Straight Dope Message Board

[FlikTheBlue]

Originally Posted by RitterSport

If the Ukrainians have a recording and the Democrats reach out to them for it, the administration will accuse the Democrats of doing exactly what they are accusing Trump of doing -- reaching out to a foreign country to get compromising information on a political rival.

So far, it seems like the whistle blower really wants to testify -- can the administration just restrict what he or she says or whether they can testify at all? What happens if the whistle blower testifies anyway?

Because so far, if the House wants something they are legally entitled to that the administration wants to withhold, the administration just says, no, you can't have it, sorry, see you in court.

If someone with a good understanding of the legalities of executive privilege could chime in that would be helpful. My understanding of it is something like this. If congress subpoenas Trump or someone who wants to stay silent they can invoke executive privilege. But what about the case of someone who wants to testify. Could Trump force that individual to remain silent by claiming executive privilege? 151

[ThelmaLou]

Vlad has got to be laughing his ass off this morning. (Or this "evening" over there.) 152

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Annoyed

So that’s it?

Seems the motivator here circling the wagons around their best 2020 chance - Biden - and doing a massive deflection.

So you're OK with the President cutting aid to a country, and then calling the leader of that country and asking him to investigate family members of his opponent? And getting his personal lawyer involved as well? That's just peachy keen for you at this point? No problem with that at all, eh? Nothing to see there. 153

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

Originally Posted by ThelmaLou

Sure he would. (I desperately hope I'm wrong.)

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Moscow Mitch would give nuclear weapons to terrorists if that meant he could stay in power.

"We'll see what happens." 154

[FlikTheBlue]

Originally Posted by Annoyed

So that’s it?

Seems the motivator here circling the wagons around their best 2020 chance - Biden - and doing a massive deflection.

At this point I don’t think Biden is the best 2020 candidate. The whole tone of this Ukraine thing seems like it will play out more like Clinton with the emails rather than Obama and the birth certificate or Warren and her Native American heritage or lack thereof. 155

[you with the face]

Not groking the arithmetic behind the idea that impeachment is guaranteed to put Trump back in office.

Yes, this action will motivate turnout from his supporters, but his supporters were never a question. I mean, they are slaves to him at this point. It’s Dem turnout that is going to matter more in this election. An impeachment inquiry has now given disenchanted liberals reason to see Democrats as responsible vertebrates once again. As more and more shit comes out about this thing, Dems will only get more fired up about Trump. Energy that might otherwise be spent on in-party fighting will be spent on the real opponent.

But what about independents and undecideds? I don’t see how impeachment would make these idiots more likely to vote for Trump. If Trump hasn’t already done enough to make them get off the fence, this mean they are basically living in an information vacuum. “Impeachment” is a word that carries stigma, makes us think of Nixon and scandal and high crimes. Low-information voters might not know the details behind the inquiry, but once they start associating Trump with the word impeachment, it will be harder for them to see him as a defensible choice. The 3rd party nobody will look like the more attractive vote, because if history eventually pulls back the curtain and reveals that Trump was truly villainous, Independents are the last group who will want to claim supporting him. Distancing oneself from bad politicians is the ethos of Independents. 156

[you with the face]

Double 157

[Annoyed]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

So you're OK with the President cutting aid to a country, and then calling the leader of that country and asking him to investigate family members of his opponent? And getting his personal lawyer involved as well? That's just peachy keen for you at this point? No problem with that at all, eh? Nothing to see there.

Well, considering most of what you write here is vox/buzzfeed style “journalism” and speculation, based on absolutely zero evidence whatsoever, yeah, all is well.

What’s absolutely evident from the transcript is that there was no quid pro quo, and that means no smoking gun, like was overbearingly pushed by the Dems and the basis of their whole “inquiry”.

So at best the left got their week long news cycle, and egg in their face, and most people still won’t support impeachment.

At worst (or best for me) they keep pushing it and inadvertently reveal some nasty Biden dirt, pushing the lefts best chance out the window.

So, yeah. 158

[steronz]

Who are you gonna believe, me? Or your own lying eyes. 159

[Richard Parker]

There doesn't need to be a quid pro quo in order for it to be an egregious abuse of power to ask foreign countries as the President of the United States to investigate your political rivals.

But, also, there was an obvious quid pro quo. I mean, RTFMemCon. 160

[Fiveyearlurker]

Read the transcript out loud at a conversational speed and see how long it takes you. 10 minutes? 12? Then realize that the call is logged at 30 minutes long. 161

[bobot]

Requiring a quid pro quo is like saying: Sure he stabbed him, but there wasn't any blood. 162

[JohnT]

True. But the memorandum of the telephone conversation does have a quid pro quo, so not even that argument is available as a defense. 163

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by Annoyed

Well, considering most of what you write here is vox/buzzfeed style “journalism” and speculation, based on absolutely zero evidence whatsoever, yeah, all is well.

What’s absolutely evident from the transcript is that there was no quid pro quo, and that means no smoking gun, like was overbearingly pushed by the Dems and the basis of their whole “inquiry”.

So at best the left got their week long news cycle, and egg in their face, and most people still won’t support impeachment.

At worst (or best for me) they keep pushing it and inadvertently reveal some nasty Biden dirt, pushing the lefts best chance out the window.

So, yeah.

It's going to really hurt when that right wing bubble you've wrapped yourself in bursts. Reality is coming and the right is going to have to acknowledge it eventually or get left behind. You can't expect a false alternate reality to last forever, no matter how much you want it to, and we can't continue indefinitely with this two different worlds we live in. There is only one real world, and the Fox News/alt-right version ain't it. The sooner you recognize that the less painful it will be. 164

[Annoyed]

Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue

At this point I don’t think Biden is the best 2020 candidate. The whole tone of this Ukraine thing seems like it will play out more like Clinton with the emails rather than Obama and the birth certificate or Warren and her Native American heritage or lack thereof.

I don’t think any of them have what it takes to beat trump, especially face to face. That’s the tough thing about him, he always shoots from the hip, unrehearsed. His points are genuine, his insults raw. Everyone else is rehearsed, talking points, non-genuine political babble. 165

[JohnT]

n/m 166

[Annoyed]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

It's going to really hurt when that right wing bubble you've wrapped yourself in bursts. Reality is coming and the right is going to have to acknowledge it eventually or get left behind. You can't expect a false alternate reality to last forever, no matter how much you want it to, and we can't continue indefinitely with this two different worlds we live in. There is only one real world, and the Fox News/alt-right version ain't it. The sooner you recognize that the less painful it will be.

This reads like a bit of a threat. 167

[steronz]

Originally Posted by Annoyed

This reads like a bit of a threat.

Reality feels threatening to you? 168

[AK84]

So it turns out to be a nothing-burger. Or a status-quo burger. Enough for the Democrats to pounce. Not enough for the GOP to be compelled to abandon Trump.

What’s for dinner? 169

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by Annoyed

This reads like a bit of a threat.

The fact that you feel threatened by what I wrote is pretty telling, considering what I said is that accepting reality is important. 170

[Lance Turbo]

Originally Posted by Annoyed

Nobody in this thread knows shit, nor does anyone else.

Projection. 171

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by AK84

So it turns out to be a nothing-burger.

Says who? Who is the arbiter of such things? Everything I'm seeing is about how damning this is. Sure there are those that are claiming what you say, but claims do not equal reality. 172

[Richard Parker]

If your standard is what will make the GOP abandon Trump, then everything will be a nothingburger. But why on earth would you make that your standard? The Dems don't need GOP votes to impeach or to force the GOP on the record about why this conduct is OK. 173

[KidCharlemagne]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

Read the transcript out loud at a conversational speed and see how long it takes you. 10 minutes? 12? Then realize that the call is logged at 30 minutes long.

I literally just came here to post this. It took me less than 5. Honestly, what I did read I was bad enough. Right after Zelensky says he's going to buy more Javelins, Trump says "I'd like you to do me a favor though." And of course Zelensky managed to fit in that he stayed at the Trump Hotel while he was in the US. 174

[Annoyed]

Originally Posted by steronz

Reality feels threatening to you?

If you guys had so much support and backing you wouldn’t of lost the election, hundreds of judges, the Supreme Court, and very likely the next election too.

That’s the reality. 175

[Fiddle Peghead]

Regarding impeachment helping or harming Trump, and what I said in post #128, I just saw this Politico article, which is about a poll showing a lack of support for impeachment. Typical of articles like this, it says nothing about how an impeachment would actually affect the respondents' votes, and nothing about why some don't support it. I once made a half-facetious comment to a friend that a big reason that it's not supported may be that people don't want it to screw up their TV viewing. And also, giving the horrendously low opinion that people have of Congress, they're sick of them all already, and can't stomach the idea of having to hear about impeachment from them day in and day out. I read the whole poll, and nothing address the why of it all. I would guess that one reason such questions aren't asked is that not just the impeachment process itself is enough for one to know how it would affect their vote. Obviously, what comes out in the process is of utmost importance, so why ask a hypothetical? So again, I do not think it's a given that impeachment hearings, etc, are going to help Trump. 176

[Annoyed]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

The fact that you feel threatened by what I wrote is pretty telling, considering what I said is that accepting reality is important.

Except you didn’t say that did you. You said the quicker I accept your reality the less painful it will be.

That sounds like a threat. 177

[Chingon]

You should report it. 178

[Annoyed]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

Says who? Who is the arbiter of such things? Everything I'm seeing is about how damning this is. Sure there are those that are claiming what you say, but claims do not equal reality.

That’s called confirmation bias. 179

[steronz]

Originally Posted by Annoyed

If you guys had so much support and backing you wouldn’t of lost the election, hundreds of judges, the Supreme Court, and very likely the next election too.

That’s the reality.

What does that have to do with the reality of the topic of the thread? That's what's scary to you, apparently. 180

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by CaptMurdock

Could it not have been because those two examples were cases of Political Butt-Hurt?


Apple or lemon meringue?

....

That's true, but they are the only examples we have.

Blueberry, please. 181

[El_Kabong]

Originally Posted by AK84

So it turns out to be a nothing-burger. Or a status-quo burger. Enough for the Democrats to pounce. Not enough for the GOP to be compelled to abandon Trump.

What’s for dinner?

Crow?

Just kidding.

Anyway, did I read the transcript right? In it, I seemed to read Trump asking the Ukraine to investigate his own former Ambassador, Marie Louise Yovanovitch. Perhaps I got that wrong. 182

[Dale Sams]

Originally Posted by Annoyed

If you guys had so much support and backing you wouldn’t of lost the election, hundreds of judges, the Supreme Court, and very likely the next election too.

That’s the reality.

Let me get this straight...a right-wing poster is employing the "I felt threatened tactic"? 183

[Buck Godot]

Originally Posted by Annoyed

What’s absolutely evident from the transcript is that there was no quid pro quo, and that means no smoking gun, like was overbearingly pushed by the Dems and the basis of their whole “inquiry”.

So we got Trump segueing immediately from what I can to do help Ukraine into, you need to manufacture a scandal on my political opponent, but no quid pro quo.

I assume that when you see movies where a mob boss segues from telling a deadbeat to pay him the money he owes into asking how his daughter is enjoying her new elementary school, you think that he's just being friendly. 184

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by Annoyed

I don’t think any of them have what it takes to beat trump, especially face to face. That’s the tough thing about him, he always shoots from the hip, unrehearsed. His points are genuine, his insults raw. Everyone else is rehearsed, talking points, non-genuine political babble.

Can you not at least accept the possibility that Trump is an aberration? That in fact, someone like him is so rare in modern American politics that it just might not work the second time around. You have to go back to the 19th century to find such insults that Trump spews out being used on a regular basis in presidential elections. And this is in addition to your false assumption that is points are "genuine". They are in fact bullshit most of the time. Have you not heard and seen the same rallies as I have? 185

[Dale Sams]

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead

Regarding impeachment helping or harming Trump, and what I said in post #128, I just saw this Politico article, which is about a poll showing a lack of support for impeachment. Typical of articles like this, it says nothing about how an impeachment would actually affect the respondents' votes, and nothing about why some don't support it. I once made a half-facetious comment to a friend that a big reason that it's not supported may be that people don't want it to screw up their TV viewing. And also, giving the horrendously low opinion that people have of Congress, they're sick of them all already, and can't stomach the idea of having to hear about impeachment from them day in and day out. I read the whole poll, and nothing address the why of it all. I would guess that one reason such questions aren't asked is that not just the impeachment process itself is enough for one to know how it would affect their vote. Obviously, what comes out in the process is of utmost importance, so why ask a hypothetical? So again, I do not think it's a given that impeachment hearings, etc, are going to help Trump.

This isn't 1974 or even 1996 (whenever it was). This isn't messing up anyones TV viewing habits. Except maybe those who are on their last piece of straw with late-night talk hosts. 186

[Aspenglow]

Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue

At this point I don’t think Biden is the best 2020 candidate. The whole tone of this Ukraine thing seems like it will play out more like Clinton with the emails rather than Obama and the birth certificate or Warren and her Native American heritage or lack thereof.

IMHO, You're playing straight into Trump Republicans' hands, if you believe that about Biden.

They're not going to go after Warren on Native American heritage. They're going to paint her as a SOCIALIST!! SOCIALIST!! SOCIALIST!!!

As I heard it said yesterday, most American oligarchs, Trump voters and soft independents will vote for a sociopath over a "socialist." That will give Trump the win.

I think this is true. 187

[ThelmaLou]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Not groking the arithmetic behind the idea that impeachment is guaranteed to put Trump back in office. ...

Precisely because of the kind of thinking illustrated PERFECTLY in Annoyed's posts:

Originally Posted by Annoyed

Well, considering most of what you write here is vox/buzzfeed style “journalism” and speculation, based on absolutely zero evidence whatsoever, yeah, all is well.

What’s absolutely evident from the transcript is that there was no quid pro quo, and that means no smoking gun, like was overbearingly pushed by the Dems and the basis of their whole “inquiry”.

So at best the left got their week long news cycle, and egg in their face, and most people still won’t support impeachment.

At worst (or best for me) they keep pushing it and inadvertently reveal some nasty Biden dirt, pushing the lefts best chance out the window.

So, yeah.

Originally Posted by Annoyed

I don’t think any of them have what it takes to beat trump, especially face to face. That’s the tough thing about him, he always shoots from the hip, unrehearsed. His points are genuine, his insults raw. Everyone else is rehearsed, talking points, non-genuine political babble.

Originally Posted by Annoyed

If you guys had so much support and backing you wouldn’t of lost the election, hundreds of judges, the Supreme Court, and very likely the next election too.

That’s the reality.

The question is, how prevalent is this misguided refusal to see reality among voters? 188

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Not groking the arithmetic behind the idea that impeachment is guaranteed to put Trump back in office.

It's the notion that there can be no legitimate, country-before-party reason to do it, which is based on the Republicans' own reason for doing it to Clinton. Their own impeachment effort failed and backfired because it was based on spite - they first decided to do it and then looked for a justification. They can't conceive that anyone could have higher and more responsible motivations than themselves, because they can't conceive of what they might be.

So, this impeachment effort has to be exactly the same thing, right? This is just retaliation for Clinton, right? Both sides do it, right? Well, for a good part of the electorate, that is right. 189

[FlikTheBlue]

Originally Posted by Aspenglow

IMHO, You're playing straight into Trump Republicans' hands, if you believe that about Biden.

They're not going to go after Warren on Native American heritage. They're going to paint her as a SOCIALIST!! SOCIALIST!! SOCIALIST!!!

As I heard it said yesterday, most American oligarchs, Trump voters and soft independents will vote for a sociopath over a "socialist." That will give Trump the win.

I think this is true.

In which case we have Buttigieg and Harris as the mainstream alternates to Biden. I think either one of them would do better in a general election against Trump than Biden would, and not just because of Ukraine. 190

[JohnT]

Yeah, but it's not like the quoted poster was wavering, so not too sure that proves DrDeth's point. 191

[Euphonious Polemic]

What is glaringly obvious is that there is a segment of the population that would be OK with Trump doing anything. I mean ANYthing.

Trump could go on Fox News with his underpants on his head and declare himself dictator for life. And this group would argue that this is a good plan, and we should simply do what Trump says. They would do so in all sincerity.

Trump could declare that Vladimir Putin is the new head of the NSA. And this group would agree, and tell any detractors that they were bad citizens for not approving the president's incredibly wise move.

They are unreachable. Completely impervious to logic, facts and reality. If you tell them to face reality, they become confused, and take this as some kind of threat. 192

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by Dale Sams

This isn't 1974 or even 1996 (whenever it was). This isn't messing up anyones TV viewing habits. Except maybe those who are on their last piece of straw with late-night talk hosts.

Well, sure. Hence the half-facetious description of my remark. The point is simply that there could be many reasons why someone doesn't want an impeachment process to begin, and that you can't draw conclusions that the person being impeached will necessarily be helped by it. Since no reason for why someone is against it is never offered. 193

[FlikTheBlue]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

It's the notion that there can be no legitimate, country-before-party reason to do it, which is based on the Republicans' own reason for doing it to Clinton. Their own impeachment effort failed and backfired because it was based on spite - they first decided to do it and then looked for a justification. They can't conceive that anyone could have higher and more responsible motivations than themselves, because they can't conceive of what they might be.

So, this impeachment effort has to be exactly the same thing, right? This is just retaliation for Clinton, right? Both sides do it, right? Well, for a good part of the electorate, that is right.

Not to pick on you specifically, since a few others have mentioned this I in this thread as well. How exactly did Clinton’s impeachment backfire? Gore lost in 2000. 194

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by Annoyed

If you guys had so much support and backing you wouldn’t of lost the election, hundreds of judges, the Supreme Court, and very likely the next election too.

That’s the reality.

If you guys had so much support you wouldn't need Russian assistance, Ukrainian assistance, voter suppression and purges, gerrymandering, dirty NRA money etc to squeak out a victory based on a few tens of thousands of votes in 3 states. And you still lost by 3 MILLION votes. 3,000,000 votes.

If what you say is true, then lets have a true open election, no interference, no shenanigans, everybody votes, every vote counts. Let's do that and see how badly your side gets trounced. Unless you are willing to do that, you should go ahead and shut up about the last election and the things your side stole as a result. 195

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by Annoyed

Except you didn’t say that did you. You said the quicker I accept your reality the less painful it will be.

That sounds like a threat.

Not my reality. The actual reality. The one we really live in. Not the fevered delusional one marketed by the right wing media that is based on fear and hatred and falsities. 196

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by Aspenglow

As I heard it said yesterday, most American oligarchs, Trump voters and soft independents will vote for a sociopath over a "socialist." That will give Trump the win.

I don't disagree with this. But (excluding independents, because I don't know exactly what that means) they would also vote for him over a perfectly reasonable Democrat. 197

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue

How exactly did Clinton’s impeachment backfire? Gore lost in 2000.

Not to rehash that hijack of an election, but no, he didn't. 198

[Euphonious Polemic]

In some people's minds, "reality" can be anything you want it to be. Don't like something? Just quote some "alternative facts" 199

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

Clinton getting a blowjob in his office is minor.

Maybe but
1) Sexual relations with an intern is not. Most CEOs would be fired for the same behavior.
2) The articles of impeachment was not about sex, but rather perjury to a grand jury. The same thing that got Judge Nixon convicted a decade before.

But thank you for the great example of a strawman fallacy. 200