-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Impeachment Hearings Day 5, Dr. Fiona Hill and David Holmes testify (live now). This is the last one!
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
you can see the democrats counsel enjoying themselves today when it was over. the two images are night and day.
Daniel Goldman on the far right of the picture.
tfw you get spend a whole day bodyslamming republicans
That is one I hear a lot. When I've attempted to press people on it, they can't really answer the question. I saw the same thing in an interview on CNN (I think? I was linked to a youtube) yesterday, where a woman said that. The reported said something like "What about the wall? Wasn't that a huge promise?" and the woman being interviewed's response was, "The democrats have prevented that! He's done everything else." And then no further details were presented.
As I said, fascinating and horrifying. His supporters just get fed lines like that and they eat them up immediately and that's their new worldview. I've heard people say that the Mueller investigation didn't uncover any crimes by anyone. It goes far beyond complete political ignorance, which would be something like "What's the Mueller investigation?" or "I didn't follow the MI."
Watch Fox news. 247 bubble building. It's all true according to Fox news. Trump is the best president America has ever had.
I work with so many Trumpers and they can never give a straight answer to what incredible things Trump has done, they're pretty much just parroting what they hear from inside their bubble. The only thing that they sometimes say is the economy is great under him but they just plug their ears when I say "You mean the economy he inherited from Obama?"
Trump is only good at inheriting things really.
Republicans frequently take advantage of the fact that their base (as well as a large number of voters in general) sort of place everything the government does directly in the hands of the sitting president. As an example, under Obama, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, but it immediately became "Obamacare." Recently, with Trump, I saw Republicans I know cheering the fact that Trump passed the largest public lands conservation deal in a decade. That deal had been in the works since before he was elected. It was created by a Democrat and a Republican in a bi-partisan effort, and it was voted on overwhelmingly by both parties. Quite literally all Trump did was refrain from vetoing it. But no, "Look what Trump did!" was all anyone said.
Ugh, I've heard people say that. It's baffling. Even if you agreed with 100% of the things he's done, I still can't imagine thinking that. So many presidents have done so much more.
Yep, exactly. (Also, lol @ your last line.)
Honestly, I think few people realize how little the President really affects the economy in the long-term and aggregate. Sure, Trump can say something stupid and make the market drop, but then it bounces back. Even things like the tax rate rely on Congress. The President can't affect that, constitutionally.
I sometimes suspect that "best ever" things Trump has done to these folks is all the horrible things he's done to minorities and immigrants but they know better then to say that to me.
Well in terms of what his base wants, he's the most accomplished President since Andrew Jackson.
That's possible. I'm almost entirely talking about TV/video interviews and people I know personally, so the same thing could be going on with me. But given some of the other stuff I've mentioned, I see a consistent pattern.
Here's another small example I sometimes bring up: Ever heard someone talk about "Obama phones" ? I was a controversy completely manufactured by right wing media. The actual phone program, Lifeline, was created under Reagan. When I mentioned that to people, including a few family members, they sputtered something about how the poor can just get free cell phones now of our tax dollars. That's not even true*, but more importantly, the expansion to cell phone coverage happened under Bush.
So what did Obama do? Well, when it expanded to cellphone coverage under Bush, they failed to upgrade a lot of fraud prevention in the act. So during Obama's first year, the FCC investigated the program for bloat, potential fraud from users, widely expanded budget, etc. Then, following that, they put in measures to help cut down on those things. In other words, they did everything a conservative would praise if they were told a Republican did it. But right wing media of course never mentioned a single one of those details. They just said the program greatly expanded under Obama (true, because of what happened under Bush), which turned into "Obama gives the poor free phones."
*The service isn't free. It just offers the poor a reduced fee for phone service. The program has zero free phones; phone companies were doing that on their own to get new customers. Finally, it uses zero tax dollars; it is payed for by a service charge to phone companies.
(Whew, sorry that was long winded, but it's such a good example of what right wing media does.)
What is this gif?Schiff basically:
Disney trying to make this happen?
Hell, if I wanted to find that out I could just go to the old place and read how "Racist just means a white person who doesn't act submissive to Africans".
Not even close. There hasn't been a mile of his new wall built and Obamacare is mostly still on the books, for now. As well as DACA. Only thing Trump has gotten done is the tax cut, appointed judges and canceling a bunch of Obama's EOs. Judges being the only thing that can't be undone in the next term if he loses. Trump has fucked alot of his base over as well with the trade war.
Last edited:
He separated brown kids from their families and placed them in cages. Thats enough to solidify him in the hearts of his base.
I think there is also the immeasurable damage he has done to the office, or the perception of the office, of the President of the United States. Trump and company have made it look like a position with little to no oversight, in which your own family members can be given roles for no reason.
I also think Trump, along with the Republican party and those that he has appointed, are making it unlikely people will want to become career members of the Federal government given how politicized it seems to be. I don't see how you will continue to have a functioning foreign policy of people who have served for decades in these roles are being tossed aside for political machinations, especially highly questionable domestic ones.
Granted, none of these things are as bad as what you mentioned, but just another way Trump's actions are going to have a lasting effect on people outside of passing laws or building walls.
Makes them "cool" and "edgy". Junior high school tactics from a bunch of 50+ year olds.
Hi. I haven't been following this, how is it going? Any chance Trump gets impeached before the election?
I must be one of the only anti-Trump against his impeachment. I think the timing would be bad and his electorate would denounce the process as "lawfare" - which it isn't- , and that can't be good in the long run. I would prefer your people to get him out of office by voting.
I must be one of the only anti-Trump against his impeachment. I think the timing would be bad and his electorate would denounce the process as "lawfare" - which it isn't- , and that can't be good in the long run. I would prefer your people to get him out of office by voting.
He will be impeached by the House. It is a 100% certainty. And he will be voted out of office next year.
I admittedly haven't been watching any coverage and have been catching up this morning in bits and pieces. But do these cowardly Republican congressmen realize that they're sacrificing themselves for a guy who will stab them in the back immediately the moment it benefits him?
Or do they just think that they're so tied to Trump now that if he loses they all go down with the ship anyways?
Some of this crap with Nunes yesterday was shameful.
Or do they just think that they're so tied to Trump now that if he loses they all go down with the ship anyways?
Some of this crap with Nunes yesterday was shameful.
Hey, who said accomplishments had to all be good.
He probably has cancelled more previous presidential EOs than any other president.
What you mentioned in the middle is keeping them in check. They made a faustian deal and they can't bolt because the public they need wants trump more than they want them
What? That is still very wishful thinking at this point.
Edit NVM thought it said removed from office.
Yes, but also their base loves him and, even with ironclad proof of heinous wrong doing, he will not lose that support. Turning on him means you will be primaried, and while your democratic constituents will be thankful, they will certainly still never vote for you. Also if you did, you currently have no other R support making he will remain in office anyway.
So then turn on him, just because it's the right thing to do? A big ask.
His electorate doesn't live in reality and they will be voting for him no matter what. It's important to hold trump and the gop accountable, even if they wanna scream "fake news witch hunt hoax, you hate to see it folks, black unemployment rate, Obama deep state!". Fuck those people, impeach this asshole, history will not be kind to Trump or the GOP.
Republicans have lost pretty badly for two straight years. Most people have wised up.
Centrists will likely fall for some weak reasoning again in 2024 or 2028. If not with the presidential candidate then in Congressional seats. The cycle we are on does appear to be waning.
Dems impeaching Trump is basically a given. The two public testimonies so far are more than sufficient, not to mention everything else behind closed doors. Every defense the GOP has is either just attempts to mislead or gets wiped out by further testimony.
The Senate probably won't remove him, but it's still an unlikely possibility if the hearings make Trump toxic enough.
Obviously it was staged and they were all paid off by the Dems so this one random person could record this video.
...obviously...
Side note,
I'm still waiting on the internet to remix the "Where's my elephant?" song from the Simpsons into "Mr Chairman". Or better yet, the Dr Zais song.
Mr Chairman Mr Chairman.. Ohhhh Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman Mr Chairman.
Trump asking about investigations, just like he did on the phone call from the first transcript, is unfortunately not a smoking gun unless one is honest enough to agree that Trump has never shown the slightest interest in "going after corruption" but only in benefiting himself.
Trump asking a foreign leader directly to investigate connections to a rival for corruption and withholding aid rather than going through the State Department and official anti-corruption processes on the other hand.
Yea all 4 of the televisions at my work location had the impeachment hearings playing, and I saw plenty of people watching it during their breaks. You're never going to get the public to view it let alone understand it unless you put it on the television and make a big deal about it.
The only hearings with that potential are Vindman, and now Holmes.
Or if Sondland admits he lied in the public hearing.
I see your viewpoint, but I think the way these public hearings are structured is painting the picture that shady stuff had been going on prior to the call, and in the upcoming months, the regular channels were not used. Yesterday's hearing especially showcased that.
I think that is actually important because it begs the question why trump was using backchannels, smearing US diplomats. Right now there really is no defense for using Giuliani and not the appointed officials who have been shown to be exceptional in these hearings.
So it all needs to be taken together to form the picture. And that's really the whole point of these public hearings, to let the public make up their mind so they can vote him out.
But there is nothing on this call about withholding aid. And Trump certainly does not have to go through the State Department.
This testimony makes clear that the supposed "corruption" investigations were a priority for Trump. That's not a smoking gun.
What we need is for testimony that Trump, himself, said Ukraine would not get aid until the investigations were done, and/or that the investigations would help his campaign or sink his political opponent. Those would be smoking guns.
We don't need that at all. Trump knows not to ask that directly...
Well, that's the definition of a smoking gun. If it's open to interpretation, it's not a smoking gun.
Certainly. There is more than relying on honesty is all. The dots are all there and pretty plain to see. It is Dems job to connect those dots.
We don't need that. It's clear as day what Trump is implying. We have testimony to back it up as well. I mean Trump supporters may need something like that to get it, but they also won't care either way.
The stated purpose of the call was about the aid. It didn't have to be explicitly said because that's literally what the call was always about. Throwing in other subjects into it ties those subjects to the aid.
This is true. And you could literally have Trump holding the smoking gun and tell his cult that the dems did it and his cult would buy it.
... Turns out the meme for this already exists, so I didn't have to make one.
You need it to accurately refer to a testimony as a "smoking gun", is what I am saying.