The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[TakeYouToTasker]

18 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

(Side note: there's no Constitutional requirement for the House to send "impeachment managers" to the Senate.  Personally, I'd argue that they're unconstitutional, and I can't find a legal basis beyond "That's how we impeached Clinton" for McConnell accepting them.)

I was going to comment about this.

 

This is correct, there is no Constitutional requirement that the Senate wait for the House to advance Their impeachment managers, or to even allow them should the House advance them.
 

I’m not even sure that the Senate, if it desired, is precluded from beginning a trial without having received the Articles from the House, given that they are publicly available, and the Senate could simply retrieve them.

[row_33]

9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I was going to comment about this.

 

This is correct, there is no Constitutional requirement that the Senate wait for the House to advance Their impeachment managers, or to even allow them should the House advance them.
 

I’m not even sure that the Senate, if it desired, is precluded from beginning a trial without having received the Articles from the House, given that they are publicly available, and the Senate could simply retrieve them.

 

the Senate began before the House voted on impeachment for Nixon

 

Sam Irvin was the mainstay face of the whole matter, that was the Senate.

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

.

Edited December 24, 2019 by B-Man

[Deranged Rhino]

https://mobile.twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/1209610952863186944

[/dev/null]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/1209610952863186944

The man they called Jayne

[/dev/null]

On 12/23/2019 at 3:54 PM, DC Tom said:

 

You can't spell "Maximilien Robespierre" without P-E-L-O-S-I.

You really need to start using imgflip

 

[Capco]

Copy/Pasted from another forum.  

 

=========

It’s like a new age of self interest. Where once we held our leaders to high standards of personal excellence, articulated through public performance and verbal expression of ideals we ourselves might not feel we could achieve, the new desire is to have leaders who are as weak as ourselves because it comforts our desire to feel we’re as good as they are in not achieving lofty goals of excellence.

 

This fits perfectly with the meteoric rise of social media in reinforcing the authority the general public grants to having an opinion. It’s no longer that holding any view requires we arm that perspective with fact and understanding. Simply having an opinion is enough even if one is completely ignorant of the source and knowledge of the subject matter at hand. The hand in hand rise of false information masquerading as fact and the lack of desire to dispute it for further evolution of our opinion (and perhaps the DESIRE to change it in light of new information) perfectly aligns with our satisfaction at reinforcing our tribal comfort.

 

Lackluster standards of leadership are like comfort food, easy to adopt and not taxing on our already highly stressed lives. In fact the exact opposite is true: lackluster standards reduce stress by demanding less of us. Hard work and due diligence requires effort. High standards of excellence in leadership promotes more effort on behalf of its followers to mimic the same.

 

Screw that. I can be average (or worse) and content in that existence and happily secure in my self satisfaction because my leader (the highest office of leadership my nation presents) is a shining example of it’s sufficiency. This is the magic of smugness, the total comfort and satisfaction at being good enough without any need to recognize that perhaps I might be wrong or could improve more. “Haters gonna hate” grew out of this sense. It now serves as justification to see criticism as a quality to be ignored, rather than analysed. Self satisfaction is a badge of how right you are.

 

Trump is perhaps the pinnacle of achievement in how obviously desirable this mindset is for those that want to feel that reinforcement of their self absorbed nature is a good thing. They don’t have to try hard to be a shining example of great leadership and excellence in seeking more idealistic standards of comportment simply because the highest standard of leadership has been lowered to a point where not seeking such things is a more successful standard of behavior than working to achieve them is.

 

It’s a pretty much “done to death” meme but Idiocracy is only moving from black comedy to documentary because it voiced a human condition we find it difficult to avoid. If no effort gets results then nobody will bother making any effort.

 

If the President of the United States of America can be a lackluster piece of garbage in terms of intellect, due diligence, compassion, and comportment, then me being much the same is clearly good enough.

 

This is the secret of his power over the electorate, and it’s frightening (to me) in some degree how fast it has become the de facto state of affairs with respect to perpetuating such low standards as ideals for the population to worship.

 

Trump is not the real problem … the real problem is that he represents the general state of the population that believes he’s a good example. If Trump is an unspectacular leader then we are an unspectacular people holding him up in that office.

 

Being unspectacular is much easier than being great. Mediocrity is like fast food. Easy, easy, easy.

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, Capco said:

Copy/Pasted from another forum.  

 

=========

It’s like a new age of self interest. Where once we held our leaders to high standards of personal excellence, articulated through public performance and verbal expression of ideals we ourselves might not feel we could achieve, the new desire is to have leaders who are as weak as ourselves because it comforts our desire to feel we’re as good as they are in not achieving lofty goals of excellence.

 

This fits perfectly with the meteoric rise of social media in reinforcing the authority the general public grants to having an opinion. It’s no longer that holding any view requires we arm that perspective with fact and understanding. Simply having an opinion is enough even if one is completely ignorant of the source and knowledge of the subject matter at hand. The hand in hand rise of false information masquerading as fact and the lack of desire to dispute it for further evolution of our opinion (and perhaps the DESIRE to change it in light of new information) perfectly aligns with our satisfaction at reinforcing our tribal comfort.

 

Lackluster standards of leadership are like comfort food, easy to adopt and not taxing on our already highly stressed lives. In fact the exact opposite is true: lackluster standards reduce stress by demanding less of us. Hard work and due diligence requires effort. High standards of excellence in leadership promotes more effort on behalf of its followers to mimic the same.

 

Screw that. I can be average (or worse) and content in that existence and happily secure in my self satisfaction because my leader (the highest office of leadership my nation presents) is a shining example of it’s sufficiency. This is the magic of smugness, the total comfort and satisfaction at being good enough without any need to recognize that perhaps I might be wrong or could improve more. “Haters gonna hate” grew out of this sense. It now serves as justification to see criticism as a quality to be ignored, rather than analysed. Self satisfaction is a badge of how right you are.

 

Trump is perhaps the pinnacle of achievement in how obviously desirable this mindset is for those that want to feel that reinforcement of their self absorbed nature is a good thing. They don’t have to try hard to be a shining example of great leadership and excellence in seeking more idealistic standards of comportment simply because the highest standard of leadership has been lowered to a point where not seeking such things is a more successful standard of behavior than working to achieve them is.

 

It’s a pretty much “done to death” meme but Idiocracy is only moving from black comedy to documentary because it voiced a human condition we find it difficult to avoid. If no effort gets results then nobody will bother making any effort.

 

If the President of the United States of America can be a lackluster piece of garbage in terms of intellect, due diligence, compassion, and comportment, then me being much the same is clearly good enough.

 

This is the secret of his power over the electorate, and it’s frightening (to me) in some degree how fast it has become the de facto state of affairs with respect to perpetuating such low standards as ideals for the population to worship.

 

Trump is not the real problem … the real problem is that he represents the general state of the population that believes he’s a good example. If Trump is an unspectacular leader then we are an unspectacular people holding him up in that office.

 

Being unspectacular is much easier than being great. Mediocrity is like fast food. Easy, easy, easy.

Yes.  We need to worship government leaders and pretend they are perfect.

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, Capco said:

Copy/Pasted from another forum.  

 

=========

It’s like a new age of self interest. Where once we held our leaders to high standards of personal excellence, articulated through public performance and verbal expression of ideals we ourselves might not feel we could achieve, the new desire is to have leaders who are as weak as ourselves because it comforts our desire to feel we’re as good as they are in not achieving lofty goals of excellence.

 

This fits perfectly with the meteoric rise of social media in reinforcing the authority the general public grants to having an opinion. It’s no longer that holding any view requires we arm that perspective with fact and understanding. Simply having an opinion is enough even if one is completely ignorant of the source and knowledge of the subject matter at hand. The hand in hand rise of false information masquerading as fact and the lack of desire to dispute it for further evolution of our opinion (and perhaps the DESIRE to change it in light of new information) perfectly aligns with our satisfaction at reinforcing our tribal comfort.

 

Lackluster standards of leadership are like comfort food, easy to adopt and not taxing on our already highly stressed lives. In fact the exact opposite is true: lackluster standards reduce stress by demanding less of us. Hard work and due diligence requires effort. High standards of excellence in leadership promotes more effort on behalf of its followers to mimic the same.

 

Screw that. I can be average (or worse) and content in that existence and happily secure in my self satisfaction because my leader (the highest office of leadership my nation presents) is a shining example of it’s sufficiency. This is the magic of smugness, the total comfort and satisfaction at being good enough without any need to recognize that perhaps I might be wrong or could improve more. “Haters gonna hate” grew out of this sense. It now serves as justification to see criticism as a quality to be ignored, rather than analysed. Self satisfaction is a badge of how right you are.

 

Trump is perhaps the pinnacle of achievement in how obviously desirable this mindset is for those that want to feel that reinforcement of their self absorbed nature is a good thing. They don’t have to try hard to be a shining example of great leadership and excellence in seeking more idealistic standards of comportment simply because the highest standard of leadership has been lowered to a point where not seeking such things is a more successful standard of behavior than working to achieve them is.

 

It’s a pretty much “done to death” meme but Idiocracy is only moving from black comedy to documentary because it voiced a human condition we find it difficult to avoid. If no effort gets results then nobody will bother making any effort.

 

If the President of the United States of America can be a lackluster piece of garbage in terms of intellect, due diligence, compassion, and comportment, then me being much the same is clearly good enough.

 

This is the secret of his power over the electorate, and it’s frightening (to me) in some degree how fast it has become the de facto state of affairs with respect to perpetuating such low standards as ideals for the population to worship.

 

Trump is not the real problem … the real problem is that he represents the general state of the population that believes he’s a good example. If Trump is an unspectacular leader then we are an unspectacular people holding him up in that office.

 

Being unspectacular is much easier than being great. Mediocrity is like fast food. Easy, easy, easy.

 

Whoever wrote that has serious mental health issues.

[LSHMEAB]

6 hours ago, Capco said:

Copy/Pasted from another forum.  

 

=========

It’s like a new age of self interest. Where once we held our leaders to high standards of personal excellence, articulated through public performance and verbal expression of ideals we ourselves might not feel we could achieve, the new desire is to have leaders who are as weak as ourselves because it comforts our desire to feel we’re as good as they are in not achieving lofty goals of excellence.

 

This fits perfectly with the meteoric rise of social media in reinforcing the authority the general public grants to having an opinion. It’s no longer that holding any view requires we arm that perspective with fact and understanding. Simply having an opinion is enough even if one is completely ignorant of the source and knowledge of the subject matter at hand. The hand in hand rise of false information masquerading as fact and the lack of desire to dispute it for further evolution of our opinion (and perhaps the DESIRE to change it in light of new information) perfectly aligns with our satisfaction at reinforcing our tribal comfort.

 

Lackluster standards of leadership are like comfort food, easy to adopt and not taxing on our already highly stressed lives. In fact the exact opposite is true: lackluster standards reduce stress by demanding less of us. Hard work and due diligence requires effort. High standards of excellence in leadership promotes more effort on behalf of its followers to mimic the same.

 

Screw that. I can be average (or worse) and content in that existence and happily secure in my self satisfaction because my leader (the highest office of leadership my nation presents) is a shining example of it’s sufficiency. This is the magic of smugness, the total comfort and satisfaction at being good enough without any need to recognize that perhaps I might be wrong or could improve more. “Haters gonna hate” grew out of this sense. It now serves as justification to see criticism as a quality to be ignored, rather than analysed. Self satisfaction is a badge of how right you are.

 

Trump is perhaps the pinnacle of achievement in how obviously desirable this mindset is for those that want to feel that reinforcement of their self absorbed nature is a good thing. They don’t have to try hard to be a shining example of great leadership and excellence in seeking more idealistic standards of comportment simply because the highest standard of leadership has been lowered to a point where not seeking such things is a more successful standard of behavior than working to achieve them is.

 

It’s a pretty much “done to death” meme but Idiocracy is only moving from black comedy to documentary because it voiced a human condition we find it difficult to avoid. If no effort gets results then nobody will bother making any effort.

 

If the President of the United States of America can be a lackluster piece of garbage in terms of intellect, due diligence, compassion, and comportment, then me being much the same is clearly good enough.

 

This is the secret of his power over the electorate, and it’s frightening (to me) in some degree how fast it has become the de facto state of affairs with respect to perpetuating such low standards as ideals for the population to worship.

 

Trump is not the real problem … the real problem is that he represents the general state of the population that believes he’s a good example. If Trump is an unspectacular leader then we are an unspectacular people holding him up in that office.

 

Being unspectacular is much easier than being great. Mediocrity is like fast food. Easy, easy, easy.

This reads like a Mike Pence op-ed circa 1999 and methinks this post would have gone over pretty well. 

 

Whole political landscape has been turned upside down.

 

For the record, I don't care about Trump's character (although I think he's a...less than terrific human being) nor did I care about Bill Clinton's character. 

 

I care about the legislation a President signs off on or vetoes and that's about it. But the paradigm shift on the part of the GOP is pretty astounding.

[3rdnlng]

47 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

This reads like a Mike Pence op-ed circa 1999 and methinks this post would have gone over pretty well. 

 

Whole political landscape has been turned upside down.

 

For the record, I don't care about Trump's character (although I think he's a...less than terrific human being) nor did I care about Bill Clinton's character. 

 

I care about the legislation a President signs off on or vetoes and that's about it. But the paradigm shift on the part of the GOP is pretty astounding.

While I tend to agree with this, Leadership is absolutely paramount in achieving those goals. Trump has certainly led the way on items I agree with. Presidents in the past touted those same items but with lip service only while Trump not only made them his campaign promises but has taken appropriate action to fulfill them.

[LSHMEAB]

17 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

While I tend to agree with this, Leadership is absolutely paramount in achieving those goals. Trump has certainly led the way on items I agree with. Presidents in the past touted those same items but with lip service only while Trump not only made them his campaign promises but has taken appropriate action to fulfill them.

Biggest paradigm shift in terms of policy has been on trade. The GOP was all about free trade and international agreements. Trump is out there going full Bernie Sanders in his "unique" way and I actually LIKE it. We HAVE been screwed on trade and our greatest bargaining chip is our market. He's using that quite well. Lot's of policies I do not like, but this one; definitely approve.

 

Just pointing out that a world exists pre-Trump where trade wars would have been something trumpeted by the far left and decried by the right and this isn't the only example. 

 

Edit; I should distinguish GOP economists from the GOP in the broader sense. The notion of trade wars would have made their(economists) collective heads spin. OTOH, the Bernie Sanders crowd would have been applauding it as "fighting for the American worker," which is EXACTLY what we should be doing. I get it. Farmers are suffering and some junk at Wal Mart costs a little more. Big deal. They have a he@@ of a lot more to lose than we do, so continue to apply pressure.

Edited December 26, 2019 by LSHMEAB

[row_33]

10 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Biggest paradigm shift in terms of policy has been on trade. The GOP was all about free trade and international agreements. Trump is out there going full Bernie Sanders in his "unique" way and I actually LIKE it. We HAVE been screwed on trade and our greatest bargaining chip is our market. He's using that quite well. Lot's of policies I do not like, but this one; definitely approve.

 

Just pointing out that a world exists pre-Trump where trade wars would have been something trumpeted by the far left and decried by the right and this isn't the only example. 

Teump has squelched globalization, which seemed a runaway inevitability until he took office 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

6 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Biggest paradigm shift in terms of policy has been on trade. The GOP was all about free trade and international agreements. Trump is out there going full Bernie Sanders in his "unique" way and I actually LIKE it. We HAVE been screwed on trade and our greatest bargaining chip is our market. He's using that quite well. Lot's of policies I do not like, but this one; definitely approve.

 

Just pointing out that a world exists pre-Trump where trade wars would have been something trumpeted by the far left and decried by the right and this isn't the only example. 

Trump is being realistic. He is for free trade but realizes we can't be for it and allow other countries to not be for it. So he's come up with a doctrine called "Fair Trade". It's pretty simple, we'll happily do free trade with ya, but if you don't want to do that then we'll do "Fair Trade" instead. In other words we'll slap tariffs on your goods to equal that of the tariffs you impose on us. Tit for tat or quid pro quo. 

[LSHMEAB]

7 minutes ago, row_33 said:

Teump has squelched globalization, which seemed a runaway inevitability until he took office 

 

 

Right, because unfettered globalization would ultimately lead to a lower standing of living for AMERICAN workers. It's simple arithmetic. I just find it odd that I've been advocating for this approach for years and I wasn't alone WRT those of us on the left. Now, it's AWFUL! OTOH, the right spent many years lauding high moral character as a prerequisite for a leader. Now, not so much.

 

Guy has turned the whole political landscape upside down and the lines between D's and R's in terms of POLICY have become blurry.

[row_33]

6 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Right, because unfettered globalization would ultimately lead to a lower standing of living for AMERICAN workers. It's simple arithmetic. I just find it odd that I've been advocating for this approach for years and I wasn't alone WRT those of us on the left. Now, it's AWFUL! OTOH, the right spent many years lauding high moral character as a prerequisite for a leader. Now, not so much.

 

Guy has turned the whole political landscape upside down and the lines between D's and R's in terms of POLICY have become blurry.

every expert said he couldn’t win

 

and every expert had been wrong on basically everything since he won

 

this has been quite amusing and profitable 

[row_33]

To an earlier point, John Dean and Butterfield’s testimony were to the Senate committee.

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

7 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Right, because unfettered globalization would ultimately lead to a lower standing of living for AMERICAN workers. It's simple arithmetic. I just find it odd that I've been advocating for this approach for years and I wasn't alone WRT those of us on the left. Now, it's AWFUL! OTOH, the right spent many years lauding high moral character as a prerequisite for a leader. Now, not so much.

 

Guy has turned the whole political landscape upside down and the lines between D's and R's in terms of POLICY have become blurry.

 

Not everyone on the right has been pro-free-trade.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

8 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Right, because unfettered globalization would ultimately lead to a lower standing of living for AMERICAN workers. It's simple arithmetic. I just find it odd that I've been advocating for this approach for years and I wasn't alone WRT those of us on the left. Now, it's AWFUL! OTOH, the right spent many years lauding high moral character as a prerequisite for a leader. Now, not so much.

 

Guy has turned the whole political landscape upside down and the lines between D's and R's in terms of POLICY have become blurry.

The struggle you’re still having is assuming that there was ever any difference between the DNC and GOP establishment before Trump. They are the same in the end. 
 

And it’s the establishment of both sides of the aisle who were shown the door when Trump won. He’s not a “republican”, he forced out over 40 Congressmen from his own “party” in his first two years alone. 
 

This is war — but it’s not between the democrats and republicans. It’s between the people and the establishment (and all their control systems). The fact that the people are winning is what’s making the establishment freak the f out. 

[row_33]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

The struggle you’re still having is assuming that there was ever any difference between the DNC and GOP establishment before Trump. They are the same in the end. 
 

And it’s the establishment of both sides of the aisle who were shown the door when Trump won. He’s not a “republican”, he forced out over 40 Congressmen from his own “party” in his first two years alone. 
 

This is war — but it’s not between the democrats and republicans. It’s between the people and the establishment (and all their control systems). The fact that the people are winning is what’s making the establishment freak the f out. 

sorta, but that’s too pat an answer and telling us there is no diff ever can’t be taken seriously