The Goat Pen

"but he was peddling influence to get his son in a positive cash flow situation for a job he was not qualified for"

If that's proven he should be held to account. So far I haven't seen any evidence of this (besides Trump's dubious claims, somewhat along the lines of "lock her up" towards Hillary), and, as I said, you'd think if there was something there Trump's own Justice Dept. would've been on it like flies on shit. They've only had 3 years to get this done and so far zilch. As far as I know, there hasn't even been an investigation by Trump's own Justice Dept., much less an indictment, much less a conviction, and again, they've had 3 years. Kinda strange, don't you think? But hey, it he did it and it's proven he did, he should face the consequences, whatever the consequences of something like that are...

As far as the Ukrainian prosecutor, it was the our government's longstanding position (as well as everybody else in the EU) that the guy was corrupt and needed to go. It's not like Biden just came up with this idea to get rid of the guy all by himself, completely independent of any direction from anybody, completely at odds with what Obama, the State Dept. and the entire EU wanted, and certainly not for the sole or even main reason he was trying to make sure he son would keep getting paid by some Ukrainian company. It just defies all common sense that that's what happened. Was Biden guilty of braggadocio when he boasted about getting the guy fired? Well, yeah. But that's a far cry from him just going in there, unbeknownst to anybody and simply on his own volition and for the sole purpose of his son keeping his position with Burisma getting this guy fired. That's just fucking absurd...

But ma quid pro quo!

I dont know what all shenanigans went on with his son, but from what he said Biden did nothing that Trump didnt do...which was advance the diplomatic agenda of the President of the United States.

Well obviously the issue is whether you believe throwing shade at your main political rival is a legitimate diplomatic agenda, or even a diplomatic agenda whatsoever. It's pretty obvious to me that it's not, but I understand that some disagree...

" Was Biden guilty of braggadocio when he boasted about getting the guy fired?"

which is what prompted Trump to ask Ukraine to figure this out

and now that I know the Javelin Missile system was Bidens idea and was led by Biden against Obama's wishes, it makes perfect sense that Trump would hold that aid up

This wasn't quid pro quo for Trump, it was Trump questioning whether the Missile system was quid pro quo for Biden

aTm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:35 am I dont know what all shenanigans went on with his son, but from what he said Biden did nothing that Trump didnt do...which was advance the diplomatic agenda of the President of the United States.

In the current case, it was certainly advancing the diplomatic agenda of Russia. Not saying Trump was doing it at Putin's direction (not saying he wasn't, either), but irregardless, it was without a doubt exactly what Russia wanted to see "advanced"...

I'm not saying Trump doesn't fuck around and deserves a blast of shit

but I'm not going to hear how the Dems would go after Biden or Hillary for this stuff. Impeachment is a joke and worse, its sets a precedent from here on out where we lower the bar for impeachment on what should be a very very serious offense. From now on any time a president does something unpopular to the opposition, they are going to bring out the impeachment routine. Republicans and Dems. Hell, candidates are running AND getting elected on an impeachment platform , not governing, impeachment.

I'm not saying its right for Clinton to get impeached but damn, he was sticking a cigar in the vagina of an intern. That's some Epstein level stuff you know? I can understand why it happened even though its not treason level stuff.

But what Trump has done is just business as usual for politics and its maddening that its gone to this length to attack a sitting president.

moving away from Trump

I'm fascinated with Oberlin College and their lawsuit they lost.

I found a good interview with Bill Jacobson who started Legal Insurrection. Its a long interview but its really interesting when he talks about going to Vassar to discuss hate speech on campus and how they received him. He was branded a white supremacist for simply wanting to give a speech to kids on how important their first amendment rights are.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/11/11/ ... them-over/

"From now on any time a president does something unpopular to the opposition, they are going to bring out the impeachment routine."

I hope not and in fact doubt it. Dems didn't try to impeach Bush when they got control of the house in 2006 just to get revenge for the Clinton impeachment. And repubs never even hinted at impeaching Obama even though they they had massive majorities for most of his time in office, although in fairness Obama was squeaky clean in that regard. I think the dems really think Trump should be impeached based on what he's done. I certainly do. And hey, if some future repub congress wants to impeach a dem president just b/c they can, well, go ahead. It's their constitutional prerogative. I think the people will be able to discern if it's bogus or not and that will be reflected at the ballot box in short order.

Maybe it will be in this case, too, but I doubt it. But if that's the will of the people, so be it. I'm sure there are plenty of repub voters (probably some in here) who would've fully supported an Obama impeachment based on whatever. The House is just a reflection of whatever district they're from. Politics has become more and more like professional wrestling, I'm sure there are plenty of voters on both sides that would love to see the president of the other party impeached just b/c he's "the bad guy." That actually pleases the anarchist in me, the more foolish and trivial Congress and politics at the federal level prove themselves to be, the better I like it. But again, the foolishness of Congress is really just a reflection of the foolishness of the electorate. But I really do think Trump is corrupt and a crook and should be impeached....

"Its a long interview but its really interesting when he talks about going to Vassar to discuss hate speech on campus and how they received him. He was branded a white supremacist for simply wanting to give a speech to kids on how important their first amendment rights are."

I certainly include in the aforementioned foolishness the foolishness of our institutions of so-called higher education...

you don't agree that the bar for impeachment has been lowered?

I think this is way more serious than what Clinton got impeached for, so I guess I would have to say the bar has actually been raised...

I don't agree and Clinton was more than 20 years ago. I don't think thats even a valid reference point in the context of today's political environment.

Heh.....those insane democrats. How did some of these bozos get elected?

Waiting for the foolish dems to freak out over this.....

eCat wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 4:06 pm I don't agree and Clinton was more than 20 years ago. I don't think thats even a valid reference point in the context of today's political environment.

Come on man, 20 years is nothing. But seriously, you really think doinking an intern and lying about it is worse than strong-arming an ostensible ally for dirt on your main political opponent? I guess I already know the answer, but I ask it anyway...

Right on cue, Trump is fixin to get impeached, so magically a trade deal is reached with China. Just a coincidence, I'm sure, Trump would never manipulate markets for personal political gain, no way...

hedge wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 5:06 pm

eCat wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 4:06 pm I don't agree and Clinton was more than 20 years ago. I don't think thats even a valid reference point in the context of today's political environment.

Come on man, 20 years is nothing. But seriously, you really think doinking an intern and lying about it is worse than strong-arming an ostensible ally for dirt on your main political opponent? I guess I already know the answer, but I ask it anyway...

no I don't think either one is impeachable

but one is morally corrupt and its not strong arming an ally (Ukraine is an ally?...or just an enemy of Russia?

Well if you want to bring moral corruption into it, I don't think Clinton can hold a candle (or a cigar) to Trump, and that's saying something. Yet somehow all these supposedly good christian folk around the country don't seem to care one bit about moral corruption when it comes to Trump. And neither do I, really, but I'm not the one who brought up moral corruption. I mean, come on, I'm the only one in here who thinks legalized heroin is a great idea...

Clinton didn’t get impeached for the cigar and Monica Lewinsky. He got impeached because he lied about it under oath, which unlike what Trump did, is an actual crime.

BREAKING:

In an eerily related note, way to go UK!

At the same time America elected Trump, the U.K. voted for Brexit. For three years, the UK government has been doing everything possible NOT to implement Brexit.

Along comes a Trump-like Tory (even with a weird hair do) who finally said, “Cut the crap. Enough is enough. If the government didn’t listen to the people the first time they spoke on Brexit, maybe they will a second time, only louder.”

Yesterday the people spoke again, and louder. The obstructionist Labor party got their butts kicked.

The Democrats here should take not what happens in a democracy to a party when they spend three years trying to subvert the vote by the people in the last election.