I feel like I already answered that, Post #53
Then I was asked a hypothetical that included emails between Stone and Assange, with nothing else, and I elaborated that these hypotheticals would necessarily require all the details I would require in a real-life situation.
Right. :rolleyes: That’s the ticket.
Nah, they just know they can’t justify or explain him and they’re embarrassed. That’s why they never come forward with rational arguments–there aren’t any.
I’m inclined to believe the opposite, that the Trump-Russia proponent crowd has gone all in on seven deuce offsuit because they thought they saw their opponents cards, but it was just a reflection. But Mueller is still doing his work, so what do I know?
I dunno. Thus far it’s been a fool’s errand to call the bottom of how far the MAGA-bots will go. And not just the MAGA-bots… the Never-Trumpers and the “independents” the “enlightened centrists” have been heavy on boot-licking and light on pushback for the entire Trump administration. As long as Trump keeps poking at liberals, someone on this board will keep saying “Oh, he’s so disgusting, he sold us out to the Russians, I definitely don’t support him. But the liberals would be even worse!”
More than half our country has no adult concept of “bad” or “worse” when it comes to politics.
Galluphas Trump at 89% approval among Republicans.
If this doesn’t show that “most” Republicans are Trumpists, then, to borrow a phrase, would anything convince you that most Republicans are Trumpists?
Wrong.
His voters know Trump is corrupt as hell; they rationalize their vote by telling themselves that everyone is just as corrupt.
The only thing that will bring Trump down is his sheer incompetence and having everyone feel the consequences of it. Discussion over.
Economic collapse.
That is the only thing that will convince them they’re wrong, and even then, they won’t be wrong; they’ll just be kinda not right.
Excuse my skepticism, but this appears to me to be a conscious desire the keep the goal posts fluid. Such that one can always say "Oh yes I would definitely support his removal from office if there was enough evidence " But leaving the required evidence always at least one step beyond what exists. "“Yes there is a signed agreement between Trump and Putin to sell the Ukraine for a license to build a Casino in Moscow, but are you sure that’s his signature?” Suggesting that in the end there is no evidence that would convince rank and file Republicans to see him as unfit for office.
Fair’nough.
You stated you’d be in favor of impeachment if coordinated Trump-Russian election medling was proved.
To which BG asked you about both your take on some non-smoking-gun hypotheticals and your definition of “proof of cooperation”.
So, rather than sayging “well, that depends…” and then throwing up a bunch of what look like hypothetical excuses to some hypothetical examples, just tell us plainly what evidence you would be likely to accept.
Right. But what we’ve seen repeatedly with the Republican party is strong talk of the importance of principals when criticizing the previous administration, followed by obfuscation and excuses when the current president does everything and worse than what they criticized the last president for.
So, based on your principals, give us some clear examples of what you would consider impeachable.
So then what would it take?
Draw a line in the sand.
Put a pin in the board.
Tell us what non-negotiable sin would make you support impeachment of Trump.
That is depressingly high and pretty darn convincing.
It at least shows that when asked, nearly one in ten Republicans are willing to say they approve of their party’s elected leader, for whatever reason.
I don’t think that necessarily makes them all Trumpists. Some of 'em may just be stuborn partisanists. But maybe that’s not a distinction worth making.
Oh, well, in that case. . .
But if they act like it anyway, so what? Yes, some Republican pols are revolted at the guy, but they know their own voter bases support him anyway out of their shared deplorability, so they don’t dare express even the slightest misgivings.
It’s a funny sort of poker game, in that we can’t see our own cards (Mueller has them stapled to his chest), but we have seen what our opponent is holding, and that’s where the seven-deuce is. No, we don’t know that Trump himself coordinated with the Russians… but we do know that just about everyone close to him, including his campaign manager, his personal lawyer, his son-in-law, and his son did.
As for Republicans supporting Trump, I suspect that most of it is “Well, he’s a terrible horrible person, but at least he’s naming pro-life judges to the Supreme Court, and that’s all that matters”. Because they for some reason believe that the people he’s nominating are pro-life, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.
Confused.
The question of the thread is what would it take to get those who support him, or at least express such support, to no longer do so, to even support impeachment/conviction.
It wouldn’t be a question of any meaning if they didn’t support him now.
And let’s be fair. For most of Obama’s course he ran 80 to 90% approval in Gallup among self-identified Democrats (and around 10% among self-identified Republicans). Not so different than Trump in that sense. Did that make those 90% either “Obamaists” or “stubborn partisans”?
No, they’re Trumpists. The non-Trumpists are leaving the party, which leaves the remaining Republicans…Trumpists.
Hannity commenting on the economic collapse: “OK, our country turned into a smoking crater, but it’s not our fault because the Democrats gave us no good alternative to Trump. Besides, we all know Hillary would have made a bigger smoking crater. Plus the new Crater-circuit judges are said to be very strict constitutional originalists, so there’s that”.
The only thing they’d impeach for is if he literally switched to being a Democrat, and tried to appoint an all-Democratic cabinet and Democratic judges. Otherwise the Republicans will never, ever vote to impeach him. Not for murder, genocide, treason, nothing.
Yeah, I find these threads interesting, people saying, “Well if there’s convincing evidence that he actually committed a crime, then of course he should be impeached.”
Isn’t obstruction of justice a crime? Trump has fired the head of the FBI in order to interfere with a lawful investigation into his own campaign; he’s fired the head of the justice department for the same reason, after spending well over a year denigrating him for recusing himself from the investigation; he’s publicly attacked his own investigative agencies for their role in the investigation; he’s praised those who refuse to cooperate with federal investigators, and castigated those don’t.
This is all obstruction of justice. It’s a crime, Trump has committed it, and it’s all public. So I don’t buy this notion that any additional evidence of criminal deeds would change anyone’s mind.
Pam Bondi the Florida DA and Trump are also guilty of Graft/Bribery and obstruction. Bondi was looking into his fraud university for criminal charges and Trump donated 25k to her re-election. Interestingly, Bondi dropped the investigation after receiving the ‘donation’. And there is the little matter of the money coming out of the Trump foundation.
You can’t swing a dead cat without finding crimes. The goal posts will be on the moon before Trumpists consider impeachment.
I don’t. I was being cute.
There’s wasn’t, that was kind of the point. Poor satire.