The "Official Nick's BB" Trump Impeachment thread!

[Wokko]

I don't doubt that, all crony capitalism is shit but the Trump business itself is and was, his business. No idea if favours for the Jr Trumps are happening or not but I would imagine you're right.

[stui magpie]

I agree with the principles that people shouldn't get handouts because someone wants to suck up to their parents. Giving some unqualified numbnut a $600k position where you don't actually do any work because his dad was the VP is ridiculous and I'd like to think that the USA and UK have laws to prevent that kind of thing but clearly the Ukraine doesn't.

The diatribe at the end let down what could have been a good article, I personally go with this as a general rule to reading news.

[stui magpie]

I read some interesting stats online today (can't remember where so no link) that said the Democrats where in backpeddling mode over whether to actually vote to Impeach.

Apparently the net result of their televised trial is that Trump's approval rating has gone up, across the board, and they're nervous about a voter backlash in marginal seats if they go ahead with it.

[Wokko]

Trump with the knockout blow

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1199718185865535490?s=20

[pietillidie]

More financial reporting inconsistencies from the bits and pieces that can be seen:

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/472268-tax-and-loan-documents-for-trump-tower-show-inconsistencies-report

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-trump-tower-tax-records-reveal-new-inconsistencies

[Wokko]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/impeachment-inquiry-now-costing-dems-key-2020-battleground-states?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=mattwalsh

[Pies4shaw]

^ That’s relevant to the election thread. The pragmatic question whether the impeachment prices is “good” or “bad” “politics” - and for whom - is a little bit aside from the impeachment process. There are some reasonably fundamental questions about possible acts of treason and political corruption that are important for reasons that go well beyond the electoral consequences. The investigation of those questions may well be electorally “disadvantageous” to those who are doing the investigating but, really, who cares? Even if the electoral consequence were to be that someone whose politics are even more conservative than Trump’s were to be elected as President - or a whole lot of them to the Congress, that would not be pertinent to the question whether this investigation should have been pursued.

Of course, international diplomacy is a generally deceitful pursuit - the question is whether it is being engaged in to advance the purposes and interests of the country one represents or to advance one’s personal interests. The latter is wholly impermissible and corrupt - irrespective of what we think about the way particular leaders go about the former.

[Wokko]

I did debate putting it there or here but it's relevant here because moderate democrats, especially those in Red states or electorates that voted for Trump will be under pressure to vote against impeachment or risk losing their seats.

[Pies4shaw]

Yes, I accept that. I think we all know that it’s very unlikely that he will be removed from office, given the Senate numbers - I see this as being important because it investigates the limits of the proper and improper exercise of Executive power. That’s an important cautionary matter for whoever follows, regardless of their brand.

[Wokko]

I agree, which is why this circus now focusing on Biden and his son's shady dealings in Ukraine is a good thing. I don't see anything wrong with the President requesting a corruption investigation , sure it shouldn't be tied to aid and according to all the first hand testimony it wasn't, but it's definitely within his purview.

Dems opened up the can of worms of investigating political opponents when they got all the FISA warrants on Trump during the 2016 campaign.

[Woods]

...

[Jezza]

[David]

You know, that’s probably true (not due to any actual talent for the artform, but through having the capacity to cause maximum net butthurt, to appropriate troll discourse), and it’s probably one of the keys to understanding how he managed to become president: a lot of people just live to own the libs, so much so that that’s their entire political philosophy. I see these people on the internet all the time, and I’m pretty sure that they love Trump much less than they love seeing how much he pisses the other side off. What they wanted, and what they got, was "U Mad Bro?": The Presidency. But it’s kind of an empty pursuit, isn’t it? There is, I hope, a little more to life than delighting in making other people mad.

I’ve been thinking about this recently, how, in right-wing troll world, earnestness makes you a loser and you only get to be epic by presenting as smugly above it all. That’s 4chan in a nutshell. But it’s all a pose, isn’t it? Nobody gets to just live on the internet; we’re all flesh and blood, and all have a stake in how the society around us functions. Of course one’s beliefs about how it should function might be diametrically opposed to, say, mine, but at least those diametrically opposed views (wherever they’re held) are beliefs, not just petty oneupmanship. So I think it is kind of a legitimate concern that the American president is the king of internet trolls, and it does suggest that something has gone seriously wrong somewhere along the way.

[stui magpie]

Fair points but you can easily flip that to the left view and how those who don't agree are basically a basket of deplorables.

Spins both ways.

[think positive]

Said all along he got in because people have had enough of the establishment, and when I asked people when I was there that’s precisely what they said! Gees I have to admit I’d love to have seen this thread if Hilary got in!