rather live in a world where they have a chance to do so? That would require a fair and unbiased trial in the Senate. In this imaginary world, however, there is already precedent for the opposite. The trial will never succeed because it has become acceptable to flatly tank it in the Senate.

This is not a good thing in any case. Furthermore, I would question the wisdom of the Senate being the place where the impeachment trial is held - it's becoming very much obvious that the amount of checks and balances in place is insufficient, given the current party representation in the Senate. Assuming no one party had a majority there this might work a bit better, but as things stand I'd think that an independent jury, elected specifically for the occasion, would be a much more reliable "thing" than the sitting Senators.


In other news, shouldn't Bolton's possible claim be investigated properly? (On top of all the other evidence or 'evidence', whichever way you want to see what has already been presented to date)

[Vertigo 7]

That's a little melodramatic isn't it? Anyway, if you're right that it's "just theatre", then presumably none of the witnesses, and none of the evidence that the House managers want subpoenaed, would support the fact that there's a problem here, would it? So why not let it be produced?

I don't think I'm mistaken about what I am seeing. Every day since Trump beat them the dems have established a pattern of closing ranks to support one lie after another to cause maximum disruption. They did it with the Russia lies, the Kavanaugh lies, and now this plot Schiff cooked up in secret. This entire time they have been promising to impeach Trump before he was even sworn in. None of this has been done in good faith. If they wanted witnesses they should have called them when they started this circus and not demanded them after they ceded control of this witch hunt to the senate. Every time Nadler or Schiff or any of them get in front a microphone they claim there is overwhelming evidence that Trump is guilty. Why do they need more then? This is all being done to cause chaos before an election they know they are going to lose. They want it drag out. Having this handled quickly and decisively is the worst possible outcome for them.

Are we conveniently forgetting that (some of) the Trump administration explicitly refused to appear as witnesses before Congress (correct my terminology if applicable, I mean the lower house) and would only do so in a Senatorial trial proceeding? That might be why the Democrats are asking for them, you know. In a vacuum (I know we're not in one, but bear with me), this looks a lot like "we're going to use our majority to crush a fair and unbiased trial before it gets started". And, regardless of all the stuff that exists outside of our hypothetical vacuum, doing so will do irreparable damage to the American Democracy because it will set the precedent that whoever controls the Senate, controls the Presidency in the sense of "you're on our side, we'll never impeach you no matter how much wrong you do". Now, whether or not this is a justifiable position with Trump is up for debate, but that debate must be had and not swept under a rug. Or more accurately - it's up on trial, and that trial must be held, properly and in an unbiased manner. Which all the Senators swore to do, but that's not what I'm seeing from outside the US, I'm seeing a lot of bias in there.

Imagine that we live in a world where Trump and the GOP win the impeachment proceedings and nothing happens. Now imagine that the US has a Democrat president and a Democrat-majority Senate. Now, further imagine that the President does equally questionable things like Trump (I shall skip listing it all for the sake of brevity). Let's say the GOP has the majority to start impeachment proceedings to get rid of such a bad President. Would you rather live in a world where they have a chance to do so? That would require a fair and unbiased trial in the Senate. In this imaginary world, however, there is already precedent for the opposite. The trial will never succeed because it has become acceptable to flatly tank it in the Senate.

This is not a good thing in any case. Furthermore, I would question the wisdom of the Senate being the place where the impeachment trial is held - it's becoming very much obvious that the amount of checks and balances in place is insufficient, given the current party representation in the Senate. Assuming no one party had a majority there this might work a bit better, but as things stand I'd think that an independent jury, elected specifically for the occasion, would be a much more reliable "thing" than the sitting Senators.


In other news, shouldn't Bolton's possible claim be investigated properly? (On top of all the other evidence or 'evidence', whichever way you want to see what has already been presented to date)

This situation in congress was created by Trump demanding loyalty to him above all. Whether coerced by threats or bribes, his sycophants have abandoned their oath of office to give Trump whatever he wants and ignore any possibility that he's ever done anything wrong. The monkeys have been trained to ignore any evidence of obstruction. They claim the Muller investigation was a hoax, despite it indicating everything but. And when challenged, Trump ordered witnesses to ignore subpoenas from congress and argued in the courts that the courts shouldn't be involved, yet they turn around during the trial last week and said the courts should have resolved it link.

Americans overwhelmingly want witnesses and evidence during the Trial. Trumpanzies don't. If the senate chooses to ignore the will of the people, they can kiss their political careers goodbye.

[Masterbagger]

Are we conveniently forgetting that (some of) the Trump administration explicitly refused to appear as witnesses before Congress (correct my terminology if applicable, I mean the lower house) and would only do so in a Senatorial trial proceeding? That might be why the Democrats are asking for them, you know. In a vacuum (I know we're not in one, but bear with me), this looks a lot like "we're going to use our majority to crush a fair and unbiased trial before it gets started". And, regardless of all the stuff that exists outside of our hypothetical vacuum, doing so will do irreparable damage to the American Democracy because it will set the precedent that whoever controls the Senate, controls the Presidency in the sense of "you're on our side, we'll never impeach you no matter how much wrong you do". Now, whether or not this is a justifiable position with Trump is up for debate, but that debate must be had and not swept under a rug. Or more accurately - it's up on trial, and that trial must be held, properly and in an unbiased manner. Which all the Senators swore to do, but that's not what I'm seeing from outside the US, I'm seeing a lot of bias in there.

Imagine that we live in a world where Trump and the GOP win the impeachment proceedings and nothing happens. Now imagine that the US has a Democrat president and a Democrat-majority Senate. Now, further imagine that the President does equally questionable things like Trump (I shall skip listing it all for the sake of brevity). Let's say the GOP has the majority to start impeachment proceedings to get rid of such a bad President. Would you rather live in a world where they have a chance to do so? That would require a fair and unbiased trial in the Senate. In this imaginary world, however, there is already precedent for the opposite. The trial will never succeed because it has become acceptable to flatly tank it in the Senate.

This is not a good thing in any case. Furthermore, I would question the wisdom of the Senate being the place where the impeachment trial is held - it's becoming very much obvious that the amount of checks and balances in place is insufficient, given the current party representation in the Senate. Assuming no one party had a majority there this might work a bit better, but as things stand I'd think that an independent jury, elected specifically for the occasion, would be a much more reliable "thing" than the sitting Senators.


In other news, shouldn't Bolton's possible claim be investigated properly? (On top of all the other evidence or 'evidence', whichever way you want to see what has already been presented to date)

As laid out in day one of the defense opening remarks in the impeachment trial the refusal to comply with the subpoenas was based on the break with precedent and denial of due process. This is the link to the letter President Trump's attorney sent in response. This was back in October.

https://www.scribd.com/document/4293570 ... from_embed

I don't know if you caught it while it happened but I saw this unfold. All of this impeachment is based on a narrative that Schiff literally created. Schiff met with Eric Ciaramella before it started. Schiff had the rules changed to allow Ciaramella to make a whistleblower complaint on hearsay. Schiff lied about what Trump said on the phone call with a version he himself invented. Schiff lied about not meeting with Ciaramella. Schiff held secret interviews in a basement screening hearsay witnesses before they were made public. Schiff lied about there being overwhelming evidence. This all comes after years of dems showing a pattern of a complete lack of integrity and willingness to repeat unsupported lies if it harms Trump.

I find it convenient for the dems that the Bolton leak would be made the day after the defense schlonged the case Schiff made. They dropped that leak to cause chaos. This is them pulling another Kavanaugh and I wonder how long they sat on that leak to release it when they did. What Bolton wrote doesn't change the facts that undercut the dem narrative. Bolton is going to sell a ton of books and go from hated by all liberal media to briefly being regarded as their savior. Good for him.

[Vertigo 7]

I see it's time to don the tin foil hats and stock the bunkers again. Seriously, how do these whackydos manage to function on a daily basis when everyone is "out to get em"? Maybe they just forgot to take their pills for the last 3 years?

What I find particularly telling, however, in modern history, we've never had splinter groups like "never Trumpers" pop up during a presidency. Sure, there were some conservatives that didn't like Bush, and there were democrats that didn't like Clinton or Obama. But we didn't ever see a movement among the populace abandoning their party like we have with the Trump administration. https://twitter.com/hashtag/ILeftTheGOP ... wsrc%5Etfw

[Olterin]

As laid out in day one of the defense opening remarks in the impeachment trial the refusal to comply with the subpoenas was based on the break with precedent and denial of due process. This is the link to the letter President Trump's attorney sent in response. This was back in October.

https://www.scribd.com/document/4293570 ... from_embed

Let's assume that is the truth (I can't say I personally agree with this argumentation but let's run with it) - not hearing all possible witnesses would be in itself denying due process. Ironic, isn't it? (Insert image of Palpatine here)

I don't know if you caught it while it happened but I saw this unfold. All of this impeachment is based on a narrative that Schiff literally created. Schiff met with Eric Ciaramella before it started. Schiff had the rules changed to allow Ciaramella to make a whistleblower complaint on hearsay. Schiff lied about what Trump said on the phone call with a version he himself invented. Schiff lied about not meeting with Ciaramella. Schiff held secret interviews in a basement screening hearsay witnesses before they were made public. Schiff lied about there being overwhelming evidence. This all comes after years of dems showing a pattern of a complete lack of integrity and willingness to repeat unsupported lies if it harms Trump.

I find it convenient for the dems that the Bolton leak would be made the day after the defense schlonged the case Schiff made. They dropped that leak to cause chaos. This is them pulling another Kavanaugh and I wonder how long they sat on that leak to release it when they did. What Bolton wrote doesn't change the facts that undercut the dem narrative. Bolton is going to sell a ton of books and go from hated by all liberal media to briefly being regarded as their savior. Good for him.

I was loosely following the entire Trump presidency as much as I had the attention and inclination to (to me this is more entertainment than serious politics, luxury of not living in the US in my eyes at the moment). So yes, I am aware that not everything was done in a 100%-clean fashion. However, phone call transcripts and chat logs are what they are, those were not fabricated and never disputed. Those are the evidence, which in a proper trial deserves to be examined and either dismissed or taken into account. Witness statements are further possible evidence. And yes, I'd love to have everyone under oath, including the prosecuting side. If they did wrong, that too deserves to be shown and judged (although perhaps in a separate process). But, due process is what it is, no matter how the US arrived at an impeachment trial, it must now be conducted properly in order to not turn the entire political system into a ... comedy show (because boy does it resemble one).

"Due process" - once a trial has started, it has to be finished properly, with due process, no matter how it started. If, in the course of due process it is concluded that among other things, the evidence was obtained in an illegal fashion or is falsified, that can be prosecuted separately. But for that to happen, due process must take it's course.


(And yes, I apologize for riding around on "due process" there, I just found it hilarious for Trump's defense to cite due process when it has so (relatively) rarely been properly observed during his presidency )

[Vertigo 7]

As laid out in day one of the defense opening remarks in the impeachment trial the refusal to comply with the subpoenas was based on the break with precedent and denial of due process. This is the link to the letter President Trump's attorney sent in response. This was back in October.

https://www.scribd.com/document/4293570 ... from_embed

Let's assume that is the truth (I can't say I personally agree with this argumentation but let's run with it) - not hearing all possible witnesses would be in itself denying due process. Ironic, isn't it? (Insert image of Palpatine here)

He's also ignoring a basic fact that the "due process" of a trial is not afforded in an inquiry. I really don't understand why Trumpanzies have such a hard time with that distinction. The DoJ would not and did not conduct an investigation into the whistleblower complaint, despite having it well before congress did, so it was up to the House to do so. Again, facts and truth go against the Trumpanzie narrative and desires.

I don't know if you caught it while it happened but I saw this unfold. All of this impeachment is based on a narrative that Schiff literally created. Schiff met with Eric Ciaramella before it started. Schiff had the rules changed to allow Ciaramella to make a whistleblower complaint on hearsay. Schiff lied about what Trump said on the phone call with a version he himself invented. Schiff lied about not meeting with Ciaramella. Schiff held secret interviews in a basement screening hearsay witnesses before they were made public. Schiff lied about there being overwhelming evidence. This all comes after years of dems showing a pattern of a complete lack of integrity and willingness to repeat unsupported lies if it harms Trump.

I find it convenient for the dems that the Bolton leak would be made the day after the defense schlonged the case Schiff made. They dropped that leak to cause chaos. This is them pulling another Kavanaugh and I wonder how long they sat on that leak to release it when they did. What Bolton wrote doesn't change the facts that undercut the dem narrative. Bolton is going to sell a ton of books and go from hated by all liberal media to briefly being regarded as their savior. Good for him.

I was loosely following the entire Trump presidency as much as I had the attention and inclination to (to me this is more entertainment than serious politics, luxury of not living in the US in my eyes at the moment). So yes, I am aware that not everything was done in a 100%-clean fashion. However, phone call transcripts and chat logs are what they are, those were not fabricated and never disputed. Those are the evidence, which in a proper trial deserves to be examined and either dismissed or taken into account. Witness statements are further possible evidence. And yes, I'd love to have everyone under oath, including the prosecuting side. If they did wrong, that too deserves to be shown and judged (although perhaps in a separate process). But, due process is what it is, no matter how the US arrived at an impeachment trial, it must now be conducted properly in order to not turn the entire political system into a ... comedy show (because boy does it resemble one).

"Due process" - once a trial has started, it has to be finished properly, with due process, no matter how it started. If, in the course of due process it is concluded that among other things, the evidence was obtained in an illegal fashion or is falsified, that can be prosecuted separately. But for that to happen, due process must take it's course.


(And yes, I apologize for riding around on "due process" there, I just found it hilarious for Trump's defense to cite due process when it has so (relatively) rarely been properly observed during his presidency )

Oh noes! New evidence possibly linking a witness directly to Trump that we already knew about! *gasp* What's the world coming to? If Trump wasn't doing his damnedest to hide his corruption from congress and the American people, things wouldn't need to be "leaked", would they?

Was it "convenient" for the case against Trump? Maybe, maybe not. But it doesn't alter facts. The only thing it changes is putting more pressure on the sycophants to stop putting Trump before country and do their damn jobs.