US political crisis

[sufferinsilence]

I'll file this in the 'not worth replying to' pile, along with your other gaslighting/ strawman/ ad hominem replies to me.

I almost forgot about ad eminem

 

[Steviedoo]

This is similar/same video the media has been showing, but the one O'Reilly showed was the one the impeachment managers played in Congress. I watched it live and noticed the little hiccup, over the word peaceful right off.

there is no hiccup.
the word peaceful was not deleted or cut out.
he did not say it in that clip they chose to show.
there was no edit purposely leaving out the word peaceful.
go review the tape last minute of the his speech and you will see he did not say the word peaceful for the clip they chose.

 

[slotplayer]

there is no hiccup.
the word peaceful was not deleted or cut out.
he did not say it in that clip they chose to show.
there was no edit purposely leaving out the word peaceful.
go review the tape last minute of the his speech and you will see he did not say the word peaceful for the clip they chose.

I saw it live when the House Dems ran it. It was the same as what O'Reilly showed. However, I did not see or watch the speech so maybe the excerpt occurred from earlier in the speech? In either case I don't really care.

 

[mack341]

Trump's acquitted as expected:

"with seven Republicans (Senators Sasse, Romney, Burr, Collins, Murkowski, Toomey and Cassidy) joining Democrats on the charge of incitement."

Of course, Trump is no longer in office. But if Trump had been convicted, the Senate could also have voted to prevent the former president from ever holding office again."

[bbc]

 

[Kroffe]

Bit of a joke from GOP side of things.
I mean, republican jurors on the case who are supposed to be impartial holding defense strategy meetings with trumps lawyers, what even is that?

Or Mitch
"
MITCH MCCONNELL: "Trump is directly responsible for the events of the day. He summoned the mob and provoked them to violence."

MITCH MCCONNELL: "Not guilty."

Oh, i see, that makes sense Mitch.


Atleast a couple of them showed some spine and tried to do the right thing.

 

[cncas2123]

Bit of a joke from GOP side of things.
I mean, republican jurors on the case who are supposed to be impartial holding defense strategy meetings with trumps lawyers, what even is that?

Or Mitch
"
MITCH MCCONNELL: "Trump is directly responsible for the events of the day. He summoned the mob and provoked them to violence."

MITCH MCCONNELL: "Not guilty."

Oh, i see, that makes sense Mitch.


Atleast a couple of them showed some spine and tried to do the right thing.

He was never going to be convicted by 17 Republicans, they have no backbone.
IMHO the Impeachment was a mistake, it would have been much better to have gone through the court system and held proper investigations into his conduct and actions from the date of the election onwards, and hopefully he will face charges for trying to cheat the voters of Georgia.

 

[Kroffe]

He was never going to be convicted by 17 Republicans, they have no backbone.
IMHO the Impeachment was a mistake, it would have been much better to have gone through the court system and held proper investigations into his conduct and actions from the date of the election onwards, and hopefully he will face charges for trying to cheat the voters of Georgia.

Still bizarre to listen to Mitch.
You wouldnt guess this is coming from a man who voted not guilty.

 

[mack341]

They were never going to turn against the man that won the most ever votes for their party, they'd all have to face determined challenges for their seats next time they came up, plus it was a misuse of impeachment proceedings when he'd lost the election and was no longer president.

It's hypocritical bedwetters united [dems and rinos] vs the real world of people being pissed off with the Govt and politicians who are so distant and pampered/insulated.

Anyway that's the way I see it.

 

[Kroffe]

They were never going to turn against the man that won the most ever votes for their party, they'd all have to face determined challenges for their seats next time they came up, plus it was a misuse of impeachment proceedings when he'd lost the election and was no longer president.

It's hypocritical bedwetters united [dems and rinos] vs the real world of people being pissed off with the Govt and politicians who are so distant and pampered/insulated.

Anyway that's the way I see it.

And in this way that you see it, Mitch is not on the hypocritical side of things.
We see things very differently i guess.
I dont understand how anyone can listen to the speech Mitch gave and claim that him voting not guilty is not hypocritical.

 

[mack341]

And in this way that you see it, Mitch is not on the hypocritical side of things.
We see things very differently i guess.
I dont understand how anyone can listen to the speech Mitch gave and claim that him voting not guilty is not hypocritical.

Mitch is probably in the hypocritical side, he wants his cake and to eat it, his reasoning though [via the bbc report]:

"impeachment is a "narrow tool for a narrow purpose"

McConnell says his understanding of the Constitution finds that only the president, vice-president and civil officers can be convicted: "We have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen".

"If removal [from current office] becomes impossible," he continues, "conviction becomes insensible."

edit: I see the wtg troll is following the debate, you're giving me a headshake and chuckle mate so keep it up

 

[Kroffe]

Mitch is probably in the hypocritical side, he wants his cake and to eat it, his reasoning though [via the bbc report]:

"impeachment is a "narrow tool for a narrow purpose"

McConnell says his understanding of the Constitution finds that only the president, vice-president and civil officers can be convicted: "We have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen".

"If removal [from current office] becomes impossible," he continues, "conviction becomes insensible."

He says that, but it was he that delayed the impeachment was it not?
I mean, he straight up says Trump is guilty, but still voted not guilty because the trial took place after he left the WH, and the reason it did that was because of him.
But its the other side thats hypocritical?

Imo they were only scared to lose votes, and that is the only reason they did not vote to impeach, not because they think hes not guilty.
Some showed backbone and cast their vote based on facts instead of just trying to protect the party, but most, just like Mitch, voted not guilty despite thinking/knowing he was guilty.


Edit: Bill Cassidy said it better.

“Our Constitution and our country is more important than any one person. I voted to convict President Trump because he is guilty.”

 

[mack341]

He says that, but it was he that delayed the impeachment was it not?

Imo they were only scared to lose votes, and that is the only reason they did not vote to impeach, not because they think hes not guilty.
Some showed backbone and cast their vote based on facts instead of just trying to protect the party, but most, just like Mitch, voted not guilty despite thinking/knowing he was guilty.

I could look at the rep ones that voted, how they voted on other issues, but I'm pretty sure they'd be never-trumpers and more liberal minded than simply men of high principle, they want the republican party to adopt their viewpoint not that of trump's base.

These 'republican' senators will lap up the applauding media coverage too no doubt, and they probably never even looked into the election fraud claims. I know I'm biased but they make me heave like newsom with his joker smile.

 

[Kroffe]

I could look at the rep ones that voted, how they voted on other issues, but I'm pretty sure they'd be never-trumpers and more liberal minded than simply men of high principle, they want the republican party to adopt their viewpoint not that of trump's base.

These 'republican' senators will lap up the applauding media coverage too no doubt, and they probably never even looked into the election fraud claims. I know I'm biased but they make me heave like newsom with his joker smile.

So basically "every republican that does not agree with my views is just a pretend republican"
Like its inconceivable that a person can be a republican and at the same time not have their nose up Trumps butt.

I think they just shot themselves in the foot tho by voting not to impeach.
They have given Trump way too much power over the republican party, and if he decides to run solo, or endorse someone running as a third party, the next election will be a cakewalk for the Democrats.

 

[mack341]

So basically "every republican that does not agree with my views is just a pretend republican"
Like its inconceivable that a person can be a republican and at the same time not have their nose up Trumps butt.

I think they just shot themselves in the foot tho by voting not to impeach.
They have given Trump way too much power over the republican party, and if he decides to run solo, or endorse someone running as a third party, the next election will be a cakewalk for the Democrats.

The failings of establishment politicians for years led to trump being able to run, it's not about sucking up to his butt [probably quite big though it is], by your reasoning why they made a mistake voting no, if they'd gone ahead they would be impeaching him for the wrong reasons, that he's a 3rd party or kingmaker threat in 2024 etc...

The whole thing was badly thought out, but appealed to the dems and the media who constantly want to 'signal' disapproval about this or that, intead of getting on and improving the lives of their voters [changing education, health, training, job availability etc] look at the high crime areas under democratic control for decades, talk about failed states.

But those things are hard to fix, so better/easier to bellyache on about Trump and do loads of PC preaching and telling people what they can and can't say.

 

[Kroffe]

The failings of establishment politicians for years led to trump being able to run, it's not about sucking up to his butt [probably quite big though it is], by your reasoning why they made a mistake voting no, if they'd gone ahead they would be impeaching him for the wrong reasons, that he's a 3rd party or kingmaker threat in 2024 etc...

The whole thing was badly thought out, but appealed to the dems and the media who constantly want to 'signal' disapproval about this or that, intead of getting on and improving the lives of their voters, look at the high crime areas under democratic control for decades, talk about failed states. But those things are hard to fix, so better/easier to bellyache on about Trump and do loads of PC preaching and telling people what they can and can't say.

Agree to disagree.

If they didnt have such a backwards system in place, where the majority of people keep getting screwed over by the minority he would have been found guilty.
57 voting guilty and 43 voting not guilty should not mean the final verdict is not guilty, but yet it does.
The majority obviously think hes guilty, but thats not enough.
Hell, if the majority actually meant something in their political system, he wouldnt have been President in the first place.

And if he endorses someone to run as a 3rd party he wont be a kingmaker, more a gop-destroyer.
They had their chance to do the right thing, and at the same time distance themselves from him, but didnt take it, and i think they will suffer for it.

 

[mack341]

Agree to disagree.

If they didnt have such a backwards system in place, where the majority of people keep getting screwed over by the minority he would have been found guilty.
57 voting guilty and 43 voting not guilty should not mean the final verdict is not guilty, but yet it does.
The majority obviously think hes guilty, but thats not enough.
Hell, if the majority actually meant something in their political system, he wouldnt have been President in the first place.

And if he endorses someone to run as a 3rd party he wont be a kingmaker, more a gop-destroyer.
They had their chance to do the right thing, and at the same time distance themselves from him, but didnt take it, and i think they will suffer for it.

They can embrace him as kingmaker, maga 2024, what else can they offer the voters, the mormon bloke or another bush?

The system of 2/3s majority is what it is, I don't think it's a bad thing entirely for these types of trials, a jury trial often has to be minimum 11 out of 12 majority, would you be happy to hang someone if 7 out of twelve said guilty and the other 5 said not guilty?

edit putting aside you probably don't agree with capital punishment full stop, but a serious case perhaps with consequences.

 

[Kroffe]

They can embrace him as kingmaker, maga 2024, what else can they offer the voters, the mormon bloke or another bush?

The system of 2/3s majority is what it is, I don't think it's a bad thing entirely for these types of trials, a jury trial often has to be 10/11 out of 12 majority, would you be happy to hang someone if 7 out of twelve said guilty and the other 5 said not guilty?

You can flip that around.
Would you let a murderer go free because 5 out of 12 voted not guilty.
Going with the majority seems like the sensible thing, no?

 

[mack341]

You can flip that around.
Would you let a murderer go free because 5 out of 12 voted not guilty.
Going with the majority seems like the sensible thing, no?

They're not a murderer in the english system until proven guilty, I think there is some saying about 'better a guilty man go free than an innocent hanged', but I know what you mean, however it's the principle of having a safe conviction, 57/43 isn't really is it?

Also different to an election first past the post scenario, this is a serious crime being charged. Some of the protesters may get 20 years, so the person who the senate believes incited it would probably also face 20 years?

 

[sufferinsilence]

This 2nd impeachment was mostly symbolic, everyone knew they were never going to find 17 R's to vote guilty and in the end it wouldn't have much of an impact either way because he's already voted out.

Never say never but I don't think he'll run again in 2024. Ivanka seems to be gunning for governor of Florida so that could be the start of some sort of political career. I can't see Jr, Eric or Tiffany pursuing a career in politics tbh. Someone like Ted Cruz will never leave the republican party if Trump was to back a 3rd party. I'm not sure who they could push that has an actual chance and wants to put their political life on the line for a pensioner.

 

[mack341]

Just thinking about that word 'peacefully' trump said, now if he'd said 'protest violently' it would surely be an open and shut case.

Some of the protesters got so worked up they forgot about peacefully, others didn't they stayed outside, so the ones who did the storming imo had that in their mind before that day, leading up to it, then you get the crowd psychology adding to that, and people get swept up into actions, following others.

 

[Kroffe]

Just thinking about that word 'peacefully' trump said, now if he'd said 'protest violently' it would surely be an open and shut case.

Some of the protesters got so worked up they forgot about peacefully, others didn't they stayed outside, so the ones who did the storming imo had that in their mind before that day, leading up to it, then you get the crowd psychology adding to that, and people get swept up into actions, following others.

It was a 70min long speech, maybe the "peacefully" got drowned out by the 69m55seconds he spent spewing conspiracies & lies while telling the crowd to fight like hell, save our democracy etc.

 

[vorcirion]

Just thinking about that word 'peacefully' trump said, now if he'd said 'protest violently' it would surely be an open and shut case.

Some of the protesters got so worked up they forgot about peacefully, others didn't they stayed outside, so the ones who did the storming imo had that in their mind before that day, leading up to it, then you get the crowd psychology adding to that, and people get swept up into actions, following others.

Do you agree that Trump had the power to stop the mob? And do you agree that he didn't use that power to stop them?

 

[mack341]

Do you agree that Trump had the power to stop the mob? And do you agree that he didn't use that power to stop them?

Do you mean influence/persuade them with a speech?

I think trump may have thought mike pence could reject the votes, if enough public citizen pressure was brought to bear and was thinking mainly of that, I don't believe he was thinking 'it'll be a good idea if I rouse up my voters so they storm illegally into the congress building'

He does like to push things to the limit in his speeches and fire people up, ditto bernie sanders on the other wing of politics, he wants to fire people up about wealth distribution and the rich etc..that's what makes an effective politician/speaker, obviously there can be unseen consequences and risks. I cannot, for example, believe the rioters, arsonists and looters haven't been influenced by political rhetoric somewhere down the line.

If we're talking about direct power, the DC authorities could have deployed more police and then none of this gets out of hand.

But we are where we are, the trump voters felt they had a genuine grievance of the most serious type for a democracy, a corrupt election, so things were going to get heated.

The country was formed on the back of a revolutionary war remember, things like that resonate in some viewpoints, and if the majority of the population are happy and contented it would never happen, so it's a chicken and egg situation.

 

[vorcirion]

Do you mean influence/persuade them with a speech?

I think trump may have thought mike pence could reject the votes, if enough public citizen pressure was brought to bear and was thinking mainly of that, I don't believe he was thinking 'it'll be a good idea if I rouse up my voters so they storm illegally into the congress building'

He does like to push things to the limit in his speeches and fire people up, ditto bernie sanders on the other wing of politics, he wants to fire people up about wealth distribution and the rich etc..that's what makes an effective politician/speaker, obviously there can be unseen consequences and risks. I cannot, for example, believe the rioters, arsonists and looters haven't been influenced by political rhetoric somewhere down the line.

If we're talking about direct power, the DC authorities could have deployed more police and then none of this gets out of hand.

But we are where we are, the trump voters felt they had a genuine grievance of the most serious type for a democracy, a corrupt election, so things were going to get heated.

The country was formed on the back of a revolutionary war remember, things like that resonate in some viewpoints, and if the majority of the population are happy and contented it would never happen, so it's a chicken and egg situation.

I'm talking about sending a tweet or coming to tv-cameras right away and telling them to stop when he saw the mob attacking Capitol Hill.

 

[sapit222]

Chicken s**t republicans!

Trump have too much dirt on them all, so they dont dare vote guilty.