International News Trump impeached

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
7,061
Only the 3rd president ever to be impeached.
And almost ironically, it's making him more electable as interest in the dog and pony show has declined and Trump has another "swamp" campaign in him, and the Dems are setting the Dems up later for one of their presidents to be impeached for something vague.

With the whole FISA stuff that is rumbling, not a good few days for his opponents. Will Carter Page sue the FBI? He should do
 

Sheik djibouti

Well-known member
Joined
8 Dec 2017
Messages
1,390
Only the 3rd president ever to be impeached.
Won't amount to a hill o beans though will it, because there is Bob Hope of him being removed from office and also because this has purely been done down partisan lines, it looks nothing like a due impeachment process where the GOP and Dem Reps are SUPPOSED to act as impartial jurors. They have done nothing of the sort, which has cheapened the whole process IMHO

Which is a real shame as he's as guilty as a puppy sat next to a puddle of P**s, but the GOP have chosen to go into full a**e-protection mode (and what an a**e he is).

However, none of that matters in this brave new post-truth world in which we all live. Views and sides become ever more entrenched, rational fact-based debate goes out of the window, disagreement becomes hatred and Trump simply fans the flames. You just hope against hope that enough people wake up to this and see him for what he really is and the Dems somehow manage to oust him in 2020.....there would be a certain irony if they did, just as we embark on our very own Trump tribute act for the next x years.

The very notion that the Dems are the "radical left" as Trump has now taken to calling them is laughable in the extreme.....what next, just come out and call them full on commies?
 

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
7,061
Having watched some of testimonies, it was almost laughable seeing people called to testify saying "I heard", "I was told", "my understanding is..." and then being asked
"Did you hear this directly from the President?"

And the answer being
"No"
"Or I don't recall"

I thought the Sondland testimony was the one to take Trump down until the Republicans got into him and it all fell apart like a cheap suit. It's no longer Quid Pro Quo either as they know they can't prove it, just some watered down procedural waffle.

Even the dumbest Trump voting red neck in rural Louisiana or Idaho would watch the hearings, see the Schiff "transcript" and work out it's based on nothing but a desire to remove Trump procedurally because they can't beat him in an election. And it's just played into his bases hands that the deep state is against him and fodder for his attack ads in 2020. They didn't even call Eric Ciamarella either.

Pelosi and Schiff dived in way too early and look to have messed up.

And this didn't help when an "independent expert" did this, hardly non-partisan:
 

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
7,061
Still not been impeached yet. Seems the Dems aren't willing to serve the papers to the Senate. Bit of a strange one eh?
 

Marked Ox

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
16,693
Still not been impeached yet. Seems the Dems aren't willing to serve the papers to the Senate. Bit of a strange one eh?

No it isn't strange at all. It is all a political game, just like Trump and his actions through the initial process.
 

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
7,061
It is strange in that the Dems said time and time and time and time again that it was a clear cut case for impeachment, but refuse to serve the papers up to proceed with the impeachment. What are they worried about? It leads one to suppose it's a partisan exercise rather than a clear cut impeachment case that they know will fall unless they can control the entire process - a no no, I'm sure you'd agree.

I note one US senator is putting papers forth to try and cancel the process if Dems don't serve the papers soon as it's wasting time.
 

Marked Ox

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
16,693
It is strange in that the Dems said time and time and time and time again that it was a clear cut case for impeachment, but refuse to serve the papers up to proceed with the impeachment. What are they worried about? It leads one to suppose it's a partisan exercise rather than a clear cut impeachment case that they know will fall unless they can control the entire process - a no no, I'm sure you'd agree.

I note one US senator is putting papers forth to try and cancel the process if Dems don't serve the papers soon as it's wasting time.

I point you to my previous post and the Republicans are playing political games with this in not agreeing the Trial process as well.
 

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
7,061
As well they should - we all know this has been a partisan smear since Trump got elected. If the Dems have nothing to fear - just Muh Russia, peegate, Ukraine, etc - why are they constantly caveating what Schiff and Pelosi are saying is slam dunk? Only if the House can control the process will they serve the papers, which is hardly non-partisan. It's hilarious watching the Dems constantly shifting trying to get something to stick as they know none of their candidates will win the next election as is stands...
 

Oslernorth

Active member
Joined
23 Dec 2017
Messages
260
If the Democrats can't win the election, then surely this is the time for an up and coming intelligent statesmanlike Republican to seize their chance.
I'm sure even the vocally pro Trump fan can see he's an Idiot, but at the same time could never vote for the Democrats.
 

bazzer9461

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
13,954
Au contraire. One faux moderate poster on this very thread always sees Trump as a victim of the eternally evil 'leftie' Democrats. Anyone criticising Trump on here has fallen for baseless leftie propaganda.
Trump is a very dangerous man. Whether the actions taken in Baghdad were warranted or not he has probably done this for his up and coming election campaign.
 

Peterdev

Well-known member
Joined
17 Dec 2017
Messages
1,945
What concerns me is that he doesn‘t consider the effect his actions have on the wider communities.
With apparent financial stability in the markets after a long period of recession we seem to have a president hell bent on causing disruption with retaliation against not only USA but us as a consenting partner.
He is now on record as stating that they will take disproportionate action in the event of any attacks against the USA.
The British woman ’spy’ might, for example, find her situation becomes more uncomfortable too.
 

Marked Ox

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
16,693
What concerns me is that he doesn‘t consider the effect his actions have on the wider communities.
With apparent financial stability in the markets after a long period of recession we seem to have a president hell bent on causing disruption with retaliation against not only USA but us as a consenting partner.
He is now on record as stating that they will take disproportionate action in the event of any attacks against the USA.
The British woman ’spy’ might, for example, find her situation becomes more uncomfortable too.

The effect of his actions appear to have fully moved Iraq into the Iranian sphere of influence. While the Parliamentary vote was non-binding it is a good indicator.

The Americans do like their military toys but they can do asymmetric war so why they didn't take him out using methods that have plausible deniability I don't know.
 

ZeroTheHero

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
5,025
The Americans do like their military toys but they can do asymmetric war so why they didn't take him out using methods that have plausible deniability I don't know.
Trump wouldn't want to deny it - he wanted to boast about it. And if he could do so using advanced US drone tech to do it, demonstrating their advantage over the countries without it then he'd want to do that as well.
 

Marked Ox

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
16,693
Trump wouldn't want to deny it - he wanted to boast about it. And if he could do so using advanced US drone tech to do it, demonstrating their advantage over the countries without it then he'd want to do that as well.

Very possible, he does like to massage his ego.
 

bazzer9461

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
13,954
Worked wonderfully for Thatcher in 1982. 300 British dead, circa 800 Argentinian dead, countless servicemen wounded to take back a pile of rocks in the south Atlantic unheard of by 99.9% of the UK population and inhabited by 2,000 people who vaguely thought of themselves as 'British' but wanted the military gone as soon as possible after the war. (They didn't all go, to the chagrin of the Falklanders). Still, on a wave of patriotism Thatcher secured another term. Blair wasn't the only recent British PM war criminal.
I was there as far as thatcher was concerned the Falklands were British and had been invaded. No talk about America and Granada 20,000 troops and 17,000 got bravery medals for an ill equipped rag taggle of a few militants.
 

Essexyellows

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
5,981
Worked wonderfully for Thatcher in 1982. 300 British dead, circa 800 Argentinian dead, countless servicemen wounded to take back a pile of rocks in the south Atlantic unheard of by 99.9% of the UK population and inhabited by 2,000 people who vaguely thought of themselves as 'British' but wanted the military gone as soon as possible after the war. (They didn't all go, to the chagrin of the Falklanders). Still, on a wave of patriotism Thatcher secured another term. Blair wasn't the only recent British PM war criminal.

Part of the UK had been invaded by a foreign power.
Falkland Islanders, who have inhabited the islands since the early 19th century, are predominantly descendants of British settlers, and strongly favour British Sovereignty.
It was never declared a "war" we just forcibly evicted the invaders.
It was not a "war crime"............ unlike Blair... irrespective of how liberal or left leaning you are.
It went through the UN Security Council first, it was also backed by the EEC (remember them? :) )
 

Foley

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
5,190
Conveniently omits the fact that Thatcher needed 'a Falklands' to maintain her power. That is why we set sail, not to 'evict invaders' or in defence of British sovereignty. Still, 'Land of hope and glory ....'
The point is that it wasnt a war crime. If people do invade land belonging to you, you have a right to defend it?
I have never heard this called a war crime before I believe ( happy to be proved wrong)
 

Foley

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
5,190
Conveniently omits the fact that Thatcher needed 'a Falklands' to maintain her power. That is why we set sail, not to 'evict invaders' or in defence of British sovereignty. Still, 'Land of hope and glory ....'
A new military junta invaded the Falklands in 1982- an island that had been under British rule for 150 years.
Britain had promised the islanders that they could decide their direction. Britain took the Island back
Not sure how that can be compared to Blair/ Bush in Iraq??
Interestingly a number of reports suggests that Thatcher was embarrassed that Britain was caught on the hop by the Argentine invasion. Not a planned way of 'maintaining her power '
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Essexyellows In the news 1230

Similar threads


Top Bottom