The Impeachment of President Trump

[Tiassa]

Really? James R and Quantum Quack? Rightwing?

Oh, you should see when James goes explicitly rightist. It's amazing. And if you catch him on the right day, he'll even go Trumpfan.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Trumpfan

Trunk-fan ?

 

[Vociferous]

You said different.
The precedent was to use it to beat the filibuster - when the use of the filibuster changed, which was a precedent break, the use of reconciliation simply followed, which was according to precedent.

No, you just still have no clue what you're talking about. The intent of budget reconciliation was to bypass filibuster to pass budgetary bills. Reid broke precedent by suddenly using it to pass non-budgetary bills. It was, itself, created, in 1974, to overcome the change in the use of filibuster, the two-track system, introduced in 1970 by two Democrats. Educate yourself for once.

Nobody here is disavowing anything - except you, when confronted with timelines and similar physical facts.

Leftist ramblings you've yet to substantiate in the least. Yawn. Nothing there to disavow, even if I wanted to.

Seems accurate enough, which grounds the humor. Clinton actually enacted most of the aspects of Reagan's agenda that were enacted, for example.

Just because the extreme left has taken the Democrat party farther left, from where they were in 2008, than they ever were from Republicans, doesn't suddenly make Democrats Republicans...unless you're a wild-eyed leftist zealot.

So? The entire southern fraction of the Democratic Party was racist at the time. The racial bigot vote was the part of the "solid south" that Nixon raided - enabling Republican victories in national elections for decades to come, starting with Reagan's dog whistle campaign in 1980.

You have this habit of posting trivial irrelevancies as if they were replies to something. Any idea what that one was supposed to address?

The shift of the south to Republicans started long before the Civil Rights Acts, and way earlier than Reagan.
LBJ was a racist who only conceded out of political expediency. But talking about trivial irrelevancies:

The fact that the white racial bigots and the white fundamentalist Christians were largely the same people had for some reason been overlooked, downplayed.

When the whole country was ubiquitously more Christian, that's a meaningless correlation without context or comparison. Again, educate yourself.

Maybe James - not sure. It doesn't affect the meaning of his posts, which are issue focused, so I don't bother speculating.
Meanwhile: Most of them, not all of them. It's plain English, the word "most". It means more than half.

Just because you're an extreme leftist does not, objectively, make anyone to your right right-wing.

As you have no idea what my "usual" theories of any kind are - at least, you haven't been able to paraphrase them, or label them accurately - you might want to go easy on that line of irrelevant personal attack.

Since you never support any of your wild ravings, how could anyone be expected you understand your leftist fantasies?
Zionism brought up as a negative is anti-Semitic. If you don't like it, quit being anti-Semitic.

Your difficulties become especially critical when "conspiracy" turns up.
The problem may be that you don't know what a conspiracy is in the first place - you ever look the word up in a good dictionary? It's not a synonym for observation, for example - your most common misuse. Neither is "theory", btw (your second most common misuse, iirc).
Not that it matters directly - your attempts at personal denigration via misrepresentation will continue no matter what improvements in reading comprehension you manage - but if a quick visit to a good usage dictionary* is all you need to straighten out this Rep media feed "conspiracy theory" bs it would be a shame to miss the opportunity.

* ("prescriptive", which in practice here means nothing with the word "Webster" in its name).

And when you get pedantic, talking about dictionaries...but never, ever citing one, we all know you've backed yourself into a corner. Just a vain attempt to deflect from what everyone clearly sees as conspiracy theories that you cannot possibly support.

Actually you pose a good question... why are we?
The USA has a population of migrants ( please excuse the lack of reference to indigenous as I didn't want to drag them into a stupid discussion with bigoted right wing conservatives)

Remind me, how does Australia treat its indigenous people?

How Australia is failing its indigenous population
By Ben Westcott, CNN, Mon January 29, 2018​

Must be bigotry, right?

( Don't worry the ASD ( Aust. Signals Dir.) will most definitely have a recording of Trumps phone call to the Ukraine president and a hell of a lot more that is legally required to remain classified BUT ONLY if Australia agrees to it.)

Like iceaura, you have hopes in things unseen and completely unsubstantiated.

....Then along comes a person (Trump) who has absolutely no idea of any of that and literally sh*ts on anything that the world holds in respect and high regard for the USA.

I think you mean that "leftists hold in respect and high regard".

That seek the establishment of a form of monarchy, a one party state, that has control over the world greatest nuclear arsenal and military machinations. ( and economic/patent monopolies)
A person who rises to the role of Dictator/King and is supported by those who do not treasure the notion of secular, non-discriminatory, bi- partisan, constitutionally empowered democratic Government.

You're projecting your own leftist ideals. You just need to make up these stories to justify your own desire for such autocratic power.

Why are we so involved?
We have to be...

Why not just get your own shit together? You know, your own defenses, economic powerhouses, etc..

@Vociferous
Do you think Trump attempting to create a personal, private back channel to a foreign power that is unrecorded is a good thing?
Do you think Trump is somehow entitled to use his office as POTUS in a way that has no anti-corruption provisioning?
If so, why would you trust any one in such a manner?

Trumps contact with foreign leader is in no way unprecedented. Just leftist conspiracy theories.
There has been no objective evidence of corruption. Just leftist conspiracy theories.
Why do you believe so many unfounded conspiracies?

 

[Vociferous]

Oh, you should see when James goes explicitly rightist. It's amazing. And if you catch him on the right day, he'll even go Trumpfan.

Really? Does James agree with that assessment? Or is that just a hard-leftist's view on what amounts to "right-wing" nowadays?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Trumps contact with foreign leader is in no way unprecedented. Just leftist conspiracy theories.
There has been no objective evidence of corruption. Just leftist conspiracy theories.
Why do you believe so many unfounded conspiracies?

So you are happy to trust this guy to make un-monitored phone calls to foreign powers?

Why do you you think there was allegedly no recording of the phone call?
Why is that acceptable to you?
Are all right wingers that crazy?

Are you happy that Putin has declared his support for Trump?

Doesn't it trouble you that Putin is by way far more smarter and clever than Trump could ever hope to be.
Right wing, low IQ conservatives are easy targets for Putin.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Remind me, how does Australia treat its indigenous people?
How Australia is failing its indigenous population
By Ben Westcott, CNN, Mon January 29, 2018Must be bigotry, right?

Must be an insecure USA right wingers attempt at deflection....

 

[Vociferous]

So you are happy to trust this guy to make un-monitored phone calls to foreign powers?

Why do you you think there was allegedly no recording of the phone call?
Why is that acceptable to you?
Are all right wingers that crazy?

Are you happy that Putin has declared his support for Trump?

Doesn't it trouble you that Putin is by way far more smarter and clever than Trump could ever hope to be.
Right wing, low IQ conservatives are easy targets for Putin.

Not unmonitored, as the transcript was compiled by several officials commonly listening in on such phone calls. And as much as I trusted Obama, who promised the Russians "more flexibility" after the election, or any other president to do so, as has been common practice for decades. I don't have double-standards.
Putin outsmarted Obama, when Putin was named Time's person of the year for disarming Syria while Obama did nothing when his "red line" was crossed, but I don't remember any leftists crowing about that at the time. Trump has sanctioned Russia more than Obama did. I don't really care what Putin says, as it can only be motivated to undermine US stability, especially when dupes buy into it.

You're continually demonstrating the left's typical low-information supporter.

Must be an insecure USA right wingers attempt at deflection....

No, just showing that I can actually cite sources for my claim. Yours seem to be baseless.

 

[billvon]

I don't really care what Putin says, as it can only be motivated to undermine US stability, especially when dupes buy into it.

Agreed there. Dupes buying into what Putin is pushing led to us having Trump as a president - which has certainly undermined the stability of the USA.

 

[Vociferous]

Agreed there. Dupes buying into what Putin is pushing led to us having Trump as a president - which has certainly undermined the stability of the USA.

Nope, just another leftist myth/excuse that Russian meddling actually altered the results. For one, Hillary's polling didn't correlate with the Podesta email leak. Google searches to confirm bias are way more likely than searches to seek contrary info. Just human nature. But then, dupes are often ignorant of or willfully deny human nature.

 

[James R]

Vociferous:

Yep, and I'm not the least bit worried about it. Historical precedent is in my favor. Last time I predicted Hillary would not win because no Democrat had ever followed another into office (other than an ascending VP) since the inception of the Republican party. Republicans have done so. And the historical trend is for the incumbent to win, as long as the economy is good (and it's better than good), and he didn't already follow another Republican.

Then we're back at where I started a few pages up: we agree that Americans will probably re-elect Trump in 2020.

Like I said, you're not even aware that there's a problem.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

as long as the economy is good (and it's better than good), and he didn't already follow another Republican.

How is the economy good?

Does a president have that much of an effect on the economy? The Trump administration could be coasting on the coattails of the Obama administration's responsible actions and getting more in debt by taking loans off foreign countries, and hence, the U.S. could be in a recession recession regardless of who the next president is. Taking loans out so that it appears he is smart.

Just to flat out lie. Trump, hopes you wont realize, but you want to love him?

The annual U.S. deficit will come close to hitting $1 trillion in 2019, an unusually high number during a period of economic growth, the CBO added. Driving that number is spending as well as a large tax cut in corporate and individual income taxes passed by Republicans in 2017.Aug 21, 2019

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ACYBGNRpVYfaZqafQ3GGdOoVpCc4s9g--Q:1577376620474&ei=bNsEXvK-HI7u_Qb176awDQ&q=trump's administration cabinet deficit trillion&oq=trump's administration cabinet defeceit trillion&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.35i304i39.0.0..44144...2.0..1.811.1519.1j5-1j1......0......gws-wiz._uSVf4iXr38

 

[billvon]

Nope, just another leftist myth/excuse that Russian meddling actually altered the results.

Yep. A "myth" supported by every US intelligence organization. It's a big conspiracy!

 

[Quantum Quack]

How is the economy good?

Does a president have that much of an effect on the economy? The Trump administration could be coasting on the coattails of the Obama administration's responsible actions and getting more in debt by taking loans off foreign countries, and hence, the U.S. could be in a recession recession regardless of who the next president is. Taking loans out so that it appears he is smart.

Just to flat out lie. Trump, hopes you wont realize, but you want to love him?


https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ACYBGNRpVYfaZqafQ3GGdOoVpCc4s9g--Q:1577376620474&ei=bNsEXvK-HI7u_Qb176awDQ&q=trump's administration cabinet deficit trillion&oq=trump's administration cabinet defeceit trillion&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.35i304i39.0.0..44144...2.0..1.811.1519.1j5-1j1......0......gws-wiz._uSVf4iXr38

It is typical of a failed businessman to borrow money to prop up the "perception" of success.
Rolling credit is a tactic Trump is all too familiar with..

 

[RainbowSingularity]

as long as the economy is good (and it's better than good),

?

Rolling

on hoping the next election will come before the massive down turn in the economy fueled by outsourcing and trade wars

I guess.

... please hold while we attempt some school yard bully routines...

 

[iceaura]

The intent of budget reconciliation was to bypass filibuster to pass budgetary bills. Reid broke precedent by suddenly using it to pass non-budgetary bills.

So?

Just because the extreme left has taken the Democrat party farther left, from where they were in 2008, than they ever were from Republicans, doesn't suddenly make Democrats Republicans..

Syntax collapse.
The Democratic Party has been taken to the right, and now occupies the political ground once occupied by Eisenhower Republicans. The mainstream political positions of the Democratic Party are farther right, not farther left, than they used to be.

Zionism brought up as a negative is anti-Semitic.

No, it isn't.

The shift of the south to Republicans started long before the Civil Rights Acts, and way earlier than Reagan.

Yep. Nixon. But Nixon blew it - Reagan succeeded, and the legacy is his.

When the whole country was ubiquitously more Christian, that's a meaningless correlation without context or comparison.

Context and comparison is all around you - the meaning of the correlation has been front and center in every US election since 1980. Trump won the same vote Reagan won - the same people, for the same reasons.

Nope, just another leftist myth/excuse that Russian meddling actually altered the results.

Russian meddling at Trump's behest or with his help is criminal whether it worked or not. Meanwhile the odd facts keep coming in, drip by drip.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/russia-hacking-claims-durham-voting/2017/09/02/id/811345/

 

[iceaura]

Trumps contact with foreign leader is in no way unprecedented.

The phone security breaches alone are unique.

His attempt at extortion for help in his campaign is impeachable - and there are few precedents (Reagan, maybe, with Iran Contra).

 

[Vociferous]

Like I said, you're not even aware that there's a problem.

It might help if you ever made a compelling case of there actually being one, aside from unevidenced leftist insinuations.

How is the economy good?

Does a president have that much of an effect on the economy? The Trump administration could be coasting on the coattails of the Obama administration's responsible actions and getting more in debt by taking loans off foreign countries, and hence, the U.S. could be in a recession recession regardless of who the next president is. Taking loans out so that it appears he is smart.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-impeachment-of-president-trump.162501/page-8#post-3611557

The annual U.S. deficit will come close to hitting $1 trillion in 2019, an unusually high number during a period of economic growth, the CBO added. Driving that number is spending as well as a large tax cut in corporate and individual income taxes passed by Republicans in 2017.Aug 21, 2019

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ACYBGNRpVYfaZqafQ3GGdOoVpCc4s9g--Q:1577376620474&ei=bNsEXvK-HI7u_Qb176awDQ&q=trump's administration cabinet deficit trillion&oq=trump's administration cabinet defeceit trillion&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.35i304i39.0.0..44144...2.0..1.811.1519.1j5-1j1......0......gws-wiz._uSVf4iXr38

Cute. Now replace "Trump's" with "Obama's" in that exact same search:

-https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293

• FY 2010: Obama's first budget created a $1.294 trillion deficit.
• FY 2011: This budget deficit was $1.3 trillion. Defense spending hit $855 billion. Republicans stalled on raising the debt ceiling, creating a debt ceiling crisis.
• FY 2012: The deficit was $1.087 trillion.
  
• FY 2013: This was the first Obama budget where the deficit, $679 billion, was less than $1 trillion—you can thank sequestration. It forced a 10% cut in spending.

Yep. A "myth" supported by every US intelligence organization. It's a big conspiracy!

Attempts to meddle, sure. Evidence any votes were actually changed/swayed, zero. From every report out of those US intelligence organizations. Go ahead, look it up for yourself.

It is typical of a failed businessman to borrow money to prop up the "perception" of success.
Rolling credit is a tactic Trump is all too familiar with..

Economically illiterate people think loans can account for the longest period of economic growth in US history, record low unemployment, and the lowest minority unemployment in US history. The people who make their living forecasting the economy are not showing any signs of lacking confidence.

So?

So that directly refutes your earlier ignorance.

Syntax collapse.
The Democratic Party has been taken to the right, and now occupies the political ground once occupied by Eisenhower Republicans. The mainstream political positions of the Democratic Party are farther right, not farther left, than they used to be.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html​

You were saying?

No, it isn't.

Exactly what an anti-Semite would say.

Yep. Nixon. But Nixon blew it - Reagan succeeded, and the legacy is his.

Nope, the trend of the southern realignment long predates Nixon and the Civil Rights Acts, and if anything, slowed with time.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...standing_the_southern_realignment_107084.html​

Context and comparison is all around you - the meaning of the correlation has been front and center in every US election since 1980. Trump won the same vote Reagan won - the same people, for the same reasons.

Trump didn't even win all the votes that Romney got when he lost to Obama.

Russian meddling at Trump's behest or with his help is criminal whether it worked or not. Meanwhile the odd facts keep coming in, drip by drip.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/russia-hacking-claims-durham-voting/2017/09/02/id/811345/

No evidence of it being at Trumps' behest, hence first impeachment articles with no statutory crime in US history. "Keep coming"? From 2017?

The phone security breaches alone are unique.

His attempt at extortion for help in his campaign is impeachable - and there are few precedents (Reagan, maybe, with Iran Contra).

What phone security breaches?
How did Iran help Reagan?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

The phone security breaches alone are unique.

im done waiting im ordering uberEats !

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Cute. Now replace "Trump's" with "Obama's" in that exact same search:
-https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293

• FY 2010: Obama's first budget created a $1.294 trillion deficit.
• FY 2011: This budget deficit was $1.3 trillion. Defense spending hit $855 billion. Republicans stalled on raising the debt ceiling, creating a debt ceiling crisis.
• FY 2012: The deficit was $1.087 trillion.
  
• FY 2013: This was the first Obama budget where the deficit, 679billion,waslessthan

679 billion, was less than 1 trillion—you can thank sequestration. It forced a 10% cut in spending.

For all I know your post is as good as spam.

 

[Vociferous]

Cute. Now replace "Trump's" with "Obama's" in that exact same search:

-https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293

• FY 2010: Obama's first budget created a $1.294 trillion deficit.
• FY 2011: This budget deficit was $1.3 trillion. Defense spending hit $855 billion. Republicans stalled on raising the debt ceiling, creating a debt ceiling crisis.
• FY 2012: The deficit was $1.087 trillion.
  
• FY 2013: This was the first Obama budget where the deficit, $679 billion, was less than $1 trillion—you can thank sequestration. It forced a 10% cut in spending.

For all I know your post is as good as spam.

Whatever you need to tell yourself. But don't do that search for yourself, if you need that sort of self-deception.