Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

How closely are you following Trump's trial, and aftermath?

How closely are you following Trump's trial, and aftermath?

  • Not at all

    Votes: 17 25.8%
  • Very little

    Votes: 17 25.8%
  • Little

    Votes: 4 6.1%
  • Averagely

    Votes: 11 16.7%
  • Much

    Votes: 3 4.5%
  • Very much

    Votes: 10 15.2%
  • As much as possible

    Votes: 4 6.1%

  • Total voters
    66
  • This poll will close: .

Tekate

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,394
Maybe Sean Hannity should read OboeGal's kind, brilliant and thoughtful post. As she says, let's go back to compromise and it starts with us.


Maybe Don Lemon should read this. Yes please stop. Everyone. I won't hold my breath though.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
6,762
Maybe Sean Hannity should read OboeGal's kind, brilliant and thoughtful post. As she says, let's go back to compromise and it starts with us.
I'd agree with that. See how easy that is? FWIW I don't watch Hannity.
 

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
6,628
I saw this on FB today. it's a fair response to trump's lawyers lamenting that the impeachment is an attempt to overturn the election.

Screen Shot 2020-01-29 at 9.00.46 AM.png
 

Tekate

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,394
From me: FWIW I never watch Don Lemon! and it is easy.


I'd agree with that. See how easy that is? FWIW I don't watch Hannity.
 

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
6,628
Just reminding you that it's irrational and incorrect to make broad-brush statements like "the left". All people of liberal tendencies are not the same, don't think the same way, don't behave the same way. I'm firmly liberal. I'm not nasty. Not to regular people. Not to anyone. Are there people who lean left who are nasty to others? You betcha. Are there people who lean right who are nasty to others? You betcha. Some independents, too. How does it feel to you if people come here and say the right are stupid racists? How accurate is that? I'm guessing it's not accurate for you, and most right-leaning people you know. In fact, it's clear in some of the exchanges here that posters here besides me are feeling hurt and offended because posters on both sides are making these broad-brush characterizations about "the left" and "the right" that aren't really accurate or true, and it does damage.
The point OboeGal is making is important. Calling someone left right or whatever has become weaponized. I have long been a proponent of seeing what would happen to discourse if we dropped our self-labeling and the stereotypes and other negative baggage that often accompany it. What causes me to disengage from posters opinions is when someone says (for example): I'm a christian conservative anti fa vegan and I believe the earth is flat." However, when someone states "It's my opinion that" and offers tangible facts free of dogma that support that opinion, then that person has my attention and respectful consideration of the stated opinion. I would like to see what would happen to discussions here if we stop labeling ourselves and stop forcing labels on others.
 

smitcompton

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 11, 2006
Messages
2,585
Hi,

I wanted to make a comment on Red's post and Molly Malones response to her. I wanted to add the recent examples of acceptable use of Executive power vs unacceptable.

During the immigration problems at the border, Pres. Trump threatened to withdraw aid from either Guatamala or Hondorus if they did not stop their citizens from coming up to the US/ Mexican border. DT also threatened Mexico with changes to the new trade agreement if they did not stop these caravans from advancing to the US border. This falls within the authority of the Pres.
In the Ukraine, the Pres. wanted to publicly discredit Joe and Hunter Biden to use in the 2020 election. They also wanted evidence that Ukraine was the culprit in interfering in our election. In order to get the dirt they spoke to those officials who were ousted from the previous administration. They needed the announcement from the new administration of this investigation. This would hurt Joe Biden.(I know you know this). He stopped the aid pkg and visit until he received the announcement.. When he was found out , he then sent the aid.

The difference between the two above is clear. Trump gets no personal benefit from those. He only gets personal benefit from the Ukraine deal.

Your comment on John Bolton becoming the darling of the liberals is of course not true. He has the most direct info on what Trump said and did. The left is probably relieved he is no longer there, but his beliefs on foreign policy have no bearing on what he could report as a witness. Its much like your complaint that because you sometimes support Trump that you are a bad person. If the liberals want him, he's no good.
Annette


can't wrap my head around how it's fine to admit you withheld government aide to another country until they fired employees you thought corrupt, but it's not fine to withhold aide to the same country because of alleged corruption. The only difference is who did it and how much contempt you hold for that person. Oh and "intent" I guess. Frankly we should reexamine all aide we provide to other countries and have terms on its distribution that shall be confirmed.
[/QUOTE]

One was done openly with Congressional blessing as part of an international effort. The other was done "under the table" and in violation of the Impoundment Control Act. If Trump thought the initiative would burnish his reputation & increase his stature on the world stage, he would have tweeted about it, repeatedly and with CAPS and !!!
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
6,762
Hi,

I wanted to make a comment on Red's post and Molly Malones response to her. I wanted to add the recent examples of acceptable use of Executive power vs unacceptable.

During the immigration problems at the border, Pres. Trump threatened to withdraw aid from either Guatamala or Hondorus if they did not stop their citizens from coming up to the US/ Mexican border. DT also threatened Mexico with changes to the new trade agreement if they did not stop these caravans from advancing to the US border. This falls within the authority of the Pres.
In the Ukraine, the Pres. wanted to publicly discredit Joe and Hunter Biden to use in the 2020 election. They also wanted evidence that Ukraine was the culprit in interfering in our election. In order to get the dirt they spoke to those officials who were ousted from the previous administration. They needed the announcement from the new administration of this investigation. This would hurt Joe Biden.(I know you know this). He stopped the aid pkg and visit until he received the announcement.. When he was found out , he then sent the aid.

The difference between the two above is clear. Trump gets no personal benefit from those. He only gets personal benefit from the Ukraine deal.

Your comment on John Bolton becoming the darling of the liberals is of course not true. He has the most direct info on what Trump said and did. The left is probably relieved he is no longer there, but his beliefs on foreign policy have no bearing on what he could report as a witness. Its much like your complaint that because you sometimes support Trump that you are a bad person. If the liberals want him, he's no good.
Annette


can't wrap my head around how it's fine to admit you withheld government aide to another country until they fired employees you thought corrupt, but it's not fine to withhold aide to the same country because of alleged corruption. The only difference is who did it and how much contempt you hold for that person. Oh and "intent" I guess. Frankly we should reexamine all aide we provide to other countries and have terms on its distribution that shall be confirmed.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for coming back. The short answer IMO is that from what I have seen so far, none of it is worth the disruption and discord an impeachment will do to the country when there is an election in November. Vote him out. This opinion is obviously not shared here. Politicians saying they must impeach him because he might get reelected says quite a bit about what this is really about. Plenty of people are frustrated on both sides.
 

bludiva

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 23, 2017
Messages
2,162
Thanks for coming back. The short answer IMO is that from what I have seen so far, none of it is worth the disruption and discord an impeachment will do to the country when there is an election in November. Vote him out. This opinion is obviously not shared here. Politicians saying they must impeach him because he might get reelected says quite a bit about what this is really about. Plenty of people are frustrated on both sides.
[/QUOTE]

I don't think it actually matters that much if DT removed or not, Pence is right behind him to pick up the same agenda and his term is entering lame duck territory in any case. The point is drawing a line on how much corruption we will tolerate as a society. Imho Trump should never have been allowed to take office without divesting of his businesses. We should have drawn the line a long time ago.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
6,762
Thanks for coming back. The short answer IMO is that from what I have seen so far, none of it is worth the disruption and discord an impeachment will do to the country when there is an election in November. Vote him out. This opinion is obviously not shared here. Politicians saying they must impeach him because he might get reelected says quite a bit about what this is really about. Plenty of people are frustrated on both sides.
I don't think it actually matters that much if DT removed or not, Pence is right behind him to pick up the same agenda and his term is entering lame duck territory in any case. The point is drawing a line on how much corruption we will tolerate as a society. Imho Trump should never have been allowed to take office without divesting of his businesses. We should have drawn the line a long time ago.
[/QUOTE]

Who would make the decision to "not allow" him to take office?

Plenty of people were tired of the politics as usual. I am sick to death of politicians being at the trough for 30 years enriching themselves at our expense. That means all of them regardless of party.
 

bludiva

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 23, 2017
Messages
2,162
I am sick to death of politicians being at the trough for 30 years enriching themselves at our expense.
DT proved no different on this account. The Judicial branch should have enforced the emoluments clause (and should be rooting out corruption more broadly) imho.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
6,762
DT proved no different on this account. The Judicial branch should have enforced the emoluments clause (and should be rooting out corruption more broadly) imho.
It's the job of the voters to decide they've had enough not the judicial branch to upend an election. If your senators and reps have become rich while in office and you keep reelecting them then you must be fine with it. I am speaking to the general you. Most of it is legal but also disgusting.
 

bludiva

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 23, 2017
Messages
2,162
not to upend an election but to enforce the law. as in, he could take office once he complied with the law, but he got a free pass. it is on us, the voters, now.

ETA if a politician commits a crime, we shouldn't have to wait until the next election to be able to do something about it. too many politicians and leaders of industry get away with breaking the rules, not just bending them in a legal but disgusting way.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
6,762
not to upend an election but to enforce the law. as in, he could take office once he complied with the law, but he got a free pass. it is on us, the voters, now.
Obama's DOJ would have had to start that process so can you imagine the uproar that would ensue from that? Do you seriously think that would have been a good idea?

The DOJ didn't and it was discussed at the time ad nauseam.
 
Last edited:

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
6,762
not to upend an election but to enforce the law. as in, he could take office once he complied with the law, but he got a free pass. it is on us, the voters, now.

ETA if a politician commits a crime, we shouldn't have to wait until the next election to be able to do something about it. too many politicians and leaders of industry get away with breaking the rules, not just bending them in a legal but disgusting way.
We don't wait if a provable crime has been committed and DOJ or other prosecutors bring charges.
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
31,065
I don't think it actually matters that much if DT removed or not, Pence is right behind him to pick up the same agenda and his term is entering lame duck territory in any case.
Then house will impeach Pence and Pelosi will become Prez,problem solved!
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
31,065
Meanwhile more bad news for the Dems. Remember, any good news for our country is bad news for the Dems.

 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
20,750
Meanwhile more bad news for the Dems. Remember, any good news for our country is bad news for the Dems.
Dancing Fire, You know that the above statement is both fatuous and provocative. Why do you enjoy attempting to make mischief here? I know that you are actually a thinking person.

Deb
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
31,065
Dancing Fire, You know that the above statement is both fatuous and provocative. Why do you enjoy attempting to make mischief here? I know that you are actually a thinking person.

Deb
Nahhh, since I'm a Trump supporter I have a very low IQ according to the liberals here.
 

partgypsy

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
6,331
I want to say AMEN to oboegal's post. I am not going to hold my breath but if people could see each other as humans than as (derogatory) labels and interact on that the world would be a better place.

I also agree with Bluediva, it was a serious misstep that Trump was allowed to take office before he divested, had a real plan to divest or place in a blind trust his assets. It has served us very well to have this rule for the President. Part of the problem is that all other presidents complied with this request. There was no precedent what to do, if the incoming president refused. There were consequences the head of the office of government ethics resigned as well as a year later the white house lawyer assigned to Trump (though he said it was NOT due to the conflicts of interest). Due to lack of precendent there is no ruling what to do in this singular case. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/us/politics/walter-shaub-office-of-government-ethics-resign.htmlPeople


Why impeach? I think Bluediva hit the nail on the head, stating we need a hard clear line of what is, and not acceptable for a President to do. Trump crossed that line. I believe he will continue to cross that line if he is not removed. He has made jokes of other presidents starting wars to increase polls. I believe he would start a war even if it was not in the best interests of our country as long as it t personally benefitted him. He doesn't have enough of a moral compass to direct him to do the right thing; only what is best for him or his immediate family. That is scary to me.
Its in our best interests, maybe not short term but long term, to not allow a person like this to continue on in role of President.

Blue Diva "don't think it actually matters that much if DT removed or not, Pence is right behind him to pick up the same agenda and his term is entering lame duck territory in any case. The point is drawing a line on how much corruption we will tolerate as a society. Imho Trump should never have been allowed to take office without divesting of his businesses. We should have drawn the line a long time ago."
 
Last edited:

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
20,750
Roberts just did something right: he wouldn’t let the whistleblower be named.
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul publicly identified the alleged Ukraine scandal whistleblower Thursday after Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read a question he submitted at President Trump’s impeachment trial that included the person’s purported name.

After Roberts said he wouldn’t read the question “as submitted,” Rand left the Senate chamber to hold an impromptu press conference at which he fingered the person whom right-wing media have named as the CIA officer who filed a complaint about Trump’s infamous July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
31,065
When you get to my age I hear nothing I see nothing.
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
31,065
Hi,

I heard that on Twitter people were calling for Rand Paul's arrest. Isn't it illegal to out a whistleblower.?

Annette
from now on any whistleblower can impeach the Prez. just keep that in mind when the republicans retake the house.
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
5,962
@smitcompton Do you not comprehend just how ignorant your post above - directed at DF - reads (I won’t even quote it)? It’s incredibly offensive that you would direct such an insulting, condescending & judgmental assertion about someone on this forum like that.

DF may not be bothered by it, but I am disgusted ...
 

Tekate

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,394
@smitcompton Your post to me was perfect, funny, truthful and on target, thank you for a laugh and your honesty
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.

New posts

Top