The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

[Red]

That is a huge, offensive, and irresponsible slur. You should up your game.

Each of us will believe what we want to believe. Each will offer evidence in support of our beliefs. I do believe the facts are on my side. Republicans, and they will need to answer to this one day, have taken the position that facts are irrelevant. Nunes demonstrated that decision during the public hearings. Not really a surprise, since their leader, Trump, is leading the transition to a so-called Post Truth landscape(the dangers of which are noted in the Timothy Snyder quote in my signature), and a world rife with "alternative facts". I believe you, @babe, prefer the Post Truth world of alternative facts where the 2016 election was concerned. You will deny it, naturally, thinking instead that you hone closer to the truth. Believe what you want, of course...

Here's a good breakdown of Trump lending support for Putin's foreign policy objectives:

https://themoscowproject.org/report...p-has-supported-putins-foreign-policy-agenda/

1. Putin’s Goal: Weaken and divide the transatlantic alliance.
   • Putin’s Payout:Trump undermines US relationships with European allies and calls the US’s commitment to NATO into question.
2. Putin’s Goal: Degrade the European Union and foster pro-Russian political movements.
   • Putin’s Payout:Trump attacks the EU and actively supports anti-EU, Kremlin-backed parties.
3. Putin’s Goal: Disrupt American leadership and dominance of the global economic order.
   • Putin’s Payout: Trump is eagerly pushing for an all-out trade war with Europe
4. Putin’s Goal: Build global resentment and distrust towards the US and stoke anti-American sentiment.
   • Putin’s Payout: America’s closest allies are explicitly suspicious and distrusting of the US because of Trump’s rhetoric and actions.
5. Putin’s Goal: Relieve economic and domestic political pressure from US sanctions on Russia.
   • Putin’s Payout: Trump tries to roll back, impede, and blunt the impact of sanctions at every step.
6. Putin’s Goal: Legitimize his regime in the eyes of the world.
   • Putin’s Payout: Trump repeatedly praises and defends Putin, lending the credibility of the US presidency to Putin’s standing.
7. Putin’s Goal: Revive Russia’s status as a great power and gain international recognition for its illegal seizure of Crimea.
   • Putin’s Payout:Trump publicly says that Crimea is part of Russia and calls for Russia to be welcomed back into the international community with no concessions.
8. Putin’s Goal: Continue to sow discord in Western democracies and avoid repercussions for interfering in American and European elections.
   • Putin’s Payout: Trump dismisses Russian interference and has done nothing to prevent future interference, putting him at odds with his own intelligence community.
9. Putin’s Goal: Soften America’s adversarial stance toward Russia.
   • Putin’s Payout: Trump is shifting the Republican Party’s generations-long hawkish views on Russia.
10. Putin’s Goal: Destabilize the US from within.
    • Putin’s Payout: Trump attacks US institutions while driving divisive politics and eroding democratic norms.
11. Putin’s goal: Advance the Kremlin’s narrative to shape global perceptions.
    • Putin’s payout: Trump has repeatedly, and inexplicably, parroted Kremlin talking points across a range of global issues.
12. Putin’s goal: Undermine international norms and democratic values abroad.
    • Putin’s payout: Trump has repeatedly failed to respond to human rights violations or support democracy abroad, creating a more permissive environment for autocrats to crack down.

The pattern is clear: Putin has received—and continues to receive—a good payout on his investment in Trump’s campaign.

Also: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/17/politics/trump-soft-on-russia/index.html

 

[babe]

Each of us will believe what we want to believe. Each will offer evidence in support of our beliefs. I do believe the facts are on my side....

Here's a good breakdown of Trump lending support for Putin's foreign policy objectives:

https://themoscowproject.org/report...p-has-supported-putins-foreign-policy-agenda/

1. Putin’s Goal: Weaken and divide the transatlantic alliance.
   • Putin’s Payout:Trump undermines US relationships with European allies and calls the US’s commitment to NATO into question.
2. Putin’s Goal: Degrade the European Union and foster pro-Russian political movements.
   • Putin’s Payout:Trump attacks the EU and actively supports anti-EU, Kremlin-backed parties.
3. Putin’s Goal: Disrupt American leadership and dominance of the global economic order.
   • Putin’s Payout: Trump is eagerly pushing for an all-out trade war with Europe
4. Putin’s Goal: Build global resentment and distrust towards the US and stoke anti-American sentiment.
   • Putin’s Payout: America’s closest allies are explicitly suspicious and distrusting of the US because of Trump’s rhetoric and actions.
5. Putin’s Goal: Relieve economic and domestic political pressure from US sanctions on Russia.
   • Putin’s Payout: Trump tries to roll back, impede, and blunt the impact of sanctions at every step.
6. Putin’s Goal: Legitimize his regime in the eyes of the world.
   • Putin’s Payout: Trump repeatedly praises and defends Putin, lending the credibility of the US presidency to Putin’s standing.
7. Putin’s Goal: Revive Russia’s status as a great power and gain international recognition for its illegal seizure of Crimea.
   • Putin’s Payout:Trump publicly says that Crimea is part of Russia and calls for Russia to be welcomed back into the international community with no concessions.
8. Putin’s Goal: Continue to sow discord in Western democracies and avoid repercussions for interfering in American and European elections.
   • Putin’s Payout: Trump dismisses Russian interference and has done nothing to prevent future interference, putting him at odds with his own intelligence community.
9. Putin’s Goal: Soften America’s adversarial stance toward Russia.
   • Putin’s Payout: Trump is shifting the Republican Party’s generations-long hawkish views on Russia.
10. Putin’s Goal: Destabilize the US from within.
    • Putin’s Payout: Trump attacks US institutions while driving divisive politics and eroding democratic norms.
11. Putin’s goal: Advance the Kremlin’s narrative to shape global perceptions.
    • Putin’s payout: Trump has repeatedly, and inexplicably, parroted Kremlin talking points across a range of global issues.
12. Putin’s goal: Undermine international norms and democratic values abroad.
    • Putin’s payout: Trump has repeatedly failed to respond to human rights violations or support democracy abroad, creating a more permissive environment for autocrats to crack down.

The pattern is clear: Putin has received—and continues to receive—a good payout on his investment in Trump’s campaign.

Also: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/17/politics/trump-soft-on-russia/index.html

you work too hard to make the case. I remember Obama snorting at Romney's quaint notion that Russia was a problem. And I noticed that John Brennan went to Russia and met with Putin right after he was released from being CIA chief. And I noticed a lot of globalist crap all over the place about how good things are in the world. Frankly, I'm just amazed the dems/media are now taking this tack. I don't believe they really mean it.

Politically, this line of attack is being used to try to work on Trump's supposed naive anti-Russian base. Obama can go whisper in Putin's ear about how he can be more flexible when the elections are over and he's not going to be criticized by his ignoramus American hayseed opponents who have no modern notions of how we can and do all work together on the new globalist agenda, and it's not news.

Give me a break.

You have got to be just stupid to try to make out this line on Trump.

Trump is about as simple and direct as anyone can be. He wants everybody to do well, particularly the USA.... and, well, obviously..... Trump. He's nobody's chump, nobody's little puppet.

That is just crazy nonsense.

 

[babe]

What is really disturbing to me is lying "AUTHORITIES" like Politifact. Here's what they say about John Solomon.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...hn-solomon-heres-what-we-know-about-journali/

At the end of the smear piece, full of allegations about "right-wing consipiracy" crap, is the really telling lie:

Calling Joe Biden's extortion of the Ukrainian government, forcing the firing of Shokin who was the prosecutor investigating Burisma, false.

I have the recording of Biden, in the NY Council of Foreign Relations, with the definitively-unique CFR podium and backdrop, telling the story about how he told them to fire the prosecutor, and bragging about how they complied.

This is really outrageous. It shows how determined the political wonks of the "Establishment" are...... basically, folks who are all pretty seriously dedicated to a certain line of progress for our country.

People who really have not accepted Trump's election in 2016, who are doing the Impeachment/Resistance as an ongoing effort to overturn the bacis prinicples of American democracy.

It's probably useless for me to stay here and try to explain it further. Nobody here wants to change their committments.

 

[babe]

Here's the Politifact lie:

"Solomon’s April columns asserted that then-Vice President Biden forced Ukraine to fire former prosecutor general Viktor Shokin in order to stop an investigation into Burisma Holdings, a gas company for which Hunter Biden served on the board. Solomon wrote that Biden withheld aid dollars from Ukraine as leverage to get Shokin removed.

There’s no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden, as we’ve noted before. It’s not clear that the long-dormant investigation into Burisma had been reopened, as Solomon claimed, and Western leaders and institutions were united in wanting Shokin removed."

https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...hn-solomon-heres-what-we-know-about-journali/

And here's Biden bragging at the CFR

https://www.nysun.com/editorials/well-**************-ukraine-scandal-is-about-biden/90846/

Of course, a lot of effort has gone into denying this means what the words mean, and all kinds of lies about how it wasn't what the words meant.

The denials are false. There is further evidence in State Department records of the Burisma representatives going to the State Department, invoking Biden's name and asking our State Department to stop their inquiry into it.

There is extant the actual document Yanukovich handed to the Ukranians, listing people they did not want the Ukraine to prosecute. It will be a pretty solid case if it is permitted to go forward.

At some point, I think, the dems will have to throw Biden under the Bus.

 

[silesian]

Babe needs to take some time to put together a coherent argument. I mean that is some serious OCD rambling.

I mean, crap, I disagree with most of thrillers policies but I at least understand what he is talking about.

 

[olden_undercover]

Here's the Politifact lie:

"Solomon’s April columns asserted that then-Vice President Biden forced Ukraine to fire former prosecutor general Viktor Shokin in order to stop an investigation into Burisma Holdings, a gas company for which Hunter Biden served on the board. Solomon wrote that Biden withheld aid dollars from Ukraine as leverage to get Shokin removed.

There’s no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden, as we’ve noted before. It’s not clear that the long-dormant investigation into Burisma had been reopened, as Solomon claimed, and Western leaders and institutions were united in wanting Shokin removed."

https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...hn-solomon-heres-what-we-know-about-journali/

I think we understand that you believe Biden, Obama, Hilary, etc. are evil and corrupt-- much moreso than Trump could ever be, perhaps-- and the establishment is covering all of it up by controlling the media message most people receive. Just to round this out, then, would you be kind enough to post the clear evidence-- proof, if it's there-- of Biden's wrongdoing?

I ask because I think, as critics of Trump, we often point to evidence that is made very public, and seems like clear proof/implication of his involvement in corrupt dealings. We've copied and pasted it all over this thread, in fact. But those of you who defend him have your reasons for dismissing that evidence, which is initially really baffling to us who criticize him. I think it illustrates really well the immense rift in our country: We don't even begin to understand each other. So I'm genuinely curious-- because I haven't really seen it in the mainstream media, and you seem tapped into information most of us do not look at/listen to, babe-- to see this highly incriminating, credible information. And I think I speak-- not sarcastically in the slightest, I promise-- for all of us with moderate/neutral attitudes on this board who want to engage in actual dialog. You know we aren't stupid; we know you aren't stupid. Fill in the blanks that we don't see, though, and help us get where you're coming from when you refer to accusations that are taken at face value by most conservatives (e.g. this 'lie' by Politifact), but seem ridiculous to us.

 

[fishonjazz]

Babe needs to take some time to put together a coherent argument. I mean that is some serious OCD rambling.

I mean, crap, I disagree with most of thrillers policies but I at least understand what he is talking about.

Most of babe's posts can summed up as crazed, non-sensical, ramblings.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[olden_undercover]

Most of babe's posts can summed up as crazed, non-sensical, ramblings.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

You know I don't intend any disrespect if I disagree, fish. He does tend to ramble, but he's self-aware. I think babe assimilates a lot of information and often distills it in an abstract way, relating sometimes only vaguely related points in an attempt to drive home his arguments. He's also creative with his language, which isn't for everyone. The combination can certainly come across as nonsensical, but I'm pretty sure he's got a method.

What do you say, @babe -- do I have you pegged, more or less?

 

[babe]

I think we understand that you believe Biden, Obama, Hilary, etc. are evil and corrupt, and the establishment is covering all of it up by controlling the media message most people receive. Just to round this out, then, would you be kind enough to post the clear evidence-- proof, if it's there-- of Biden's wrongdoing?

I ask because I think, as critics of Trump, we often point to evidence that is made very public, and seems like clear proof/implication of his involvement in corrupt dealings. We've copied and pasted it all over this thread, in fact. But those of you who defend him have your reasons for dismissing that evidence, which is initially really baffling to us who criticize him. I think it illustrates really well the immense rift in our country: We don't even begin to understand each other. So I'm genuinely curious-- because I haven't really seen it in the mainstream media, and you seem tapped into information most of us do not look at/listen to, babe-- to see this highly incriminating, credible information. And I think I speak-- not sarcastically in the slightest, I promise-- for all of us with moderate/neutral attitudes on this board who want to engage in actual dialog. You know we aren't stupid; we know you aren't stupid. Fill in the blanks that we don't see, though, and help us get where you're coming from when you refer to accusations that are taken at face value by most conservatives (e.g. this 'lie' by Politifact), but seem ridiculous to us.

I listen to quite a few different kinds of political sources, actually. I go to foreign news and see what is playing. I go around looking for different stuff.

Mark Levin was a YAF member in the sixties, like I was. He read some of the same books they had then. Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt. He was a Reagan supporter. I don't think I got on the Reagan bandwagon, but I was amazed he got the nomination. I think Levin differes from me in terms of his anti-Russia stance, and anti-Iran stance. I studied Russian, loved taking a few years of Russian lit classes. I have long-time friends from Persia/Iran, on various sorts of views. One friend has always been working against US war against Iran, a few are actually involved in trying to get up some damn revolution. I tell them not to count on the US jfor anything. Our politics is too damn convoluted, we always betray people who trust us.

Although I have relatives in the CFR, and have worked for some some members as well, I take a sorta dim view of it. Although I have relatives in corporate leadership both in our military-oriented industries, and in Chinese owned corporates, I take a fairly dim view of all these.

I am nobody's camp follower.

I have my issues with Levin and Hannity.

But to your question...... the compelling bit of evidence at hand which you asked to see is in the post above, where I put the Politifact/Punditfact quote and the video that has been out with Joe Biden at eh CFR discussing his dealings with Ukraine.

I know how sophisticates may not wish to take it at face value, but the video is a real, not improvised or made-up, genuine video. His voice is unmistakable. His location is unmistakable. The people next to him are identifiable.

Some may argue that by itself it proves nothing, or for some reason disbelieve it, but it seems to me to take a pre-disposition to see it in another light. The people at the CFR did not gasp, were not outraged. Such stuff is quite the ordinary, it is "The Way Things Are". In most of the world, this is how politics and business is done, and our government is sorta used to just overlooking stuff unless for some reason there is a need to take out someone, the reasons are almost always readily available. If we don't want to take out someone, it's all good.

Sean Hannity has played the sound track of the bit about Biden's demand, and the subsequent compliance a thousand times. Millions of Americans have heard it dozens of times. It's not really gonna go away. A lot of people are outraged.

Other evidence I have referred to has been discussed, but I do not have the links.

I don't know what Barr will do. There may be some rather reasoned hesitance to prosecute. I don't think Trump is really wanting everybody locked up. I'm not sure he is really all that different himself.

It does little good for some factions of our media to press a narrative regardless of the information available. It might be pretty much the truth about both sides.

 

[babe]

And now, for something rather different, here is the LPAC pdf on Soros in Ukraine. I am not a camp follower of LPAC, either. I know them quite well though. A rather tight little cult of dedicated socialists, with a particular penchant for differing with the British. LaRouche is from Quebec, of French Catholic bearings, a labor activist maybe something of a communist even, but pretty much dedicated to a vision of a better world through development, technology, space colonies, and infrastructure. His idea of the world is nuclear energy, hydrogen fusion, with vast irrigation projects, canals big enough to be useful for barges and such, but magLev railroads to every corner of the earth. His people are welcome to Putin and Xi, who both love expansive dreams of progress. And less British power in the world.

Well, I'm British, so I'm damned.

But here is their take on the Ukraine 2014 election George Soros and the West interfered in, helping to overthrow Putin's little puppet.

I am modestly optimistic the Ukraine can now sorta balance itself under Zelensky, with some help from the US, but not enough to really start a war..... I think there is enough of a difference between the Ukraine and Russia they just might find a way not to be one country.,

https://larouchepub.com/pr/2017/Xproof Nazis in Ukraine.pdf

 

[babe]

You know I don't intend any disrespect if I disagree, fish. He does tend to ramble, but he's self-aware. I think babe assimilates a lot of information and often distills it in an abstract way, relating sometimes only vaguely related points in an attempt to drive home his arguments. He's also creative with his language, which isn't for everyone. The combination can certainly come across as nonsensical, but I'm pretty sure he's got a method.

What do you say, @babe -- do I have you pegged, more or less?

If I quibble with nice little pics, or simplified interpretations, I would run off any chance for friends.....

Fish is Game's best bud forever, sorta.....He gets rave reviews for his criticisms of me. But he is a nice enough guy.

 

[olden_undercover]

I listen to quite a few different kinds of political sources, actually. I go to foreign news and see what is playing. I go around looking for different stuff.

Mark Levin was a YAF member in the sixties, like I was. He read some of the same books they had then. Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt. He was a Reagan supporter. I don't think I got on the Reagan bandwagon, but I was amazed he got the nomination. I think Levin differes from me in terms of his anti-Russia stance, and anti-Iran stance. I studied Russian, loved taking a few years of Russian lit classes. I have long-time friends from Persia/Iran, on various sorts of views. One friend has always been working against US war against Iran, a few are actually involved in trying to get up some damn revolution. I tell them not to count on the US jfor anything. Our politics is too damn convoluted, we always betray people who trust us.

Although I have relatives in the CFR, and have worked for some some members as well, I take a sorta dim view of it. Although I have relatives in corporate leadership both in our military-oriented industries, and in Chinese owned corporates, I take a fairly dim view of all these.

I am nobody's camp follower.

I have my issues with Levin and Hannity.

But to your question...... the compelling bit of evidence at hand which you asked to see is in the post above, where I put the Politifact/Punditfact quote and the video that has been out with Joe Biden at eh CFR discussing his dealings with Ukraine.

I know how sophisticates may not wish to take it at face value, but the video is a real, not improvised or made-up, genuine video. His voice is unmistakable. His location is unmistakable. The people next to him are identifiable.

Some may argue that by itself it proves nothing, or for some reason disbelieve it, but it seems to me to take a pre-disposition to see it in another light. The people at the CFR did not gasp, were not outraged. Such stuff is quite the ordinary, it is "The Way Things Are". In most of the world, this is how politics and business is done, and our government is sorta used to just overlooking stuff unless for some reason there is a need to take out someone, the reasons are almost always readily available. If we don't want to take out someone, it's all good.

Sean Hannity has played the sound track of the bit about Biden's demand, and the subsequent compliance a thousand times. Millions of Americans have heard it dozens of times. It's not really gonna go away. A lot of people are outraged.

Other evidence I have referred to has been discussed, but I do not have the links.

I don't know what Barr will do. There may be some rather reasoned hesitance to prosecute. I don't think Trump is really wanting everybody locked up. I'm not sure he is really all that different himself.

It does little good for some factions of our media to press a narrative regardless of the information available. It might be pretty much the truth about both sides.

Thanks for this. It seems not far from the truth (I think you believe this, and are saying so) that most of our elected leaders-- particularly in the higher ranks-- are and have been corrupt for some time. But I think, the more invested we are in one of the exactly two parties in our country, that we react more or less to obvious signs of it by assuming they started out that way and are sullying their office like it's some sort of holy mantle. The more reasonable explanation is more rational: That by merely stepping into whatever office they step into, they inherit the illicit dealings of their predecessor, and are immediately thrust into a corrupt undertaking, no matter how sparkling (Obama or Biden) or not (Trump) their public image leading up to it. My suspicion with this whole Trump affair is that while the Obamas, Bidens and Clintons of the world were not innocent, they just managed to do less to piss off... well, nearly everyone with power to frame their perfectly 'ordinary' corruption as extraordinarily corrupt. That is what Trump has done-- he's pissed people off, and has been such an antagonistic prick about it that he's driven the country into the deepest state of division I can remember in my lifetime. Whether or not his actions are uniquely egregious I doubt any ordinary citizen can say, with the information we are given, but if I have to choose between someone who started off decent, and someone who started off as an unethical/amoral piece of garbage, I'd rather pick the former and see them try and navigate the morass that is the US presidency.

Altruistically speaking, I wish we could hit the reset button on this whole thing and elect good people into respectable roles where they don't have to do corrupt things in order to succeed and further the interests of the country. Wouldn't that be nice?

 

[olden_undercover]

If I quibble with nice little pics, or simplified interpretations, I would run off any chance for friends.....

Fish is Game's best bud forever, sorta.....He gets rave reviews for his criticisms of me. But he is a nice enough guy.

Couldn't agree more. And I genuinely believe this to be true of pretty much everyone here. Opinions and relative anonymity bring out the worst in some of us, unfortunately, but I like the idea of starting off with-- and maintaining-- the assumption we're all earnestly looking for truth, or at least a sense of community. It's good common ground.

 

[babe]

So I read a lot of the link I posted from LPAC above.

Sometimes I sorta think civilization would not exist if there were no British Empire, and feel a bit insecure about what the world would be without the Am-Brit-EU power core. We have been fighting their wars for over a hundred years.... since our Press ran the fake news about the Maine, sent us off on the errand to dismantle the Spanish colonies, Cuba and the Philippines.

I noticed the comments in the pdf about the overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos. Now I know something about that. I met Benigno Aquino and his wife Corazon Aquino once. And yes, she was wearing a yellow dress that day, in 1971. I thought they were the nicest people. I was teaching a lesson on Mormonism to one of their relatives, and they even sat and listened politely., Elsewhere, later on, I also became a good friend of one of Marcos' trusted inner circle, and he even talked to me about stuff. Marcos was Nelson Rockefellers man, Aquino was associated with the Kennedys in the USA.

I also had occasion to spend some time in the communist-controlled province in central Luzon, where I heard a lot of stories about how the US installed a political faction in power after WWII, instead of them. They were really nice to me, too. They invited me over for supper in their homes., Me and my companion, and our Book of Mormon.

I wasn't there when Marcos was forced out by mass demonstrations, with huge crowds facing off with tanks in the street, and the soldiers deciding not to open fire. It was I think a little after Benigno Aquino was gunned down getting off the plane at MIA.... Manila International Airport. Marcos was famously corrupt, but he actively promoted the LDS mission. He wanted to diminish the Catholic power base which could threaten him. Aquino was that Catholic reality. There was another LDS-related religion over there, started in the 1918-1922 era by Felix Manalo, which was overtly nationalistic, and had over a million followers. No Book of Mormon, just churches that looked like temples on the outside, and the Salt Lake Tabernacle on the inside, and a rigidly forced tithe and attendance monitoring. Marcos was trying to trim their sails. So, anyway, to the filipinos, Marcos was obviously just messing up their country. I think there are a million Filipinos in Hong Kong, and I wonder if the protests there are not being done like the overthrow of Marcos..... but I would hardly imagine that George Soros is behind that.

But I could be wrong, too. I imagine the LaRouchies think he is. Who knows. I sorta lost my charm with the LPAC when I told them what a dictator Xi is becoming. He liked the Silk Road idea.

 

[babe]

I confess to a different vision of America. What I am differing from is the agenda of the past 50 years. I first ran into this on the 1973 start of the grand saving the environment movement. Not that I don't like saving the environment, but that I favor a development sort of way to do it. Increase the biosphere. (A LaRouche theme). Develop more agriculture, do good forestry, non-wilderness style. I'm not a hunter, just don't do that. Just learn to do stuff clean and neat and not bother the other crittters too much. Or make more favorable niches for them, too.l

I wouldn't blanche at a billion Americans. I would love to see every country in the world go "American" in terms of human rights, and governments of, by and for the people.

The paradigm of turning three quarters of the world back to wilderness, and reducing human population, and reducing lifestyles and education standards..... you know.... Obama telling the poor people in Africa just not to bother getting electrical stuff like air conditioners and refrigerators..... really stinks.

So, in my opinion, it's the ideas of the leaders more than just their self-serving habits.

 

[babe]

Thanks for this. It seems not far from the truth (I think you believe this, and are saying so) that most of our elected leaders-- particularly in the higher ranks-- are and have been corrupt for some time. But I think, the more invested we are in one of the exactly two parties in our country, that we react more or less to obvious signs of it by assuming they started out that way and are sullying their office like it's some sort of holy mantle. The more reasonable explanation is more rational: That by merely stepping into whatever office they step into, they inherit the illicit dealings of their predecessor, and are immediately thrust into a corrupt undertaking, no matter how sparkling (Obama or Biden) or not (Trump) their public image leading up to it. My suspicion with this whole Trump affair is that while the Obamas, Bidens and Clintons of the world were not innocent, they just managed to do less to piss off... well, nearly everyone with power to frame their perfectly 'ordinary' corruption as extraordinarily corrupt. That is what Trump has done-- he's pissed people off, and has been such an antagonistic prick about it that he's driven the country into the deepest state of division I can remember in my lifetime. Whether or not his actions are uniquely egregious I doubt any ordinary citizen can say, with the information we are given, but if I have to choose between someone who started off decent, and someone who started off as an unethical/amoral piece of garbage, I'd rather pick the former and see them try and navigate the morass that is the US presidency.

Altruistically speaking, I wish we could hit the reset button on this whole thing and elect good people into respectable roles where they don't have to do corrupt things in order to succeed and further the interests of the country. Wouldn't that be nice?

What you are describing is a sort of inertial social reality I don't know if we can really overcome exactly. The Way Things Are. It's like inheriting a British Estate with the house staff and gardeners. They know how things should be done, and usually just don't want to be told something else. I think it is a problem for corporations and small businesses, too..... even for families.

We are always gonna be limited by our information, as well. Large groups can hardly run on original thinking, everybody going their own way like I do.

People in here started off the blocks after Trump won in 2016 pretty quick. There was already an inertial program set up and ready to go, but no Chief who would comply. So it was Dump Trump from the gitgo.

The obvious thing here is just this. A lot of Americans have been trying to change our government directions and ways for years, and it'b been building up. If Management doesn't recognize this as a fact of life, and make peace with that fact somehow, they can hardly expect to get the vote.... I mean the actual support of Americans.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

For @Catchall

Louisiana senator John Kennedy, a key ally of President Trump, has meanwhile admitted he was wrong to push a debunked conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, who hacked a Democratic National Committee server in 2016.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-news-live-impeachment-blow-113900299.html

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

When Durham's report comes out, we'll know more. Who is it that "debunked" the U.S. State Dept.-Ukraine corruption in 2016? MSM reports over and over that Ukraine interference in the 2016 election is somehow debunked, and yet it's under investigation by the DOJ with evidence to the contrary. It's likely that both Russia and Ukraine had an interest in trying to affect the outcome of the 2016 election, and the questions are the degree to which Ukraine took action and what role the Obama State Dept., the CIA and other Democrats played.

As for the Joe/Hunter Biden Burisma story, which was one piece of the puzzle, that was reported in depth by The New Yorker in 2016 and criticized by Democrats, including Obama and Hillary at the time. Joe claims, "No major media has reported that story..." which clearly isn't true. Joe also claims that his pressuring Ukraine to fire the state prosecutor was consistent with U.S. policy. The prosecutor denies this was the case in a sworn statement. Obama hasn't said anything.

There's a difference between "making up dirt" on Joe Biden (as Adam Schiff alleges) and exposing dirt that's real.

In any case, it's spurious to try to impeach a President for seeking to investigate corruption between the U.S. State Dept. and Ukraine in 2016, regardless of the outcome of that investigation. If anything, it makes the Dems look guilty. The DOJ is already working in Ukraine, and according to Sondlen's testimony, the quid pro quo that Trump offered to Zellenskyy was an invitation to visit the White House if Zellenskyy agreed to help investigate the Burisma. (That's not a bribe or extortion, as Trump can invite Zellenskyy to the WH whenever he wants for whatever reason.)

It looks to me like the Democrats and Obama State Dept. are fighting with Trump and Ukraine is caught in the middle, trying to do what's best for them politically.

 

[fishonjazz]

Obama state department lol

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Red]

You have got to be just stupid to try to make out this line on Trump.

I don't think I'm stupid at all, and all one had to do was follow along closely the past three years to at least see Trump's deference to Putin. Your own opinion of Trump strikes me as inexplicably naive, like you've been living under a rock, such as the observation "he wants everyone to do well". Say what? An inexplicably incorrect assessment IMO.

But, in truth, I think the dueling narratives, and the fact that each side has extreme difficulty understanding the other, trying to understand what it can possibly be like in the other's shoes, is one of the most interesting, and perplexing, and daunting, phenomenon in our present crisis.

I am continually baffled by Trump fans who are absolutely blind to that which is so easy to see. I have no idea what you see in the guy, and listening to you and his other supporters here describe him, leaves me wondering if we live in the same country and if we're talking about the same guy.

 

[babe]

Obama state department lol

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

The replacement of Obama's (and Bushes and Clintons)selections to fill important slots in the State Department has been nothing. Of course, it was Hillary's Dept. for a while. I think most conservatives consider the Executive Branch agencies can't just be replaced by one memo or pink slip, so nobody, no Pres, today, and just have all his own people. Maybe during the next term..... or the one after that, there will be enough turnover we can sorta get a fresher sorta start.