What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread*** (10 Viewers)

The General said:
I was asking. Went back a couple pages and saw no MAGA commentary at all. Was curious of their take on this.
Click to expand...
I didn’t vote for trump in either election but my personal take is this is a waste of time, energy, money etc.  Just more political theater for the hungry press..  Enjoy

 
Terminalxylem said:
Besides the constitutionality of proceeding with the trial, what pro-Trump arguments are being made? Claiming his words/actions didn't/couldn't incite an insurrection? Or denying an insurrection occurred in the first place?

All those arguments are terrible IMO.
Click to expand...
I've said this before, and not tongue in cheek at all - if I was one of the many pro-Trump GOPers on this site and in this country I would be furious - physically angry - at Donald Trump for putting together what can only be nicely described as the worst legal defense team ever to disgrace our judicial and legislative branches. From the completely outclassed Stop the Steal team of awful excuses for legal counsel to this mockery, he has shown he is incapable of rising to the moment of defending his cause and choosing people capable of helping him.

But what do I know. 

 
Terminalxylem said:
Besides the constitutionality of proceeding with the trial, what pro-Trump arguments are being made? Claiming his words/actions didn't/couldn't incite an insurrection? Or denying an insurrection occurred in the first place?

All those arguments are terrible IMO.
Click to expand...
The arguments from fbgs are meaningless so why are you even asking?  You already made up you mind so you asking te question is perplexing..

 
stlrams said:
No since trump is out and this whole impeachment trial is going nowhere   
Click to expand...
It most likely will go nowhere which IMO is a separate issue. I missed all this today but quickly reading saw the numbers are not likely. Did see one Republican undecided had serious issues with Don after listening to the presentations today. 

Say the vote goes basically along party lines with just a handful of Republicans joining the Dems there are a lot of questions like should he be able to run again, receive a pension, have access to national security briefings, etc. are legit. 

What does this mean for future scenarios like this (don’t see a future president acting in this manner but who knows). 

Lots of important things to be discussed.

 
Was having a conversation with a friend recently about the lack of shame from many of these whacko politicians. My friend recalled a discussion years ago with one of her philosophy professors about the deleterious effects of a society without shame. And the consequences of that type of society is chaos. Shame is an inhibitor. Without it anything goes. And interestingly it’s not a well researched subject in philosophy or psychology. 

 
If McConnell had scheduled a trial right after Trump was impeached, he would still be in office, making this constitutional question nil. However if that had happened I assume that Republicans would have come up with some other excuse to exonerate him. 

 
timschochet said:
If McConnell had scheduled a trial right after Trump was impeached, he would still be in office, making this constitutional question nil. However if that had happened I assume that Republicans would have come up with some other excuse to exonerate him. 
Click to expand...
Right?

So if I read correctly McConnell kept it from happening before, then said he doesn’t want to do it now because it’s too late.

Great shtick!

 
Per reporting, Senator Roy Blunt said he had never seen any video of the riot until the House Managers showed it today. Senators Hawley, Cruz, Paul, and Johnson refused to watch m: all 4 were apparently immersed in paperwork and none of them looked up even once while the video was on. 
All 5 voted that the trial was unconstitutional. 

 
timschochet said:
Per reporting, Senator Roy Blunt said he had never seen any video of the riot until the House Managers showed it today. Senators Hawley, Cruz, Paul, and Johnson refused to watch m: all 4 were apparently immersed in paperwork and none of them looked up even once while the video was on. 
All 5 voted that the trial was unconstitutional. 
Click to expand...
They really have no response except to refuse to acknowledge it.

 
Tom Skerritt said:
Was having a conversation with a friend recently about the lack of shame from many of these whacko politicians. My friend recalled a discussion years ago with one of her philosophy professors about the deleterious effects of a society without shame. And the consequences of that type of society is chaos. Shame is an inhibitor. Without it anything goes. And interestingly it’s not a well researched subject in philosophy or psychology. 
Click to expand...
Actually, the conservative political think tank I worked for in the nineties had people that wrote articles and discussed shame with respect to policy. They indeed did. And it was met with absolute hatred by the left because, in this case, shaming was applied to criminals, deviants, and single mothers, often enough. The left hated the concept of judges issuing shame-based punishments in criminal trials, considering them cruel and unusual and in violation of the 6th Amendment. They hated social judgments about behavior, finding them rigid and limiting. One need only hear the Simpsons' Reverend Lovejoy and his sermon on The Miracle Of Shame to let one know where pop culture stood on the issue. Shame is no fun, notions of honor less so when trying to establish a libertine-friendly society.

But they had a point at their disposal, rarely made: Shame cuts in ways we can't imagine, and there are powerful critiques of it. Think of Hester Prynne in her adulterous "A," Dimmesdale looming in the background as both cause and overseer of punishment. Who shames? Who is allowed? "Let he who is among us without sin cast the first stone." And honor. What of honor killings in the Middle East with no judge or tribunal finding guilt, but an accused adulteress stoned to death? Yes, with the death of shame and honor come a license to do whatever we want without repercussions, but codified shame and honor in law are dangerous, too. Unfairly acquired social approbation is also dangerous to one's well-being, career, and social life/status. Shame and honor need to be applied very carefully to be effective, and they must be applied wholly without hypocrisy to have any lasting import. The death of shame and honor is a result of them being used as class and status warfare, often exempting those who partake in behaviors they refuse to others. It's always that way. It's a tricky subject and very non-absolute.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The General said:
Terminalxylem said:
Besides the constitutionality of proceeding with the trial, what pro-Trump arguments are being made? Claiming his words/actions didn't/couldn't incite an insurrection? Or denying an insurrection occurred in the first place?

All those arguments are terrible IMO.
Click to expand...
Just want to hear from MAGA folks. I went back a page or so and wasn’t seeing anything. Still getting plenty of commentary on AOC’s response to what happened that day but crickets in here.
Click to expand...
If Congress is going to start using impeachment to regulate free speech, then we damn well better set a high threshold for what qualifies as an impeachable offense. They should also take into account everything he said that day and not just cherry pick the worst parts. I feel like if a guy says something inflammatory but then makes an effort to calm people down, then he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

 
BTW, I thought Trump's lawyers were terrible today. They acted like unprepared amateurs who didn't study and thought they could bluff their way through a final exam. Trump should have taken up Matt Gaetz on his offer, or maybe brought in Dershowitz.

I guess it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, because Trump will be found not guilty, but it's a bad look and it really makes no sense.

 
Roy L Fewks said:
If Congress is going to start using impeachment to regulate free speech, then we damn well better set a high threshold for what qualifies as an impeachable offense. They should also take into account everything he said that day and not just cherry pick the worst parts. I feel like if a guy says something inflammatory but then makes an effort to calm people down, then he should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
They should take everything into account. The months of misinformation, the ramping up the crowd, etc. 

 
Roy L Fewks said:
BTW, I thought Trump's lawyers were terrible today. They acted like unprepared amateurs who didn't study and thought they could bluff their way through a final exam. Trump should have taken up Matt Gaetz on his offer, or maybe brought in Dershowitz.

I guess it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, because Trump will be found not guilty, but it's a bad look and it really makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Pretty on brand. He had Rudy “four seasons” Giuliani as his guy for 4 years :lol:

 
The General said:
Yup. Definitely one of the best ads.
Click to expand...
Sort of had to be a touch on the political junkie side to really appreciate it, one would think. Though one would also think that they had focus groups and that those groups knew what they were talking about, so...maybe it was bigger than I thought.

 
rockaction said:
Sort of had to be a touch on the political junkie side to really appreciate it, one would think. Though one would also think that they had focus groups and that those groups knew what they were talking about, so...maybe it was bigger than I thought.
Click to expand...
Was pretty subtle. I missed it initially. 

 
stlrams said:
The arguments from fbgs are meaningless so why are you even asking?  You already made up you mind so you asking te question is perplexing..
Click to expand...
Because I'm trying to understand what others believe?

And I thought the purpose of this 662 page thread was discussion of Trump's impeachment(s)? The title says it's official, after all.

 
Roy L Fewks said:
If Congress is going to start using impeachment to regulate free speech, then we damn well better set a high threshold for what qualifies as an impeachable offense. They should also take into account everything he said that day and not just cherry pick the worst parts. I feel like if a guy says something inflammatory but then makes an effort to calm people down, then he should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
I agree with this though with a caveat.....If I'm up there jumping up and down ranting and raving getting people fired up to do something, it isn't sufficient to come back later, once they've seen what they started, and say in a throw away line "oh, you shouldn't be doing it" as if it were a footnote.

STORM THE CAPITOL!!!!!  SAVE OUR DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!!  *

(riot in full swing)

*but do it peacefully

 
Terminalxylem said:
Because I'm trying to understand what others believe?

And I thought the purpose of this 662 page thread was discussion of Trump's impeachment(s)? The title says it's official, after all.
Click to expand...
I’m in the camp, it’s political theater and a colossal waste of time.  The old political gotcha game to score some points.  

 
Roy L Fewks said:
If Congress is going to start using impeachment to regulate free speech, then we damn well better set a high threshold for what qualifies as an impeachable offense. They should also take into account everything he said that day and not just cherry pick the worst parts. I feel like if a guy says something inflammatory but then makes an effort to calm people down, then he should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
You need to look at his statements and actions from the last 2 years really. Withheld aid to Ukraine to try to take down Biden’s primary run. Once Biden was the nominee and the pandemic was in its infancy he talked about how mail in voting wasn’t to be trusted because the democrats will steal the election. Didn’t do anything to attempt to make it any better, even though there were months to plan. As he fell further in the polls, it was because the polls are fake.  Then he lost the election but kept claiming fraud in public but lawyers wouldn’t claim it in court. Case after case gets thrown out and he says the judges are in on it. No “stolen election” talk, no insurrection, plain and simple. Still no proof of any massive voter fraud. No concession. People in his orbit like Roger stone planned this event, who was in contact with militia groups. 
His pathetic “we love you, you’re special, go home in peace” speech also says “this is what happens when an election is stolen.” 
Talk about cherry picking statements. 

 
stlrams said:
I’m in the camp, it’s political theater and a colossal waste of time.  The old political gotcha game to score some points.  
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

I think it’s worth spending time to show Trump’s behavior isn’t without consequences. And I believe senate republicans need to be held accountable for supporting it.

We’ve already seen one senator swayed regarding the constitutionality of the trial. Although I doubt Trump will be convicted, maybe a few more Rs will come to their senses before it’s all said and done, and maybe a few voters as well.

 
rockaction said:
Actually, the conservative political think tank I worked for in the nineties had people that wrote articles and discussed shame with respect to policy. They indeed did. And it was met with absolute hatred by the left because, in this case, shaming was applied to criminals, deviants, and single mothers, often enough. The left hated the concept of judges issuing shame-based punishments in criminal trials, considering them cruel and unusual and in violation of the 6th Amendment. They hated social judgments about behavior, finding them rigid and limiting. One need only hear the Simpsons' Reverend Lovejoy and his sermon on The Miracle Of Shame to let one know where pop culture stood on the issue. Shame is no fun, notions of honor less so when trying to establish a libertine-friendly society.

But they had a point at their disposal, rarely made: Shame cuts in ways we can't imagine, and there are powerful critiques of it. Think of Hester Prynne in her adulterous "A," Dimmesdale looming in the background as both cause and overseer of punishment. Who shames? Who is allowed? "Let he who is among us without sin cast the first stone." And honor. What of honor killings in the Middle East with no judge or tribunal finding guilt, but an accused adulteress stoned to death? Yes, with the death of shame and honor come a license to do whatever we want without repercussions, but codified shame and honor in law are dangerous, too. Unfairly acquired social approbation is also dangerous to one's well-being, career, and social life/status. Shame and honor need to be applied very carefully to be effective, and they must be applied wholly without hypocrisy to have any lasting import. The death of shame and honor is a result of them being used as class and status warfare, often exempting those who partake in behaviors they refuse to others. It's always that way. It's a tricky subject and very non-absolute.
Click to expand...
I agree that shame is effective. Most people will feel shame when they do wrong. The ones who don’t are the ones to be concerned about.
 

Which is why we should be concerned when this permeates our elected officials. People like Hawley, Gaetz, MTG, DeSantis, Giuliani, and yes even Trump. Perhaps to a lesser degree Cruz and Graham. Combining the lack of shame, the resulting chaos, and govt control/power is a frightening existence.  

 
Roy L Fewks said:
If Congress is going to start using impeachment to regulate free speech, then we damn well better set a high threshold for what qualifies as an impeachable offense. They should also take into account everything he said that day and not just cherry pick the worst parts. I feel like if a guy says something inflammatory but then makes an effort to calm people down, then he should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
To regulate free speech?  That is what you think this is?

Oh...he tried to supposedly calm them after they had bashed people with flag poles and broke into the capitol...so no need for any repercussions.

[JoeBiden] Come on man[/JoeBiden]

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
New York Magazine: Donald Trump is running for President again.
9 10 11
Replies
522
Views
12K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
knowledge dropper
***OFFICIAL Trump vs. DeSantis Thread***
2 3 4
Replies
197
Views
5K
timschochet
timschochet

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 11 (members: 0, guests: 11)
Top