The Trump Presidency

[iceaura]

Legislators do have the Constitutional recourse of impeachment, which is effectively a vote of no confidence, which is not a legal standard.

The Constitutional provision of impeachment is a legal one, with legal standards both specific (bribery, treason) and general (high crimes and misdemeanors). Trump will be impeached, legally, if the House votes accordingly.

It's not a vote of no confidence - it's an assessment of bad behavior by the office holder, violation of their oath of office, etc, much of which (in this case) is criminal behavior, but that's tangential.

As such, it is wholly political, no matter how much Democrats may claim their case is about actual crimes.

It is wholly political, and it is about actual crimes. Both.
The House members are bound, by oath of office, to perform political duties such as impeachment of the manifestly unfit. It's their job.

If there is illegal violence as a result, we can only assume that will come from leftist sources.

And the rest of the world, including the majority of Americans, knows exactly who that "we" is, that will be making that assumption regardless of reality.
That is a threat, and the fact that the Republican Party and its parrots are dealing in threats rather than arguments is one more indication that this President has been abusing his office. A political Party that deals in overt physical threat to get its way is extremely dangerous.

The House is currently operating on purely political grounds, but brainwashed leftists can't fathom that.

Most of the grounds for impeachment were supplied by Republican Party members - such as Robert Mueller and James Comey, various heads and agents of a dozen different Federal intelligence agencies, various informed and involved members of this Republican administration (Sondlund et al), the various already convicted criminal members of Trump's administration, and Trump himself in public statements. Is that what you are talking about?

 

[Vociferous]

If there is illegal violence as a result, we can only assume that will come from leftist sources.

when the rule of law no longer has integrity, how can you consider any action to be illegal?
The slippery slope you guys are on is staggering in it's implications...

Vociferous
Would you support Trump if he attempted to have the 22nd amendment modified or removed from the constitution?

Presuming "the rule of law no longer has integrity" is exactly the sort of self-justification that violent people would use, just like illegal riots motivated by the perceived illegal actions of some police. Yes, that is one hell of a slippery slope. The other is the rampant abuse of the FISA courts to violate civil rights without showing verifiable cause. That's worlds scarier than the weak tea of the articles of impeachment. The Supreme Court just defeated obstruction of Congress by accepting to hear challenges to congressional subpoenas, thereby agreeing that the executive has a right to seek judgement from the judiciary when in a conflict with the legislature (checks and balances between separate but equal branches). There is no obstruction if the legal challenges are valid.

I can support Trump while not agreeing with everything he may do or say. And knowing that changing an amendment requires a lot more than just the president, I wouldn't be the least bit worried if he wanted to. Wouldn't mean a thing without the congressional or states support to do so. You worrying about such things would seem to indicate some ignorance of the requirements.

The Constitutional provision of impeachment is a legal one, with legal standards both specific (bribery, treason) and general (high crimes and misdemeanors). Trump will be impeached, legally, if the House votes accordingly.

Who are you arguing? No one said otherwise. And the Democrats chose to go with the general standard, because they couldn't meet any specific legal standard (omitting bribery from the articles of impeachment). Yes, once the House votes to do so, Trump will technically be impeached, just as Bill Clinton was. Ho-hum. At least Clinton was actually impeached over specific crimes. And like Clinton, Trump won't be impeached in the Senate nor expelled from office.

It's not a vote of no confidence - it's an assessment of bad behavior by the office holder, violation of their oath of office, etc, much of which (in this case) is criminal behavior, but that's tangential.

It is wholly political, and it is about actual crimes. Both.
The House members are bound, by oath of office, to perform political duties such as impeachment of the manifestly unfit. It's their job.

A vote of no confidence is precisely about being deemed unfit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence
You should educate yourself so you don't so readily contradict yourself.

And the rest of the world, including the majority of Americans, knows exactly who that "we" is, that will be making that assumption regardless of reality.
That is a threat, and the fact that the Republican Party and its parrots are dealing in threats rather than arguments is one more indication that this President has been abusing his office. A political Party that deals in overt physical threat to get its way is extremely dangerous.

No, like QQ, presuming it would be "regardless of reality" is exactly the sort of excuses that would allow such violence to go unchecked. Saying the left will be the ones to get violent is no threat from anyone but the left. There is no presumption of retaliation, except, it seems, on your part, which makes it paranoia, at worst. The Republican party is the party of law and order, where the recourse would be legitimate law enforcement.

Most of the grounds for impeachment were supplied by Republican Party members - such as Robert Mueller and James Comey, various heads and agents of a dozen different Federal intelligence agencies, various informed and involved members of this Republican administration (Sondlund et al), the various already convicted criminal members of Trump's administration, and Trump himself in public statements. Is that what you are talking about?

The IG report on FISA court abuses show that Mueller was, at best, oblivious and Comey complicit. The only fact-witness for impeachment (Sondlund, all others being solely hearsay or opinion) literally said the only thing he heard directly from the president was "no quid pro quo". So yes, believing there is actual evidence is contrary to reality.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Presuming "the rule of law no longer has integrity" is exactly the sort of self-justification that violent people would use, just like illegal riots motivated by the perceived illegal actions of some police. Yes, that is one hell of a slippery slope. The other is the rampant abuse of the FISA courts to violate civil rights without showing verifiable cause. That's worlds scarier than the weak tea of the articles of impeachment. The Supreme Court just defeated obstruction of Congress by accepting to hear challenges to congressional subpoenas, thereby agreeing that the executive has a right to seek judgement from the judiciary when in a conflict with the legislature (checks and balances between separate but equal branches). There is no obstruction if the legal challenges are valid.

I can support Trump while not agreeing with everything he may do or say. And knowing that changing an amendment requires a lot more than just the president, I wouldn't be the least bit worried if he wanted to. Wouldn't mean a thing without the congressional or states support to do so. You worrying about such things would seem to indicate some ignorance of the requirements.

so you would continue to support Trump if he attempted to repeal the 22nd?

Perhaps using recent events in Turkey and even China might be worthwhile as examples of how Leaders have successfully managed to retain power "legally" and with the support of their blindly devoted support base.
Is this something you seek for the USA?
Because as proven that the USA constitutional system is merely a political football, it wont take that much for Trump to be successful.
Party before nation
Trump before nation
As amply demonstrated in the recent Judicial hearings on impeachment.
Also it is worth keeping in mind that it not just the USA watching all this happening...
Trump : "so trivial"
Read : the constitution is trivial...

is the constitution trivial?

 

[iceaura]

A vote of no confidence is precisely about being deemed unfit

No, it isn't. It is often about being incapable, for example.

I can support Trump while not agreeing with everything he may do or say.

Of course. Likewise Ed Gein, or the Unabomber, or Whitey Bulgar.
You are then responsible for supporting the likes of Trump, despite the obvious nature of what he says and does.

And the Democrats chose to go with the general standard, because they couldn't meet any specific legal standard (omitting bribery from the articles of impeachment).

They could obviously meet many specific standards - the two they chose are not "general" but comprehensive within their narrow focus.
And if you are puzzled by the failure to throw in the dozens of other evidence backed impeachable offenses, notice the effect the narrow focus has on the Senators who need to keep Trump happy: John Roberts is going to be confronted with a decision that is simple enough to be understood by regular people as well as historians, rather than a large and complicated mass of issues that might otherwise obscure the implications of his rulings.

No, like QQ, presuming it would be "regardless of reality" is exactly the sort of excuses that would allow such violence to go unchecked.

It's not a presumption.

Saying the left will be the ones to get violent is no threat from anyone but the left.

Nonsense. It is a threat from the right, who control the police and the National Guard and so forth.

The Republican party is the party of law and order, where the recourse would be legitimate law enforcement.

The Republican Party has been the Party of might makes right (and money makes might) for your entire adult life. They have no record of respect for law and order - look at their launching of the most corrupt war in American history, or the daily behaviors of their Homeland Security beloveds.

The IG report on FISA court abuses show that Mueller was, at best, oblivious and Comey complicit

Both life long Republicans. None of the abuses materially affecting the impeachment proceedings - the facts remain undisturbed. And the left has been warning people about the FISA court since it was established by what is now the second most corrupt and lawless administration in US history, displaced by Trump's (the dealings with Erdogan finalizing that ranking).
You are not going to able to sell the bizarre notion of the FBI as a leftist or even left-friendly organization to anyone except a Republican voter.

The only fact-witness for impeachment (Sondlund, all others being solely hearsay or opinion)

First hand observation is not hearsay. Skilled and experienced professional judgment is not mere "opinion", any more than a jury verdict is.
And the large number of convincing facts came from somewhere. The timeline of Trump's behavior , for example - is time itself a matter of opinion, for you?

And knowing that changing an amendment requires a lot more than just the president, I wouldn't be the least bit worried if he wanted to. Wouldn't mean a thing without the congressional or states support to do so.

Unless impeached and suitably curbed or crippled, Trump (like any mob boss) has the means to acquire sufficient support from the States and Congressmen who have not already kissed his hand.

So yes, believing there is actual evidence is contrary to reality.

There is a taped phone call, which by itself would impeach the guy if the Republican Party had any respect for law and order - no other evidence necessary.
As a reminder of the depth of delusion common to Republicans, you have value. But you apparently don't know shit about the facts of Trump's behavior, or the piles of evidence behind this impeachment, or even the common methods by which a mob boss runs his mob or a conman his gang.

 

[Vociferous]

so you would continue to support Trump if he attempted to repeal the 22nd?

Perhaps using recent events in Turkey and even China might be worthwhile as examples of how Leaders have successfully managed to retain power "legally" and with the support of their blindly devoted support base.
Is this something you seek for the USA?
Because as proven that the USA constitutional system is merely a political football, it wont take that much for Trump to be successful.
Party before nation
Trump before nation
As amply demonstrated in the recent Judicial hearings on impeachment.
Also it is worth keeping in mind that it not just the USA watching all this happening...
Trump : "so trivial"
Read : the constitution is trivial...

is the constitution trivial?

You obviously don't understand the safeguards built into the US legal/political system.
Politicians, largely Democrats, talk about changing the Constitution, but taking their rhetoric seriously irequires being ignorant of the actual process.
Changing the US Constitution requires either a supermajority (two-thirds) of both houses of congress. Since that threshold is the same for congress overriding a presidential veto, constitutional changes don't even see the presidents desk for approval. The president is entirely outside of the process. The only other means of changing the constitution is for two-thirds of the State legislatures (38) to call a constitutional convention. No change has ever been made that way.

So not only does the president have zero power to change the constitution, two-thirds of both houses of congress being held by one party is very rare, especially in more modern times.

There have yet to be any Judicial hearings on this impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee is not part of the US Judiciary. It is just part of their oversight role in the US government.

But thanks for clarifying your ignorance.

 

[Vociferous]

No, it isn't. It is often about being incapable, for example.

I cited a source. Either try to refute it or accept it. Making your usual bare assertions ain't going to fly.

Of course. Likewise Ed Gein, or the Unabomber, or Whitey Bulgar.
You are then responsible for supporting the likes of Trump, despite the obvious nature of what he says and does.

Obvious straw man there. Yes, I can support the best economy in our lifetimes and historically low minority unemployment, despite a brash orange man who exaggerates and calls people names. Wah, wah waaah.

They could obviously meet many specific standards - the two they chose are not "general" but comprehensive within their narrow focus.
And if you are puzzled by the failure to throw in the dozens of other evidence backed impeachable offenses, notice the effect the narrow focus has on the Senators who need to keep Trump happy: John Roberts is going to be confronted with a decision that is simple enough to be understood by regular people as well as historians, rather than a large and complicated mass of issues that might otherwise obscure the implications of his rulings.

No, they are not specific crimes with equal or higher legal standards (that would hold up in the judiciary) as bribery. Otherwise you can try refuting this Reuters article: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...nality-key-to-trump-impeachment-idUSKBN1WC10L
John Roberts? I can only assume your ignorance if you think the Supreme Court has any part in the impeachment process. Or do you think he's a Senator? Or do you think SCOTUS is elected "by regular people"?

Bah, I can't make heads nor tails of that non sequitur reference.

It's not a presumption.

Even though it has yet to happen. That kind of surety is exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks for illustrating my point.

Nonsense. It is a threat from the right, who control the police and the National Guard and so forth.

Sounds like conspiracy theory to me, as Democrat held states control their own police and their own National Guard, in conjunction with the Federal government, which is not controlled by a single party.

The Republican Party has been the Party of might makes right (and money makes might) for your entire adult life. They have no record of respect for law and order - look at their launching of the most corrupt war in American history, or the daily behaviors of their Homeland Security beloveds.

More conspiracy nonsense. The Homeland Security Act passed by 41 of 49 Democrats in the Senate and 88 of 210 Democrats in the House. Without Democrat support, it would have passed neither house.

Both life long Republicans. None of the abuses materially affecting the impeachment proceedings -

FISA courts are a law enforcement measure, where fruit of the poisonous tree is a well-established precedent.

You are not going to able to sell the bizarre notion of the FBI as a leftist or even left-friendly organization to anyone except a Republican voter.

No such conspiracy is necessary. Individuals simply make individual choices.

First hand observation is not hearsay. Skilled and experienced professional judgment is not mere "opinion", any more than a jury verdict is.
And the large number of convincing facts came from somewhere. The timeline of Trump's behavior , for example - is time itself a matter of opinion, for you?

The only firsthand observations was Sondland hearing Trump say "no quid pro quo". Judgement ("the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions") is a form of opinion. Fact don't require making considered decisions. They simply are what they are. A large number of opinions came from biased people, some of which, like Sondland, directly refuted by the very people they claim to have had said discussions with.

The "timeline of Trumps behavior" is a Rorschach test you repeatedly fail, usually with a good helping of conspiracy theories to boot.

Unless impeached and suitably curbed or crippled, Trump (like any mob boss) has the means to acquire sufficient support from the States and Congressmen who have not already kissed his hand.

Another conspiracy theory. And one that ignores the fact that State legislatures and Congressmen are vote for by the people. I suppose you imagine "Trump (like any mob boss) has the means to acquire sufficient support" from them too, huh?

There is a taped phone call, which by itself would impeach the guy if the Republican Party had any respect for law and order - no other evidence necessary.
As a reminder of the depth of delusion common to Republicans, you have value. But you apparently don't know shit about the facts of Trump's behavior, or the piles of evidence behind this impeachment, or even the common methods by which a mob boss runs his mob or a conman his gang.

Taped phone call? Between who? Trump and the Ukranian president, for which we only have a transcript? You don't even seem to be aware of the reality. You seem to be imagining evidence that doesn't exist. I guess when you make so many bare assertions you fall prey to your own tiny, personal bubble.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Taped phone call? Between who? Trump and the Ukranian president, for which we only have a transcript?

a transcript of what exactly?

You obviously don't understand the safeguards built into the US legal/political system.
Politicians, largely Democrats, talk about changing the Constitution, but taking their rhetoric seriously irequires being ignorant of the actual process.
Changing the US Constitution requires either a supermajority (two-thirds) of both houses of congress. Since that threshold is the same for congress overriding a presidential veto, constitutional changes don't even see the presidents desk for approval. The president is entirely outside of the process. The only other means of changing the constitution is for two-thirds of the State legislatures (38) to call a constitutional convention. No change has ever been made that way.

So not only does the president have zero power to change the constitution, two-thirds of both houses of congress being held by one party is very rare, especially in more modern times.

There have yet to be any Judicial hearings on this impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee is not part of the US Judiciary. It is just part of their oversight role in the US government.

But thanks for clarifying your ignorance.

So much of Trumps behavior is unprecedented. So obvious. So corrupt that it is laughable that you still think there will be checks and balances in the future if this impeachment fails.
He has literally spat on the constitution, a document he has totally ignored and probably can not quote from nor comprehend and all you red yanks are letting him do it....
It is not about Repubs or Democrats it is about the future of the constitution.

Trump has repeatedly demonstrated he is above the constitution from the get go and if he is not impeached and wins the next election he will justifiably claim a mandate to go on ignoring the constitution.

 

[Vociferous]

a transcript of what exactly?

Look it up, and try reading the lines, not between them.

So much of Trumps behavior is unprecedented. So obvious. So corrupt that it is laughable that you still think there will be checks and balances in the future if this impeachment fails.
He has literally spat on the constitution, a document he has totally ignored and probably can not quote from nor comprehend and all you red yanks are letting him do it....
It is not about Repubs or Democrats it is about the future of the constitution.

Trump has repeatedly demonstrated he is above the constitution from the get go and if he is not impeached and wins the next election he will justifiably claim a mandate to go on ignoring the constitution.

Again, you're only proving your ignorance of the US system of separate but equal branches of government and its Constitution. It's actually quite the opposite. If this impeachment where to succeed, it would set a dangerous precedent where the opposition party with enough seats in Congress would just impeach the president as a matter of course, for any reasons it could muster. Presidential immunities exist so that a president isn't so harassed that he can't do the job. Considering the constant media attacks, frivolous law suits, challenges to many executive orders, and nonstop attempt at impeachment, he's managed to achieve many of his campaign promises (including the best economy of our lifetimes and historically low minority unemployment), which is saying a lot for a politician from any party, even without all the distractions.

Foreigners opining on US politics and, especially, Constitution is beyond silly. You have zero frame of reference other than your diet of leftist media, and you obviously can't be arsed to learn anything of significance about it.

Historically, there have been US presidential candidates who rival Trump's rhetoric and name calling. So, not unprecedented.
And I know you can't name a single Constitutional Amendment Trump has "spat on" or "demonstrated he is above". If he wins the next election, it will be because the US people aren't as gullible as foreigners, believing crap they're fed without any understanding of the reality whatsoever.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Look it up, and try reading the lines, not between them.

a deflection as usual...
but what is the transcript of?
Definition of transcript is?
written or printed version of material originally presented in another medium.
"a word-for-word transcript comes with each tape"

There is a recording of Trumps telephone conversations yes?
(he probably has had it deleted by now...)
Why do you think Trump is refusing to co-operate with the impeachment process?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Presidential immunities exist so that a president isn't so harassed that he can't do the job. Considering the constant media attacks, frivolous law suits, challenges to many executive orders, and nonstop attempt at impeachment, he's managed to achieve many of his campaign promises (including the best economy of our lifetimes and historically low minority unemployment), which is saying a lot for a politician from any party, even without all the distractions.

and none of it worth a damn if he is guilty of what he is charged with...

 

[Vociferous]

a deflection as usual...
but what is the transcript of?
Definition of transcript is?
written or printed version of material originally presented in another medium.
"a word-for-word transcript comes with each tape"

There is a recording of Trumps telephone conversations yes?
(he probably has had it deleted by now...)
Why do you think Trump is refusing to co-operate with the impeachment process.

No, as usual, you make ignorant assumptions about something you can't be arsed to simply look up for yourself. You know the good thing about looking things up for yourself? You don't have to decide whether you want to take my word for it. But seeing as you really don't seem to give a crap how wrong you are...

Such calls are not always taped, and the "transcript" is compiled by memory of several people who typically listen in on such official phone calls as they happen.

and none of it worth a damn if he is guilty of what he is charged with...

And you obviously have zero justifiable basis to make that determination for yourself. Something about willful and ignorance.

Not to mention that House impeachment (found guilty by nakedly partisan hacks) means nothing without Senate impeachment.

 

[iceaura]

You obviously don't understand the safeguards built into the US legal/political system.

Impeachment and removal from office is one of them. They seem to be breaking down.

No, they are not specific crimes with equal or higher legal standards (that would hold up in the judiciary) as bribery.

Irrelevant. They are specific causes for impeachment.
Your attempt to deflect the discussion from impeachment for cause into "crimes" is of course part of the current Republican smokescreen.

FISA courts are a law enforcement measure, where fruit of the poisonous tree is a well-established precedent.

Irrelevant.

Yes, I can support the best economy in our lifetimes and historically low minority unemployment,

It's not the best economy of my lifetime. (High minimum cost of living, high debt levels, etc).

The employment rate, along with the wage rate, is a far less misleading number (it accounts for the population in jail, for example - a major factor in minority employment). The overall employment rate is around 61%, so it has not yet been restored to pre-crash levels (which may be a good thing - much valuable work is done by people without jobs, such as child care. Keep in mind that the slave plantations of the Confederacy had 0% minority unemployment and 100% minority employment). https://www.statista.com/statistics/192398/employment-rate-in-the-us-since-1990/
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/employment-rate
And as noted, some of the increase in employment seems to be driven by a need to cover a stagnation or even decline in per capita (per employee hour) "total factor" productivity that has afflicted the entire US economy for some time.

Note that the Feds have seen no sign of inflation to worry about - that means wages are basically stagnant for the bulk of the economy, while debt continues to grow and more people are locking themselves into sub-optimal jobs - and of course we are still losing farmers and other small businessmen. Then whole mess is headed for another crash. But if that's what you want in your economy, Trump is your guy - for a while. If you're rich.

Trump and the Ukranian president, for which we only have a transcript?

We don't have the transcript. The transcript we have part of was made from a recording - there's a recording.
We could also obtain a recording from the Russians. Nobody has mentioned whether Ukraine recorded it as well.
We also have the phone conversation in the restaurant, overheard by two or three people and recorded by the Russians, eyewtinesses all. Also impeachable.

Another conspiracy theory.

It's an observation of visible circumstance. Not a theory, not a conspiracy. Trump has the means to coerce Congress and State officials.
We've seen him muscle people (such as the witnesses in the Ukraine mess), also, and we've seen his lawyers and flunkies muscle people in his interest, so we know he'll use his Presidential powers to coerce and threaten.

The "timeline of Trumps behavior" is a Rorschach test you repeatedly fail, usually with a good helping of conspiracy theories to boot

So you don't know anything, not even the timeline - public information? No wonder you think there's no evidence.

Judgement ("the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions") is a form of opinion.

Trump just had to pay 2 million dollars to charity because of an "opinion" of that kind. He admitted to having robbed money from other people to pay for part of his Presidential campaign, and the "opinion" of the judge was that this violated the law.

That's impeachable, btw, as is firing Comey to stop him from investigating, as is withdrawing soldiers from wartime commitments to safeguard private hotel profits in Turkey, all of which is public information - so if the Dems want to, they can impeach Trump four or five more times in the coming year. The Constitution says they are supposed to.

Fact don't require making considered decisions. They simply are what they are.

Then how come you can't see them? They're right in front of you.

 

[Vociferous]

Impeachment and removal from office is one of them. They seem to be breaking down.

Nope, they're working exactly as set forth in the Constitution. Just because you may not like the results has no bearing on the process.

Irrelevant. They are specific causes for impeachment.
Your attempt to deflect the discussion from impeachment for cause into "crimes" is of course part of the current Republican smokescreen.

Cause, singular. The Supreme Court deciding to hear cases pertaining to the president challenging congressional subpoenas is tacit agreement that he has the legal right to have the judiciary rule on such disputes between the executive and legislative branches. As such, obstruction of Congress is now completely moot. There is no such obstruction if an appeal of congressional subpoenas is legal. So that only leaves abuse of power.

All the allegations of abuse of power have zero fact-witnesses, and plenty of contradicting evidence. Nothing at all that would hold up in a court of law, and it's your problem that you equivocated my "couldn't meet any specific legal standard" with your meaninglessly weaker "could obviously meet many specific standards": http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-trump-presidency.158659/page-198#post-3610779

Since treason and bribery are actual crimes, the Democrats knew they couldn't justify, that only leaves "high crimes and misdemeanors".

The Judiciary Committee's 1974 report "The Historical Origins of Impeachment" stated: "'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' has traditionally been considered a 'term of art', like such other constitutional phrases as 'levying war' and 'due process.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors#United_States​

So again, it's about partisan politics, not actual crimes.


What, couldn't come up with any excuses for your nonsense about Chief Justice John Roberts being a Senator, or whatever gobbledygook you were attempting?
Nor your paranoid conspiracy theories?
Nor your ignorance of how many Democrats voted to create the Department of Homeland Security?

That's a lot of dumb to just sweep under the rug.

Irrelevant.

Which only proves my point that it's political, not criminal.

It's not the best economy of my lifetime. (High minimum cost of living, high debt levels, etc).

...Keep in mind that the slave plantations of the Confederacy had 0% minority unemployment and 100% minority employment).

Holy crap! You lived during the Confederacy?!
So you really think slavery is employment? That's sick and immoral. Being willing to make such light of slavery just because you're THAT desperate to justify your nonsense.

It's not the best economy of my lifetime. (High minimum cost of living, high debt levels, etc).

I see you're still using your idiosyncratic and completely unsupportable "minimum cost of living" nonsense. No credible economist uses such nebulously undefined bullshit.

The employment rate, along with the wage rate, is a far less misleading number (it accounts for the population in jail, for example - a major factor in minority employment). The overall employment rate is around 61%, so it has not yet been restored to pre-crash levels (which may be a good thing - much valuable work is done by people without jobs, such as child care.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/192398/employment-rate-in-the-us-since-1990/
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/employment-rate

Again, it's economically illiterate to use a figure that does not account for workforce participation, which in conjunction with the unemployment rate is what actual economists use. Raw employment numbers don't account for population growth, a higher percentage of the population reaching retirement, etc.. And you actually have to show that minority incarceration has increased enough to erase the historically low minority unemployment for that to hold water.

Oops, that's a crap argument too. You even get tired of being so hopelessly wrong?

And as noted, some of the increase in employment seems to be driven by a need to cover a stagnation or even decline in per capita (per employee hour) "total factor" productivity that has afflicted the entire US economy for some time.

More unsupported nonsense.

Note that the Feds have seen no sign of inflation to worry about - that means wages are basically stagnant for the bulk of the economy, while debt continues to grow and more people are locking themselves into sub-optimal jobs - and of course we are still losing farmers and other small businessmen. Then whole mess is headed for another crash. But if that's what you want in your economy, Trump is your guy - for a while. If you're rich.

More uneducated paranoia.

We don't have the transcript. The transcript we have part of was made from a recording - there's a recording.
We could also obtain a recording from the Russians. Nobody has mentioned whether Ukraine recorded it as well.
We also have the phone conversation in the restaurant, overheard by two or three people and recorded by the Russians, eyewtinesses all. Also impeachable.

No, there was no recording. But thanks for proving yourself just as ill-informed as QQ.
Recorded by the Russians? "Could obtain"? You're making up crap from your own fever dreams again.
Yeah, ONE guy (you can't even get that much right) overheard a phone call in which nothing new was said other than what the transcript with the Ukrainian president said.

It's an observation of visible circumstance. Not a theory, not a conspiracy. Trump has the means to coerce Congress and State officials.
We've seen him muscle people (such as the witnesses in the Ukraine mess), also, and we've seen his lawyers and flunkies muscle people in his interest, so we know he'll use his Presidential powers to coerce and threaten.

That's just you failing the Rorschach test.

So you don't know anything, not even the timeline - public information? No wonder you think there's no evidence.

What you think you "know" is seriously threatening to dwarf what you actual may.

Trump just had to pay 2 million dollars to charity because of an "opinion" of that kind. He admitted to having robbed money from other people to pay for part of his Presidential campaign, and the "opinion" of the judge was that this violated the law.

You've already been corrected on that:http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-impeachment-of-president-trump.162501/page-5#post-3610780

That's impeachable, btw, as is firing Comey to stop him from investigating, as is withdrawing soldiers from wartime commitments to safeguard private hotel profits in Turkey, all of which is public information - so if the Dems want to, they can impeach Trump four or five more times in the coming year. The Constitution says they are supposed to.

Then why is NONE of that in the articles of impeachment? Some nonsense about "Senator" John Roberts again?
You believe a lot of BS.

Then how come you can't see them? They're right in front of you.

I've repeatedly proven that you have no idea what you're talk about. And the best you can do is pretend they didn't happen. You have zero credibility.

 

[Tiassa]

Cause, singular

¿Really?

Do you really not know what the phrase, "for cause", means?

 

[Vociferous]

Irrelevant. They are specific causes for impeachment.
Your attempt to deflect the discussion from impeachment for cause into "crimes" is of course part of the current Republican smokescreen.

Cause, singular

¿Really?

Do you really not know what the phrase, "for cause", means?

Really?

It's sad I have to walk you through this. See where he said "causes" plural? Out of two articles of impeachment, what happens when you lose one? Ta-da! It becomes "cause" singular.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Again, it's economically illiterate to use a figure that does not account for workforce participation, which in conjunction with the unemployment rate is what actual economists use. Raw employment numbers don't account for population growth, a higher percentage of the population reaching retirement, etc.. And you actually have to show that minority incarceration has increased enough to erase the historically low minority unemployment for that to hold water.

lol ... so the trend Obama started continues into the Trump Presidency and you wish to use it to uhm support Trump?

What ever you do do not tell Trump unless you wish to see the trend reversed out of vanity...by executive order... lol

 

[Tiassa]

It's sad I have to walk you through this. See where he said "causes" plural? Out of two articles of impeachment, what happens when you lose one? Ta-da! It becomes "cause" singular.

Failing to comprehend the language does not a proper argument make.

 

[Vociferous]

lol ... so the trend Obama started continues into the Trump Presidency and you wish to use it to uhm support Trump?

What, the trend where market confidence got a boost as soon as Trump was elected, Trump's tax cut put more purchasing power in the economy, and anemic job growth got a huge boost? Zero evidence attributes any of that to Obama.

Failing to comprehend the language does not a proper argument make.

Well, considering that's an indictment of your own comprehension, I can't really argue with it. So I'll take you're word that you misunderstanding the simple notion of a plural word becoming singular is a failure of your own language comprehension.

 

[Quantum Quack]

What, the trend where market confidence got a boost as soon as Trump was elected, Trump's tax cut put more purchasing power in the economy, and anemic job growth got a huge boost? Zero evidence attributes any of that to Obama.

lol...
change the subject an deflect...
IT was your graph and you don t even understand it...
here it is again:

what graph do you want to discuss now?

 

[iceaura]

If this impeachment where to succeed, it would set a dangerous precedent where the opposition party with enough seats in Congress would just impeach the president as a matter of course, for any reasons it could muster.

If Clinton's impeachment didn't do that, nothing will.

The precedent to worry about here is the failure to remove an obviously criminal and treasonous President despite having ample evidence and no obstacle such as threatening war. That makes the immunity to indictment a serious risk - the Founders clearly expected Presidents like Trump to be impeached, and relied on Congress to do its job.

What, the trend where market confidence got a boost as soon as Trump was elected, Trump's tax cut put more purchasing power in the economy, and anemic job growth got a huge boost?

Yeah, that one - Trump seems to have been manipulating the market ever since, an obvious source of big profits for somebody.

. As such, obstruction of Congress is now completely moot. There is no such obstruction if an appeal of congressional subpoenas is legal.

? All such matters can be appealed - and Trump has good reason to want the delay. He's guilty, and he knows it.
As such, even his handpicked Court cannot be relied upon to give him a pass - and a ruling against him before the Senate trial makes even his hardcore support questionable.

Which only proves my point that it's political, not criminal.

It's both. You've been told this many times.

So you really think slavery is employment? That's sick and immoral.

It doesn't matter what I think. It matters what statisticians count.

All the allegations of abuse of power have zero fact-witnesses, and plenty of contradicting evidence.

They have Trump as fact witness, along with the record of who did and did not get fired or fail to show up on Congressional demand, the recorded timeline of events, and so forth. All that stuff is physical fact, and there's no evidence conflicting with the obvious inference - one even Trump agrees with, explicitly and in public.

Again, it's economically illiterate to use a figure that does not account for workforce participation, - -

That would be the unemployment rate - the figure you insist on using, despite its famously misleading nature. Or more likely: because of.

You've already been corrected on that

Nope. Those links do not address my post - I did not make the claims "corrected" therein.
The only question is whether Laurie - or you - really think I did. That's the age old question when dealing with you guys - are they lying, or are they stupid? With Laurie, it's a boring question - so I ignore it.

Yeah, ONE guy (you can't even get that much right) overheard a phone call in which nothing new was said other than what the transcript with the Ukrainian president said.

Three, not one, according to the reports. Everyone within a few meters who spoke English. And an eyewitness verification of the provenance and circumstances of the partial transcript is verification of the impeachable offense, is of course evidence - whether you can "see" it or not.

No, there was no recording.

A verbatim transcript made on the spot is a recording, dumbass. But there was apparently an electronic US one, as well - and a Russian one, according to various sources, and probably a Ukrainian one, for leverage (unless they're a lot stupider than they look).

Recorded by the Russians? "Could obtain"? You're making up crap from your own fever dreams again.

I'm just believing what the intelligence pros say. You, apparently, believe Donald Trump and the Republican Party media feed.
- - - -

And you actually have to show that minority incarceration has increased enough to erase the historically low minority unemployment for that to hold water.

No, I don't. Pay attention: I am dealing with the more accurate and meaningful employment rate. The incarceration rate does not even necessarily affect the unemployment rate - that's one of the many reasons the unemployment rate is deceptive, which is one of the many reasons Trump and the Republicans are so fond of it.

Then why is NONE of that in the articles of impeachment?

Dem strategy, same answer as the last four times you parroted that question from the Rep media feed. Do you need it explained again? Right or wrong (I think it's wrong), the Dem strategy isn't that far-fetched. And it does pin John Roberts to the wall, I have to admit that - so there's method to it.

Some nonsense about "Senator" John Roberts again?
You believe a lot of BS.

You don't believe in John Roberts? I assure you he exists, and will be overseeing the Senate proceedings. As impeachment is the job of all House members true to their oaths, overseeing the Senate proceedings is Chief Justice Roberts's sworn duty.

McConnel can, in theory, block him out - the Republicans have not been the Party of law and order for decades now - but such an act of raw partisan manipulation would provide an excuse for conscience stricken minor figures to break with the Party. It's risky. They already have trouble looking honorable while betraying their country, and some of them are military.