Danoff
Premium
- 32,984
- Mile High City
Pretty sure either one of them actually. I was thinking of Trump, but I think Nixon did too.
Edit:
And the answer to "what" is "an impeachable offense" in both cases.
The Trump Impeachment Thread
- Thread starter Dotini
- 2,103 comments
- 75,819 views
Pretty sure either one of them actually. I was thinking of Trump, but I think Nixon did too.
Edit:
And the answer to "what" is "an impeachable offense" in both cases.
- 6,047
- Simcoeace
Well, strictly speaking the French started it. After they were humiliated by the Vietcong, the Americans thought it would be a good idea to carry on where the French left off. I would really suggest anyone who hasn't seen it watch the Ken Burns documentary on the Vietnam War (currently on Netflix). It's a sobering illustration of how things can start off with good intentions & end up in a complete catastrophe for everyone involved.
- 410
- Wisconsin
- hogger129
I cannot ever remember Trump admitting to the commission of an impeachable offense. Don't you think if he did, the biased news media in this country would pick it up and run with it? Just like the Russia collusion story, it's a giant nothingburger.
After WWII ended, the French got that territory back. Vietnam wanted independence from both Japan and France. Ho Chi Minh helped fight for it. He is basically viewed as a patriot, like a George Washington there. When the United States came, they opposed him because he was communist. The US pushed the French out because they weren't getting the job done. And rather than allow a united, communist Vietnam; the United States created North and South where north was communist, south was republic.
Last edited by a moderator:
Danoff
Premium
- 32,984
- Mile High City
Uh... what's a nothingburger?
First 90 seconds he admits asking Ukraine to investigate a political rival and his son, and strongly implies that he used bribery to accomplish that. He backtracked after that, but there's like... an actual record of aid being withheld.
So by "nothingburger" you mean an open-and-shut doesn't-get-any-cleaner-than-this case that the president bribed (which is a specifically called out offense for impeachment) a foreign country to dig up dirt on a political rival and his family.
Edit:
And just btw, the Russia investigation revealed a TON of wrongdoing by the president and his staff, including a laundry list of obstruction of justice. Something that the president just repeated last week.
Edit 2:
....aaaaand repeated today too apparently.
Edit 3:
But just in case you're still not convinced, the President isn't the only one admitting it. I understand how Trump admitting that he did something might not be credible. Because he says he did and will do a lot of things that he didn't and doesn't. But there are other credible people that are corroborating Trump's initial admission of guilt. And of course there's also the Whistleblower's statements, and other testimony, and all of it seems to line up nicely.
Last edited:
- 6,047
- Simcoeace
Here we go again:
Ron Johnson casts doubt on Vindman testimony, says NSC official fits 'profile' of Never-Trumper
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ron-johnson-alexander-vindman-letter-republicans
Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis) wrote in his letter that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council official who is scheduled to testify before the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, is one of “a significant number of bureaucrats and staff members within the executive branch have never accepted President Trump as legitimate and resent his unorthodox style and his intrusion onto their turf.”
They react by leaking to the press and participating in the ongoing effort to sabotage his policies and, if possible, remove him from office,” Johnson said. “It is entirely possible that Vindman fits this profile.”
(My bolded text)
So Fox followers read the headline & conclude "here's another "deep state individual" (who served in Vietnam, or the Gulf War or the Iraq War or served for 35 years in the diplomatic service), all who apparently imbedded themselves decades in advance with the single-minded purpose of emerging suddenly during a Trump presidency & attacking the dear leader.
The evidence? "It's entirely possible ..."
Ron Johnson casts doubt on Vindman testimony, says NSC official fits 'profile' of Never-Trumper
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ron-johnson-alexander-vindman-letter-republicans
Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis) wrote in his letter that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council official who is scheduled to testify before the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, is one of “a significant number of bureaucrats and staff members within the executive branch have never accepted President Trump as legitimate and resent his unorthodox style and his intrusion onto their turf.”
They react by leaking to the press and participating in the ongoing effort to sabotage his policies and, if possible, remove him from office,” Johnson said. “It is entirely possible that Vindman fits this profile.”
(My bolded text)
So Fox followers read the headline & conclude "here's another "deep state individual" (who served in Vietnam, or the Gulf War or the Iraq War or served for 35 years in the diplomatic service), all who apparently imbedded themselves decades in advance with the single-minded purpose of emerging suddenly during a Trump presidency & attacking the dear leader.
The evidence? "It's entirely possible ..."
- 10,904
- Sweden
- eran0004
Here we go again:
Ron Johnson casts doubt on Vindman testimony, says NSC official fits 'profile' of Never-Trumper
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ron-johnson-alexander-vindman-letter-republicans
Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis) wrote in his letter that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council official who is scheduled to testify before the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, is one of “a significant number of bureaucrats and staff members within the executive branch have never accepted President Trump as legitimate and resent his unorthodox style and his intrusion onto their turf.”
They react by leaking to the press and participating in the ongoing effort to sabotage his policies and, if possible, remove him from office,” Johnson said. “It is entirely possible that Vindman fits this profile.”
(My bolded text)
So Fox followers read the headline & conclude "here's another "deep state individual" (who served in Vietnam, or the Gulf War or the Iraq War or served for 35 years in the diplomatic service), all who apparently imbedded themselves decades in advance with the single-minded purpose of emerging suddenly during a Trump presidency & attacking the dear leader.
The evidence? "It's entirely possible ..."
The idea of having “never-supporters” among your staff actually sounds like a really good safeguard against corruption. After all, a person with great powers doesn’t need great loyalty, they need great scrutiny.
- 28,767
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
It'd be hilarious if it weren't tremendously disconcerting that these ****sticks are acting as though the assertion that someone is a "never-Trumper" is actually substantive, but all they're saying is that even entirely accurate information should be ignored because the individual providing it doesn't like the guy, and because it isn't itself substantive, they're not required to substantiate it.
This is a ****ing Congressman. It's the duty of Congress to oversee the Executive and Judiciary, investigating and even removing individuals when the need arises. This isn't a partisan matter, but the GOP has made it partisan with their relentless attacks on the proceedings.
This is a ****ing Congressman. It's the duty of Congress to oversee the Executive and Judiciary, investigating and even removing individuals when the need arises. This isn't a partisan matter, but the GOP has made it partisan with their relentless attacks on the proceedings.
Danoff
Premium
- 32,984
- Mile High City
I was thinking about the whole thing a bit last night after hearing from @stonesfan129 above, and considering Trump's "never Trumper" counter-argument. The "never Trumper" brand is the latest version of ostracizing Republicans who turn against Trump. It's your penalty for disloyalty to Trump. And of course it's perfect that it's Trump-focused, because it's specifically about him. It's not loyalty to the party they're criticizing, or voters, or *gasp* the American people, it's specifically loyalty to Trump himself.
What got me thinking about this was the way in which anyone who is right leaning is cast off immediately when they turn against Trump. It got me wondering who exactly people like @stonesfan129 are listening to. Who are they getting their information from? Because if you're a democrat, obviously he's not listening to you. If you're the news media, you're just spreading fake noos. If you're a republican but you're not saying the right things, you're a never-trumper turncoat liar. So who exactly is actually believable?
Trump.
That's it! They're just listening to Trump and anyone who says exactly what Trump says. If you're not saying what Trump says, you're disregarded. The words that come out of that man's mouth... that man... the guy who can't say the same thing twice from one day to the next and makes stuff up on the fly constantly... that man... and only that man, is in charge of the truth for these people.
"Who would you believe if they said that Trump should be impeached?"
"Trump"
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
And that, in all seriousness, is how dictatorships begin and are maintained. When people point out the similarities between the Steps to Dictatorship and what's happening in several "free" countries today it's weird and a bit scary. The support comes from people who genuinely want the best for themselves, their families and their country but want it in a way that people who listen to history see as isolationist and xenophobic. The world has been at this point many times and it rarely goes well.
GTsail
Premium
- 2,471
- Florida
- GTsail2/GTsail3
According to the records that I've seen, about 30.5% of the US soldiers killed during the Vietnam war were draftees (17,725 of 58,169).
The draft was certainly a factor that turned many in the United States against Nixon, however this mostly occurred after he was elected for a second term in 1972.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
There had also been a swell of resentment against LBJ and America's role in Vietnam (Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?) even before Nixon's draft lottery. Nixon promised during his campaign that he would begin to withdraw troops from Vietnam, something which didn't happen. It's arguable that this breaking of Nixon's promise and America's continued involvement in the losing war was a critical factor in his unpopularity amongst particular demographics regardless of the draft.
- 6,047
- Simcoeace
I dunno. Perhaps @stonesfan129 could attempt to explain?
On the one hand, we have a whole array of people who have devoted their lives to public service in one form or another. On the other hand, we have an individual known for a lifetime devoted to the single minded pursuit of wealth & personal gratification, with no record at all of public service & who actually announced prior to the 2016 election;
"If I don't go all the way, and if I don't win, I will consider it to be a total and complete waste of time, energy and money,"
- 28,767
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Danoff
Premium
- 32,984
- Mile High City
Trump's attacks on witnesses have ranking members of the military seeking military protection for their families.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/politics/vindman-trump-attack-army-safety/index.html
You can really see what lengths people are having to go to in order to come forward. This is not a question of people with a political agenda just trying jockey for position or get the spotlight. These are people who are genuinely concerned about retaliation from the President trying to do what they feel is right.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/politics/vindman-trump-attack-army-safety/index.html
You can really see what lengths people are having to go to in order to come forward. This is not a question of people with a political agenda just trying jockey for position or get the spotlight. These are people who are genuinely concerned about retaliation from the President trying to do what they feel is right.
- 410
- Wisconsin
- hogger129
Danoff
Premium
- 32,984
- Mile High City
Ok, so he has admitted to committing an impeachable offense, and there seem to be countless testimonies to that effect. So what holds you back from understanding this? I assume it's just that you believe what Trump says. Let's get to the bottom of this, what's stopping you?
- 11,307
- Marin County
What has he done or supported as President that you disagree with?
- 410
- Wisconsin
- hogger129
Bump stock ban for one. The wall that he said Mexico will pay for. Tariffs that are hurting midwestern farms (who he is then turning around and handing subsidies to).
Even if he did use quid-quo-pro to persuade Ukraine to investigate Biden, I don't really see that as a big deal. It's his job as chief law enforcement officer to investigate such things.
It's really too bad that Democrats don't face the same scrutiny that Trump has had to.
Danoff
Premium
- 32,984
- Mile High City
He admitted it.
It's been enumerated as an impeachable offense since the constitution was written (as far as I'm aware). It's not crazy to think that constitution might have had a mistake, but I'd expect some more humility on the subject, unless you've studied this issue at length. It is a big deal. I can spend some time explaining it if I think I'm talking to someone who is listening.
It's like you've never heard of Bill Clinton.
- 11,307
- Marin County
Bribing/Extorting a vulnerable US ally outside of formal diplomatic channels to investigate a US citizen (without the use of American intelligence services even) is not a big deal? Aside laughably tenuous plausible deniability in the form of "fighting corruption" (do you think such a corruption investigation in any other countries would be handled by the president's personal attorney? - as opposed to, you know, the ambassador to that country, the CIA and other federal agencies...) what purpose would such an investigation serve for the United States?
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Simple question: do you accept that doing so is an impeachable crime according to the Constitution?
- 6,047
- Simcoeace
Yeah - it's not like Bill Clinton ever faced an impeachment inquiry. And Hillary? How come she never faced scrutiny over that Benghazi thing?
- 10,904
- Sweden
- eran0004
Wear it like a badge of honour.
It’s not his job to buy investigations into political opponents by foreign powers.
Firstly because it will always be perceived as a politically motivated investigation.
Secondly because the act of buying an investigation means that the impartiality of the investigation can be questioned.
Thirdly because it’s inviting the foreign power to have a say in the political process in the US, which means that the next election result could be influenced by what would best suit Ukraine rather than what would best suit the US.
He has done a pretty good job of red flagging himself though.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 410
- Wisconsin
- hogger129
No it's not a big deal. Biden should be investigated for corruption. I would argue there was no quid-quo-pro because Ukraine got their military aid even though they never opened an investigation after Trump's call.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
It doesn't depend on whether the action was undertaken by Ukraine, it depends on whether the deal was solicited by POTUS. Which it was. That's what is literally illegal under the Constitution.
How come it's okay for Biden to be investigated but not Trump? That's a strange double standard.
