Maybe I’m missing your point but the poll HD was citing was asking Western Europeans for their opinion of the President not of America as a whole. It showed that Western Europeans had a much higher opinion of Obama than they had of Bush or Trump.
Ahem…from wiki
Though I’m sure HD doesn’t G any F’s about non American unpeople.
This combined with post #45 is not appropriate for this forum. This is a warning for personal insults.
[/moderating]
Putin was worried that Hillary Clinton would succeed in strengthening NATO alliances and pulling Ukraine and other traditionally Eastern Bloc states away from Russia. More specifically, he was worried that Clinton would succeed in leading global efforts to sanction Russia’s kleptocratic oligarchs through the enforcement and spread of Magnitsky Act type laws around the world, which would effective limit the oligarchs’ ability to stash money away in other countries. A related concern is that American influence could reach the Russian street and lead to an anti-Putin uprising.
Putin’s response has been to reassert Russian power and disrupt American influence abroad, but he has also dared to do what other competitors, including China, haven’t dared to: he has openly tried to destabilize the United States internally. I mean, one could argue that China has but not to the extent or so brazenly as Russia has; the Chinese have been more subtle. But Putin’s attempt to tilt the election was its way of sowing discord, which was really the true goal. Most Russians, like most Americans, were expecting Hillary to win the election. They realistically hoped that they could make it so that Hillary was so politically poisoned that she couldn’t accomplish anything, and that Americans would spend more time fighting itself than fighting Russia. When Trump actually won the election, Putin succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.
But understand something: Russian involvement in American politics is far deeper than what has been acknowledged to this point. They clearly formed a trans-Atlantic oligarchal/plutocratic alliance and the Republican party and conservative grassroots organizations are effectively their political partners. We knew that Russian oligarchs didn’t like working with Obama and didn’t want to work with Hillary Clinton for the same reason, but they assumed they would have to. Particularly over the past decade, the Russian oligarchs, like the American oligarchs, have seen any democratic-type party as a threat to their interests. They have a mutual interest in crushing institutionalized democracy, and that is why their partnership will only grow stronger.
EU opinions of America caused the troop deaths in Iraq? Do you have a theory linking the two?
If it really is 43%, it doesn’t bode well for the future of the nation. If only 1/4 of SenorBeef’s excellent post was accurate (and I think 100% is accurate), then there should not be one person in the US who would object to Donald’s immediate impeachment, conviction, indictment, trial, conviction, and sentencing to either life in prison or death.
When I said that something like 35% of people in America think he’s doing a fine job, I was referring to his hardcore base. There are additionally some Republicans who don’t think all the chaos and corruption is so great, but like the tax cut and the economy is doing OK, so they tell pollsters that they approve.
But if you want to make the point that 43% (or 51%) approve of him, that just makes my original point even more disturbing. The fact that he’s OK with encouraging a hostile foreign power to fuck with our elections, and 43% of people still approve, is even more outrageous that if it were just 35%.
I didn’t actually read his poll. I was referring to polls I’ve seen from PEW myself. I’m totally un-surprised that Obama had a higher approval rating than Bush or Trump. I’m sure Clinton did too. But those sorts of popularity polls are fairly meaningless when it comes to foreign policy and international relations between allies. It doesn’t, in the end, matter if German’s dislike Trump and, by extension, have a worse (short term) opinion of the US, just like it doesn’t matter of Americans have a (short term) disapproval of France and want to call french fries Freedom Fries! instead. You have to look at the policy level, and at that level things really haven’t changed between the US and our allies over many administrations. There are sore spots and sensitive spots, there are some things hit on by politicians wanting to score points with their voters and against another ally, but fundamentally, I don’t think anything has changed…nor do I expect it too. Trump has said a lot of shit about NATO, for instance…have we pulled out? Have we dropped any support for it? Are we putting things in place TOO do so? Answer…no. It was all talk. And the issue with their funding spans multiple administrations and multiple parties and almost 2 decades. Clinton brought it up…as did Bush II…as did Obama…as has Trump. Trump has been the most vocal and ridiculous, but it has been a issue for a long time. And yet…the US hasn’t really changed it’s stance at all.
And yet here we are, with a whole bunch of people objecting to “immediate impeachment”. Does that mean SenorBeef’s post wasn’t even 1/4 accurate? Or perhaps your idea of what constitutes an impeachable offense isn’t as popular as you’d like it to be?
But that’s the thing: many of his supporters probably don’t view Russia as a hostile foreign nation; they view Russia as its own country with its own interests, just like we’re our own country with our own interests. But where Trump is concerned, they see Putin as…“helping” America – their America.
Perhaps the deeper, underlying problem here is that progressives and conservatives disagree to the point of toxicity over what America really is, and how to define it, and what our true interests really are as a country.
I wouldn’t expect conservatives to see it any other way than they have for that reason - Putin’s Russia is their friend, not their enemy. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and liberals are their real enemies, afflicting the country like a pestilence. Many of these people will eventually find out the hard way that once their fortunes turn for the worst, they will either be shameless exploited, or they will become the enemy just like the liberals are now. Like most oligarchal factions, they rely on pacification and compliance of the ignorant masses of idiots who think they have a lot in common.
What I’m saying is that I think SenorBeef’s posts are 100% accurate. But even if only 1/4 of it was true, then even that should be enough to convince every single American that Donald has no business being in the White House and indeed should be imprisoned. I think the only legitimate debate about DJT should be whether he deserves death or life in prison.
I think it’s that there is a significant number of Americans (including, apparently, a significant number of people in Congress) who both believe that:
- Trump has committed one or more impeachable offenses
- actually conducting impeachment proceedings are somewhere between a quixotic endeavor (since it’s highly unlikely that the Senate would convict him) and just a year-long red-meat rallying cry for Trump to use to mobilize his base
The two beliefs aren’t mutually exclusive.
Sure. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is Nancy Pelosi’s belief about things, to offer one prominent example.
I think there’s a lot of truth to this.
Well, I think there are serious flaws in Seniorbeef’s post, though obviously many in this thread loved it. That said, I don’t think the fact that Trump hasn’t (yet) been impeached or impeachment hasn’t (yet) been started doesn’t mean that a lot of people don’t think it should. Right now, I don’t think there is sufficient evidence to make the Democratic establishment commit to all of the pain that pulling the trigger on such an action would entail. There might never be. That doesn’t mean that Trump is innocent though, it simply means that the political costs are judged too high by those making the call. With the 2020 election on the line, it might be the smart move to focus on that.
Sure, but that illustrates perfectly that impeachment is just a political machination, having very little to do with the actual guilt or innocence of the person being impeached. It would be an exercise of political power, not a fact-finding effort.
What about the rest of it, HD?
It doesn’t show anything of the sort, in and of itself. Often prosecutors will not press charges because there is insufficient data or evidence to convict…this doesn’t mean that the person under suspicion is not guilty, however.
Impeachment, of course, IS a political process. And it is done in the context of the political realities of the system we use. Currently, there doesn’t seem to be sufficient evidence for the Democratic establishment to feel confident they could pull the trigger on impeachment and not have it blow back on them with respect to the 2020 election. Also, it would pretty obviously detract from that election. So, a call seems to have been made to wait and see if anything else comes up that will make it more viable to do so, of if the focus should be on the 2020 election and getting rid of Trump through the process.
So if there’s authentic, videotaped evidence of Trump raping and murdering someone and the congress decides that it’s time to impeach him, impeachment in such a case is nothing more than a political machination?
FTR, I’m not saying that there is such evidence or that even as odious as Trump he is that he’s capable of such a crime - just a hypothetical.
I don’t think the other two paragraphs got much right, but you are obviously entitled to your own opinion on this or any other matter.