***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[rexanglorum]

Democratic Party grandees will have you thinking that swing voters are retired police chiefs or lawyers with generational wealth. They have you thinking that the swing voter is highly engaged with political news and their top concerns are deficit reduction and civility.

In truth, swing voters are low information voters who have no ideological commitments and have bafflingly incoherent and inconsistent views that are internally contradictory.

All of us had opinions about how Bernie should handle Joe Rogan's endorsement, myself included. What we can't lose sight of is that Rogan himself is more representative of a swing voter than Chuck Schumer's imaginary, retired cop friends the Baileys. These swing voters go with gut reaction.

In light of that, the Democratic Party ignored a very basic anthropological and sociological fact. It is okay to be a bully or to break the rules for a group of people but not just for yourself or your immediate family. By making the impeachment about this whole Ukraine mess, the low information voter is left with two gut reactions. Trump is horribly corrupt but its for his Party so its a big **** alpha move. Biden was super corrupt for himself and his kid, that's bad.

All the sound, logical and legal arguments in the world don't change the feeling that lots of low information voters received.

Luckily, this slight political loss for Dems is not being watched by too many people. This episode will be over soon, the rapidly moving news cycle will bury it soon enough and we can look to November when a vast coalition of workers bury Trump and the politics that made him viable in the first place.

 

[Wargames]

I don't see impeachment as a bad thing. I think it in many ways cements Trump as the Republican version of Clinton. Someone whose very name will embarrass them, and whose actions can be used as a cudgel to beat them with in public.

I still don't think Bernie gets the nomination, but the Bernie Dems who will fight a republican in Public is becoming a norm and Trump is feeding that sentiment.

 

[kdawg]

I don't see impeachment as a bad thing. I think it in many ways cements Trump as the Republican version of Clinton. Someone whose very name will embarrass them, and whose actions can be used as a cudgel to beat them with in public.

C'mon man, for as problematic as Clinton was, especially with hindsight, Trump is a completely different animal. I'm sorting of looking forward to how history will view him - I have no doubt that he will go down as the worst president in history - for some of the more distant ones there isn't the data but this guy will produce a treasure trove of documents to condemn him and it's going to be fascinating to see.

 

[dwalk31]

An interesting proposition.

What do you say, dwalk31 ?

I mean, if justice is whatever a majority of Senators says it is, maybe we should just let the people decide.

Does that sound like due process, or are there definitions of offenses that ought to transcend partisanship and smug, self-serving nihilism?

The decision of removing the president rests with the Senate per the Constitution.

If there’s some long-standing NT rule to let a thread vote out who they dislike I guess it’d be comparable.

The reality is that I’m literally the only person that speaks frequently, in here, that would fall on the conservative/republican side of the aisle.

It’s many on here that feel that being a conservative/republican, in this environment, makes one a de facto deplorable person.

The standard can’t be that you have to be a Democrat/liberal or you aren’t allowed to post in the Political Discussion thread. In fact, that would create a lack of diversity of thought. That’s just my opinion, but I respect the opinions of others.

 

[dwalk31]

I don't see impeachment as a bad thing. I think it in many ways cements Trump as the Republican version of Clinton. Someone whose very name will embarrass them, and whose actions can be used as a cudgel to beat them with in public.

I still don't think Bernie gets the nomination, but the Bernie Dems who will fight a republican in Public is becoming a norm and Trump is feeding that sentiment.

While I agree that the impeachment is a permanent stain for both, the difference is that one was a serious politician prior—Clinton.

Trump was hardly taken serious for most of his campaign. So I think he’ll be able to flip the impeachment as some sort of badge of honor. In a way that Clinton didn’t because he was more of a traditional politician who showed remorse after.

 

[dwalk31]

Democratic Party grandees will have you thinking that swing voters are retired police chiefs or lawyers with generational wealth. They have you thinking that the swing voter is highly engaged with political news and their top concerns are deficit reduction and civility.

In truth, swing voters are low information voters who have no ideological commitments and have bafflingly incoherent and inconsistent views that are internally contradictory.

All of us had opinions about how Bernie should handle Joe Rogan's endorsement, myself included. What we can't lose sight of is that Rogan himself is more representative of a swing voter than Chuck Schumer's imaginary, retired cop friends the Baileys. These swing voters go with gut reaction.

In light of that, the Democratic Party ignored a very basic anthropological and sociological fact. It is okay to be a bully or to break the rules for a group of people but not just for yourself or your immediate family. By making the impeachment about this whole Ukraine mess, the low information voter is left with two gut reactions. Trump is horribly corrupt but its for his Party so its a big **** alpha move. Biden was super corrupt for himself and his kid, that's bad.

All the sound, logical and legal arguments in the world don't change the feeling that lots of low information voters received.

Luckily, this slight political loss for Dems is not being watched by too many people. This episode will be over soon, the rapidly moving news cycle will bury it soon enough and we can look to November when a vast coalition of workers bury Trump and the politics that made him viable in the first place.

I somewhat agree with your analysis. While many are probably tuned out, between the Super Bowl interview and upcoming rallies I doubt that Trump doesn’t amplify this. The impeachment Proceedings were an error due to the Biden information. The Dems allowed the narrative of Hunter Biden to get out, right before Iowa, in a proceeding they knew would end in acquittal.

Most Americans don’t understand the nuance of foreign policy. Also, that call requires deductions to get to the narrative that the Dems painted (albeit a reasonable one). The Hunter Biden making 200k/month on a board doesn’t require much deduction from the average American voter.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

The decision of removing the president rests with the Senate per the Constitution.

If there’s some long-standing NT rule to let a thread vote out who they dislike I guess it’d be comparable.

The reality is that I’m literally the only person that speaks frequently, in here, that would fall on the conservative/republican side of the aisle.

It’s many on here that feel that being a conservative/republican, in this environment, makes one a de facto deplorable person.

The standard can’t be that you have to be a Democrat/liberal or you aren’t allowed to post in the Political Discussion thread. In fact, that would create a lack of diversity of thought. That’s just my opinion, but I respect the opinions of others.

the majority of my political discussions online happen in trump supporting and conservative spaces. While many are at odds with some of your views, those views aren’t the reason you’re not taken seriously in the thread.

 

[dwalk31]

the majority of my political discussions online happen in trump supporting and conservative spaces. While many are at odds with some of your views, those views aren’t the reason you’re not taken seriously in the thread.

So I’m taken less seriously than the people who quote all my posts talking about Roy Moore support and underage girls?

Give me break.

If I made half the comments/statements others make I would have been long gone.

Reality is the scrutiny placed on my posts is heightened because of my political views.

 

[Methodical Management]

you're forgetting that the majority of those senators were elected by a minority of the population, so NT's senate would be made up of a bunch of people from states with only a couple people on this forum (North Dakota, etc.). but those states would have equal representation on here, and their senators would all be wearing New Balances and somehow insist that Nike wearers are not representative of this forum.

You’re forgetting that it’s unpatriotic to question the system you inherited.

Or have I misconstrued the party line?

The decision of removing the president rests with the Senate per the Constitution.

If there’s some long-standing NT rule to let a thread vote out who they dislike I guess it’d be comparable.

The reality is that I’m literally the only person that speaks frequently, in here, that would fall on the conservative/republican side of the aisle.

It’s many on here that feel that being a conservative/republican, in this environment, makes one a de facto deplorable person.

The standard can’t be that you have to be a Democrat/liberal or you aren’t allowed to post in the Political Discussion thread. In fact, that would create a lack of diversity of thought. That’s just my opinion, but I respect the opinions of others.

Interesting. So, where it impacts the Senate's impeachment trial, your standard of fairness is based entirely upon the rules as interpreted by those currently in power.

When it comes to your own privileges on NikeTalk, where you can't simply point at the scoreboard and jeer, your concept of fairness ceases to be predicated solely on appeals to authority/tradition, and suddenly includes a desire for minority rights.
Here, and perhaps only here, if I were to wield my authority pettily or capriciously and effect your removal so as to sate the thread's core constituency and mistake their desires, or my own, for the best interests of the community at large, I would be abusing my authority.

Food for thought.

 

[gry60]

It’s many on here that feel that being a conservative/republican, in this environment, makes one a de facto deplorable person.

Oh no! It couldn't possibly the fact that you, like most Republicans and conservative-leaning folks violate the rules of logic, refuse to acknowledge data, and defend an approach to morality that threatens the Constitution, which constitutes the basis of all other laws written in the US every day.

That's what makes you deplorable. If you haven't noticed, posts about Republicans who acknowledge that GOP congress critters and the administration are engaging in an unprecedented trampling of the law get plenty of approval around here.

 

[dwalk31]

You’re forgetting that it’s unpatriotic to question the system you inherited.

Or have I misconstrued the party line?



Interesting. So, where it impacts the Senate's impeachment trial, your standard of fairness is based entirely upon the rules as interpreted by those currently in power.

When it comes to your own privileges on NikeTalk, where you can't simply point at the scoreboard and jeer, your concept of fairness ceases to be predicated solely on appeals to authority/tradition, and suddenly includes a desire for minority rights.
Here, and perhaps only here, if I were to wield my authority pettily or capriciously and effect your removal so as to sate the thread's core constituency and mistake their desires, or my own, for the best interests of the community at large, I would be abusing my authority.

Food for thought.

I don’t think you’d be abusing your power at all. I wouldn’t think it is right, but doing something that I don’t think is right is something that you’re well within your rights to do.

Unlike the President of the US, there’s no real check on your powers (the posters didn’t vote you in, we can’t impeach/remove you etc).

But I don’t want to get into a back and forth about whether I deserve to be here. If you think my contribution is not in the best interest of the community, then I’ll respect that decision.

Personally, as a conservative/republican I think I provide a unique perspective. And I am careful with my posts not to devolve into the type of banter that many on the other side of the aisle, in here, do.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

So I’m taken less seriously than the people who quote all my posts talking about Roy Moore support and underage girls?

Give me break.

If I made half the comments/statements others make I would have been long gone.

Reality is the scrutiny placed on my posts is heightened because of my political views.

ironically if you used humor and parody to present your arguments instead of talking in circles, selectively ignoring the context presented in the arguments proposed to you, and sealioning you’d likely have a Far better experience.

I’ve had numerous back and forths with you. Getting you to give straight answers to questions Is like pulling teeth. Questions have to be restated numerous times, context has to be emphasized repeatedly, often in the midst of what looks like intentional obfuscation on your end. I for one don’t believe you’re an unintelligent person, so I can only assume you engage this way intentionally which for less patient people can and will be frustrating. Causing them not to take you seriously.

 

[dwalk31]

Oh no! It couldn't possibly the fact that you, like most Republicans and conservative-leaning folks violate the rules of logic, refuse to acknowledge data, and defend an approach to morality that threatens the Constitution, which constitutes the basis of all other laws written in the US every day.

That's what makes you deplorable. If you haven't noticed, posts about Republicans who acknowledge that GOP congress critters and the administration are engaging in an unprecedented trampling of the law get plenty of approval around here.

We just have a difference in interpretation. As rexanglorum posted the average viewer cant grasp the nuance. “A trial has witnesses” is a disingenuous sound byte, but most people don’t realize that.

Defendants also don’t have to put forth evidence to prove their innocence. Because they are presumed innocent unless they are proven guilty.

In this case, the House managers stated that they have proved their case, overwhelmingly, based on the evidence they’ve presented. Now, elected senators can decide whether or not they’ve proven his actions rise to removal. Reasonable minds can disagree on that point. You’re not a deplorable because you disagree that it warrants removal, in my opinion.

 

[dwalk31]

ironically if you used humor and parody to present your arguments instead of talking in circles, selectively ignoring the context presented in the arguments proposed to you, and sealioning you’d likely have a Far better experience.

I’ve had numerous back and forths with you. Getting you to give straight answers to questions Is like pulling teeth. Questions have to be restated numerous times, context has to be emphasized repeatedly, often in the midst of what looks like intentional obfuscation on your end. I for one don’t believe you’re an unintelligent person, so I can only assume you engage this way intentionally which for less patient people can and will be frustrating. Causing them not to take you seriously.

Obviously there is a disconnect between what you think is a direct answer and what i think is. Last weekend, I believe, we had a discussion and you said that I answered your questions. I don't hide the ball about my political beliefs. And I'm not ashamed of them. So if there is any particular thing you have a question about, then I will gladly answer. If at first I don't answer how you want, then a part of the disconnect could be how you phrased it and my understanding of it. But I'm not dodging questions.

If I didn't want to engage, I'd just ignore your posts as I do with buddy that posts about Roy Moore in a weird way all the time.

 

[gry60]

My comment had more to do with your general contribution to the thread.

Defendants also don’t have to put forth evidence to prove their innocence.

Are the senators the defendants?

They are the ones refusing to hear more witnesses that will be called by the house managers. They are the ones cooperating with the WH to prevent testimonies from Bolton and Parnas to enter the official record and to ensure a "clean" acquittal of Trump.

Why are you commenting on this as if their motivations don't matter? You are trying to lie to us about the impartiality of Republicans.

 

[dwalk31]

My comment had more to do with your general contribution to the thread.


Are the senators the defendants?

They are the ones refusing to hear more witnesses that will be called by the house managers. They are the ones cooperating with the WH to prevent testimonies from Bolton and Parnas to enter the official record and to ensure a "clean" acquittal of Trump.

Why are you commenting on this as if their motivations don't matter? You are trying to lie to us about the impartiality of Republicans.

The senators were voting on whether they need to hear witnesses. Judges make decisions on whether they need to hear witnesses all the time. Judges decide cases as a matter of law without hearing witnesses all the time.

In fact, the question about taking the facts in the light most favorable to the house managers was a recitation of the summary judgment standard.

If you look up the summary judgment standard then it will make more sense. But there is no need for additional witnesses if even if you take all of the alleged actions as true, then they still wouldn't rise to the level of an offense that warrants removal.

 

[IATT]

as the Republican version of Clinton. Someone whose very name will embarrass them,

why not say soros and Obama too while you at it if youre going regurgitate GOP talking points?

bill was hugely popular.. and while Hillary wasn’t charismatic, she still received 3 mill more votes than trump after comey decided that throwing out an another FBI investigation less than 2 weeks before the election was a smart idea.. an her before a woman following a black man having been president for 8 years.. o an republicans using the Clinton name for going on 20+ years

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Obviously there is a disconnect between what you think is a direct answer and what i think is. Last weekend, I believe, we had a discussion and you said that I answered your questions. I don't hide the ball about my political beliefs. And I'm not ashamed of them. So if there is any particular thing you have a question about, then I will gladly answer. If at first I don't answer how you want, then a part of the disconnect could be how you phrased it and my understanding of it. But I'm not dodging questions.

If I didn't want to engage, I'd just ignore your posts as I do with buddy that posts about Roy Moore in a weird way all the time.

last week you answered my questions after a series of more questions, where I then extrapolated the information and presented it to everyone else in the context of my original question, which required me to restate and rephrase my question numerous times, just so that they didn’t have to keep asking the same questions over and over as well. You behaved exactly how i described.

 

[dwalk31]

last week you answered my questions after a series of more questions, where I then extrapolated the information and presented it to everyone else in the context of my original question, which required me to restate and rephrase my question numerous times, just so that they didn’t have to keep asking the same questions over and over as well. You behaved exactly how i described.

Im not disputing that. Im disputing some intentional hiding of the ball or making it difficult. If I didn't want to respond, I just wouldn't have. I didn't have to; I chose to.

Like I said, if there is a question you have about my political stance on an issue, I will do my best to answer it.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Im not disputing that. Im disputing some intentional hiding of the ball or making it difficult. If I didn't want to respond, I just wouldn't have. I didn't have to; I chose to.

Like I said, if there is a question you have about my political stance on an issue, I will do my best to answer it.

Noted.

do you believe Trump acted inappropriately in this Ukraine scandal? And to be clear, I’m not asking if you think he should be removed. I’m asking About the presidents actions specifically.

 

[IATT]

The senators were voting on whether they need to hear witnesses. Judges make decisions on whether they need to hear witnesses all the time. Judges decide cases as a matter of law without hearing witnesses all the time.

This is wildly misleading

At most, a voir dire would be held allowing the defense to challenge and arguments to be made by both side AND then allowing the judge(s) to rule

but it is rare someone with direct evidence wouldn’t be heard from, unless you have something like spousal privilege.. or that subpoenas would just be ignored

now attorneys for either side may decide they no longer which to rely upon said evidence to make their case

but the judge can’t just decide he/they want(s) to ignore evidence because it’s inconvenient to either sides argument, he/they has/have to follow rules

 

[IATT]

 

[dwalk31]

Noted.

do you believe Trump acted inappropriately in this Ukraine scandal? And to be clear, I’m not asking if you think he should be removed. I’m asking About the presidents actions specifically.

Yes.

Question for you: Do you think Hunter Biden working on the board for Burisma, and Joe Biden's involvement, was inappropriate? To be clear, I'm not asking you if you think that Biden should be disqualified from running.

 

[dwalk31]

This is wildly misleading

At most, a voir dire would be held allowing the defense to challenge and arguments to be made by both side AND then allowing the judge(s) to rule

but it is rare someone with direct evidence wouldn’t be heard from, unless you have something like spousal privilege.. or that subpoenas would just be ignored

now attorneys for either side may decide they no longer which to rely upon said evidence to make their case

but the judge can’t just decide he/they want(s) to ignore evidence because it’s inconvenient to either sides argument, he/they has/have to follow rules

A judge can say, I believe everything that you are asserting. The information that you are expecting from this witness, even if taken as true, does not rise to the level of the necessary level so I am dismissing. This literally happens all of the time. Trials with witnesses are rare outside of the criminal realm because most disputes end at or before the summary judgment phase.

The decision is a matter of law, not a matter of facts.

The reality is that the house managers wanted to call witnesses to sensationalize it. They said they already proved their case, so the only purpose is to make a political show. I think it is fair they tried to as impeachment is a political process. But make no mistake, this isn't some realistic legal process with typical strictures. There weren't any rules of evidence and they made up the rules of procedure as they went along.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Yes.

Question for you: Do you think Hunter Biden working on the board for Burisma, and Joe Biden's involvement, was inappropriate? To be clear, I'm not asking you if you think that Biden should be disqualified from running.

inappropriate? Yes. And probably could warrant its own investigation.

that said, this impeachment trial Should have been seen through With witnesses considering the overwhelming consent on the fact that wrong doing happened.