That’s true, but they are the only examples we have.
Blueberry, please. 
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.
Let me get this straight…a right-wing poster is employing the “I felt threatened tactic”?
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.
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?
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.
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.
**Precisely **because of the kind of thinking illustrated PERFECTLY in Annoyed’s posts:
The question is, how prevalent is this misguided refusal to see reality among voters?
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.
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.
Yeah, but it’s not like the quoted poster was wavering, so not too sure that proves DrDeth’s point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not to rehash *that *hijack of an election, but no, he didn’t.
In some people’s minds, “reality” can be anything you want it to be. Don’t like something? Just quote some “alternative facts”
Maybe but
- Sexual relations with an intern is not. Most CEOs would be fired for the same behavior.
- 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.