• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump may be innocent. But the mannequin isn’t

theLiquidGuy

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
227
Reaction score
80
Like a lot of other lefties I have often been baffled, frustrated and mostly suspicious of republicans who deny what I consider to be the obvious reality of Trump’s abuse of power.

Dems often ask “What if Obama did it?” So I finally broke down and decided to use my imagination. I cleared my mind, closed my eyes, took a deep breath and proceeded to picture Barack Obama in the predicament that Donald Trump is currently sporting. All the evidence and testimony currently weighing on Trump, now resting on Obama. Long story short: To my surprise and disappointment, I watched myself immediately go about rationalizing Obama’s behaviour...seeing things only in the best light...finding a justification for everything...and giving the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity. Obama would never do such a thing! There must be some other explanation!

Verdict : Obama guilty of the appearance of impropriety.
Sentence: Centure in the House.

My verdict for Donald was not so kind. Proof of my bias. :(

This opened my eyes to something unexpected. Until now I have mostly thought that Trump defenders were arguing in bad faith; that they didn’t really believe the defenses they themselves laid out on the president’s behalf. But this exercise is forcing me to reconsider that belief. I may change my mind yet. Time will tell.

So this was awkward: I had proof of my own bias. The cognitive dissonance started to make my brain itchy. So I reset the thought experiment. This time, instead of Barrack, I inserted a nameless, faceless, non-partisan mannequin into the current oval office and restarted the tape:
-“I want you to do us a favour,though”
-Asking Ukraine to investigate the mannequin’s political rival.
-“[the mannequin] doesn’t give a sh-t about Ukraine”
-Aid delayed for 55 days and suddenly released after WB complaint comes out
-It was merely the announcement of an investigation that was required
-Cancelation of that announcement on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria after aid was released.
-Mulvaney: “we do that all the time”, Get used to it”
-and so forth...

Inside of 60 seconds I found the mannequin guilty of treason and sentenced it to be melted down and repurposed as recycle bins immediately following senate conviction and removal from office.

So I guess what I am saying is this. Give that non-partisan, faceless, nameless mannequin a fair trial inside your head. Not Barrack. Not Trump. Removed from bias, you might get there too.
 
Like a lot of other lefties I have often been baffled, frustrated and mostly suspicious of republicans who deny what I consider to be the obvious reality of Trump’s abuse of power.

Dems often ask “What if Obama did it?” So I finally broke down and decided to use my imagination. I cleared my mind, closed my eyes, took a deep breath and proceeded to picture Barack Obama in the predicament that Donald Trump is currently sporting. All the evidence and testimony currently weighing on Trump, now resting on Obama. Long story short: To my surprise and disappointment, I watched myself immediately go about rationalizing Obama’s behaviour...seeing things only in the best light...finding a justification for everything...and giving the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity. Obama would never do such a thing! There must be some other explanation!

Verdict : Obama guilty of the appearance of impropriety.
Sentence: Centure in the House.

My verdict for Donald was not so kind. Proof of my bias. :(

This opened my eyes to something unexpected. Until now I have mostly thought that Trump defenders were arguing in bad faith; that they didn’t really believe the defenses they themselves laid out on the president’s behalf. But this exercise is forcing me to reconsider that belief. I may change my mind yet. Time will tell.

So this was awkward: I had proof of my own bias. The cognitive dissonance started to make my brain itchy. So I reset the thought experiment. This time, instead of Barrack, I inserted a nameless, faceless, non-partisan mannequin into the current oval office and restarted the tape:
-“I want you to do us a favour,though”
-Asking Ukraine to investigate the mannequin’s political rival.
-“[the mannequin] doesn’t give a sh-t about Ukraine”
-Aid delayed for 55 days and suddenly released after WB complaint comes out
-It was merely the announcement of an investigation that was required
-Cancelation of that announcement on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria after aid was released.
-Mulvaney: “we do that all the time”, Get used to it”
-and so forth...

Inside of 60 seconds I found the mannequin guilty of treason and sentenced it to be melted down and repurposed as recycle bins immediately following senate conviction and removal from office.

So I guess what I am saying is this. Give that non-partisan, faceless, nameless mannequin a fair trial inside your head. Not Barrack. Not Trump. Removed from bias, you might get there too.
I dont agree with your conclusion but i salute your quest for seeing past your own bias in search of objectivity. I would not impeach any president for this but that is something that objective people should be able to debate

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Who said the only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it.

I'm saying that if Republicans had caught Obama doing one-tenth of what Trump has so far gotten away with, they would have tried to shoot him.
I didn't think that I was being the slightest bit cloudy about that.
I think I was being crystal clear...there is no way the Right would have stood for a tenth of this B.S. if it had come from a Democratic POTUS administration.

There is absolutely no argument about the fact that Donald Trump started breaking a lot of very serious laws from Day One of his administration.
The Trump Nation is fond of accusing us of "wanting to impeach him before he even got started" but that is an attempt to obfuscate the fact that Trump began committing criminal acts all during his campaign, stepped up his numerous criminal acts the first day in the White House, and has continued apace ever since, not even slowing down for a moment as charges are racked up in the Inquiry and drafted into the Articles of Impeachment.


He's a deranged tyrant who seems to believe that nothing, not even the rule of law, can touch him.
He has submersed himself into an alternative fact bubble that's hermetically sealed.
He's convinced he's above the law, AND that "the law is whatever he says it is, as he speaks it from his mouth."
 
Like a lot of other lefties I have often been baffled, frustrated and mostly suspicious of republicans who deny what I consider to be the obvious reality of Trump’s abuse of power.

Dems often ask “What if Obama did it?” So I finally broke down and decided to use my imagination. I cleared my mind, closed my eyes, took a deep breath and proceeded to picture Barack Obama in the predicament that Donald Trump is currently sporting. All the evidence and testimony currently weighing on Trump, now resting on Obama. Long story short: To my surprise and disappointment, I watched myself immediately go about rationalizing Obama’s behaviour...seeing things only in the best light...finding a justification for everything...and giving the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity. Obama would never do such a thing! There must be some other explanation!

Verdict : Obama guilty of the appearance of impropriety.
Sentence: Centure in the House.

My verdict for Donald was not so kind. Proof of my bias. :(

This opened my eyes to something unexpected. Until now I have mostly thought that Trump defenders were arguing in bad faith; that they didn’t really believe the defenses they themselves laid out on the president’s behalf. But this exercise is forcing me to reconsider that belief. I may change my mind yet. Time will tell.

So this was awkward: I had proof of my own bias. The cognitive dissonance started to make my brain itchy. So I reset the thought experiment. This time, instead of Barrack, I inserted a nameless, faceless, non-partisan mannequin into the current oval office and restarted the tape:
-“I want you to do us a favour,though”
-Asking Ukraine to investigate the mannequin’s political rival.
-“[the mannequin] doesn’t give a sh-t about Ukraine”
-Aid delayed for 55 days and suddenly released after WB complaint comes out
-It was merely the announcement of an investigation that was required
-Cancelation of that announcement on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria after aid was released.
-Mulvaney: “we do that all the time”, Get used to it”
-and so forth...

Inside of 60 seconds I found the mannequin guilty of treason and sentenced it to be melted down and repurposed as recycle bins immediately following senate conviction and removal from office.

So I guess what I am saying is this. Give that non-partisan, faceless, nameless mannequin a fair trial inside your head. Not Barrack. Not Trump. Removed from bias, you might get there too.

hmmm interesting . . well im an independent and have been for a long time i guess thats why this is super easy for me

doesnt matter the president, based on all the info out there i 100% supported an impeachment inquiry and now i 100% support official articles of impeachment just like the majority of Americans do.

as far as my "verdict"? i have no idea ask me after the actual impeachment proceedings
 
I'm saying that if Republicans had caught Obama doing one-tenth of what Trump has so far gotten away with, they would have tried to shoot him.
I didn't think that I was being the slightest bit cloudy about that.
I think I was being crystal clear...there is no way the Right would have stood for a tenth of this B.S. if it had come from a Democratic POTUS administration.

There is absolutely no argument about the fact that Donald Trump started breaking a lot of very serious laws from Day One of his administration.
The Trump Nation is fond of accusing us of "wanting to impeach him before he even got started" but that is an attempt to obfuscate the fact that Trump began committing criminal acts all during his campaign, stepped up his numerous criminal acts the first day in the White House, and has continued apace ever since, not even slowing down for a moment as charges are racked up in the Inquiry and drafted into the Articles of Impeachment.


He's a deranged tyrant who seems to believe that nothing, not even the rule of law, can touch him.
He has submersed himself into an alternative fact bubble that's hermetically sealed.
He's convinced he's above the law, AND that "the law is whatever he says it is, as he speaks it from his mouth."

Hey maybe a deranged tyrant, but he is our deranged tyrant. When he looks bad, we all look bad. We need to support him. It hasn't been all bad. We had a killer job report. What the Democrats are doing is criminal. Purposely making these absurd laws against China/Hong Kong to sink the U.S China Trade Deal. Purposely delaying USMCA. The Democrats spearheading this impeachment campaign should be tried for treason!
 
Hey maybe a deranged tyrant, but he is our deranged tyrant. When he looks bad, we all look bad. We need to support him. It hasn't been all bad. We had a killer job report. What the Democrats are doing is criminal. Purposely making these absurd laws against China/Hong Kong to sink the U.S China Trade Deal. Purposely delaying USMCA. The Democrats spearheading this impeachment campaign should be tried for treason!

He is YOUR deranged tyrant. I will take a page from Moscow Mitch's playbook and say the Democrats should do nothing this coming year but make sure Trump is a one term President. Our nation depends on it and that is not hyperbole either. But we will trade a fair and just DACA deal for passing NAFTA II, it's pretty much the same as NAFTA I
 
Last edited:
Like a lot of other lefties I have often been baffled, frustrated and mostly suspicious of republicans who deny what I consider to be the obvious reality of Trump’s abuse of power.

Dems often ask “What if Obama did it?” So I finally broke down and decided to use my imagination. I cleared my mind, closed my eyes, took a deep breath and proceeded to picture Barack Obama in the predicament that Donald Trump is currently sporting. All the evidence and testimony currently weighing on Trump, now resting on Obama. Long story short: To my surprise and disappointment, I watched myself immediately go about rationalizing Obama’s behaviour...seeing things only in the best light...finding a justification for everything...and giving the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity. Obama would never do such a thing! There must be some other explanation!

Verdict : Obama guilty of the appearance of impropriety.
Sentence: Centure in the House.

My verdict for Donald was not so kind. Proof of my bias. :(

This opened my eyes to something unexpected. Until now I have mostly thought that Trump defenders were arguing in bad faith; that they didn’t really believe the defenses they themselves laid out on the president’s behalf. But this exercise is forcing me to reconsider that belief. I may change my mind yet. Time will tell.

So this was awkward: I had proof of my own bias. The cognitive dissonance started to make my brain itchy. So I reset the thought experiment. This time, instead of Barrack, I inserted a nameless, faceless, non-partisan mannequin into the current oval office and restarted the tape:
-“I want you to do us a favour,though”
-Asking Ukraine to investigate the mannequin’s political rival.
-“[the mannequin] doesn’t give a sh-t about Ukraine”
-Aid delayed for 55 days and suddenly released after WB complaint comes out
-It was merely the announcement of an investigation that was required
-Cancelation of that announcement on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria after aid was released.
-Mulvaney: “we do that all the time”, Get used to it”
-and so forth...

Inside of 60 seconds I found the mannequin guilty of treason and sentenced it to be melted down and repurposed as recycle bins immediately following senate conviction and removal from office.

So I guess what I am saying is this. Give that non-partisan, faceless, nameless mannequin a fair trial inside your head. Not Barrack. Not Trump. Removed from bias, you might get there too.

What caused democrats to jump to wrong conclusions? Ignorance and bias. They were not aware that aid was being held up in several nations during Trump's push to do more to insure recipients of aid were proving worthy of the aid. Democrats were not aware that Ukraine had reported finding evidence of Ukrainian collusion with the American DNC in the 2016 election on Hillary's behalf. Democrats were not aware that other democrat candidates stood to gain from Biden's exposure as a fraud. Democrats were not aware that Biden had the prosecutor fired who was investigating corruption in the company for which Biden's son had been working for a couple of years. And so forth.
 
They would have shot Obama.
Period.

You are being delusional.

Period.

Obama was caught on a hot mic coordinating messaging with Putin and Medvedev to help his 2012 run... no firing squad.

Obama flew billions in unmarked bills to Iran that Iran then used to fund numerous terrorist groups around the ME and the world... no firing squad.

Obama refused to arm the Ukrainians for fear of upsetting the Russians... no firing squad.
 
Like a lot of other lefties I have often been baffled, frustrated and mostly suspicious of republicans who deny what I consider to be the obvious reality of Trump’s abuse of power.

Dems often ask “What if Obama did it?” So I finally broke down and decided to use my imagination. I cleared my mind, closed my eyes, took a deep breath and proceeded to picture Barack Obama in the predicament that Donald Trump is currently sporting. All the evidence and testimony currently weighing on Trump, now resting on Obama. Long story short: To my surprise and disappointment, I watched myself immediately go about rationalizing Obama’s behaviour...seeing things only in the best light...finding a justification for everything...and giving the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity. Obama would never do such a thing! There must be some other explanation!

Verdict : Obama guilty of the appearance of impropriety.
Sentence: Centure in the House.

My verdict for Donald was not so kind. Proof of my bias. :(

This opened my eyes to something unexpected. Until now I have mostly thought that Trump defenders were arguing in bad faith; that they didn’t really believe the defenses they themselves laid out on the president’s behalf. But this exercise is forcing me to reconsider that belief. I may change my mind yet. Time will tell.

So this was awkward: I had proof of my own bias. The cognitive dissonance started to make my brain itchy. So I reset the thought experiment. This time, instead of Barrack, I inserted a nameless, faceless, non-partisan mannequin into the current oval office and restarted the tape:
-“I want you to do us a favour,though”
-Asking Ukraine to investigate the mannequin’s political rival.
-“[the mannequin] doesn’t give a sh-t about Ukraine”
-Aid delayed for 55 days and suddenly released after WB complaint comes out
-It was merely the announcement of an investigation that was required
-Cancelation of that announcement on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria after aid was released.
-Mulvaney: “we do that all the time”, Get used to it”
-and so forth...

Inside of 60 seconds I found the mannequin guilty of treason and sentenced it to be melted down and repurposed as recycle bins immediately following senate conviction and removal from office.

So I guess what I am saying is this. Give that non-partisan, faceless, nameless mannequin a fair trial inside your head. Not Barrack. Not Trump. Removed from bias, you might get there too.

Better yet, whether the accused is named Barack, Trump or Manny, demand actual, factual evidence before you even consider a trial.
 
Hey maybe a deranged tyrant, but he is our deranged tyrant. When he looks bad, we all look bad. We need to support him. It hasn't been all bad. We had a killer job report. What the Democrats are doing is criminal. Purposely making these absurd laws against China/Hong Kong to sink the U.S China Trade Deal. Purposely delaying USMCA. The Democrats spearheading this impeachment campaign should be tried for treason!

The USMCA is a few minor tweaks. So minor that it certainly doesn't merit changing the name. I am a little annoyed because "NAFTA" rolls off the tongue much easier. They should have called it "NAFTA 1.01". As usual Trump over blows it so he can gives himself another "big" win.

Criminal? Criminal is what Trumpism has done to politics in this country. His inhuman and contagious ability to feel absolutely no shame about lying has helped destroy the idea of a single objective reality. So how do we debate policy without a common set of facts? His insistence on abandoning civility in politics will metastasize and eventually turn all discourse into a brawl. The winner will no longer be determined by facts, but by who yells the loudest or who can act more appalled . That is a crime.

See what I mean? You just called to charge democrats with treason. calm down. look up that word. Then consider withdrawing your incendiary comment. Without civility, we are doomed.
 
Last edited:
Hey maybe a deranged tyrant, but he is our deranged tyrant. When he looks bad, we all look bad. We need to support him. It hasn't been all bad. We had a killer job report. What the Democrats are doing is criminal. Purposely making these absurd laws against China/Hong Kong to sink the U.S China Trade Deal. Purposely delaying USMCA. The Democrats spearheading this impeachment campaign should be tried for treason!

Wait, I thought this country was all about abolishing tyranny.
 
Better yet, whether the accused is named Barack, Trump or Manny, demand actual, factual evidence before you even consider a trial.
I wish we all could agree on what the the facts are.
I wish we all could agree on what a fact is.
 
I wish we all could agree on what the the facts are.
I wish we all could agree on what a fact is.

shrug...

I agree with this:

Definition of fact

1a: something that has actual existence
space exploration is now a fact

b: an actual occurrence
prove the fact of damage

2: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
These are the hard facts of the case.

3: the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY
a question of fact hinges on evidence

4: a thing done

Fact | Definition of Fact by Merriam-Webster
 
Dems often ask “What if Obama did it?” So I finally broke down and decided to use my imagination. I cleared my mind, closed my eyes, took a deep breath and proceeded to picture Barack Obama in the predicament that Donald Trump is currently sporting. All the evidence and testimony currently weighing on Trump, now resting on Obama.
Late in the 2016 election, the NYT ran a full-page op ed titled "Why Hillary Clinton Needs to Be Two-Faced". Quoting from the intro: "In politics, hypocrisy and doublespeak are tools. They can be used nefariously, illegally or for personal gain, as when President Richard M. Nixon denied Watergate complicity, but they can also be used for legitimate public purposes."

The Times concluded that Ms. Clinton making deals with Wall Street behind closed doors while condemning Wall Street's wheeling and dealing out on the campaign trail was "legitimate public purposes". It similarly excused other indiscretions and hypocrisy.

In the same vein, if Pres. Trump were Pres. Obama, the US press would be pulling out all the stops to convince the public that wheeling and dealing with Pres. Zelensky was a routine part of political sausage-making, a deal in the interests of US and Ukrainian security, and generally "legitimate public purposes".

The Democrats would be circling the wagons to defend a Democratic present.

The Republicans would be putting on an impeachment circus and rumbling about criminal charges.

99.5% of the voting public's opinion on the matter would coincide with that of their preferred party.
 
Like a lot of other lefties I have often been baffled, frustrated and mostly suspicious of republicans who deny what I consider to be the obvious reality of Trump’s abuse of power.

Dems often ask “What if Obama did it?” So I finally broke down and decided to use my imagination. I cleared my mind, closed my eyes, took a deep breath and proceeded to picture Barack Obama in the predicament that Donald Trump is currently sporting. All the evidence and testimony currently weighing on Trump, now resting on Obama. Long story short: To my surprise and disappointment, I watched myself immediately go about rationalizing Obama’s behaviour...seeing things only in the best light...finding a justification for everything...and giving the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity. Obama would never do such a thing! There must be some other explanation!

Verdict : Obama guilty of the appearance of impropriety.
Sentence: Centure in the House.

My verdict for Donald was not so kind. Proof of my bias. :(

This opened my eyes to something unexpected. Until now I have mostly thought that Trump defenders were arguing in bad faith; that they didn’t really believe the defenses they themselves laid out on the president’s behalf. But this exercise is forcing me to reconsider that belief. I may change my mind yet. Time will tell.

So this was awkward: I had proof of my own bias. The cognitive dissonance started to make my brain itchy. So I reset the thought experiment. This time, instead of Barrack, I inserted a nameless, faceless, non-partisan mannequin into the current oval office and restarted the tape:
-“I want you to do us a favour,though”
-Asking Ukraine to investigate the mannequin’s political rival.
-“[the mannequin] doesn’t give a sh-t about Ukraine”
-Aid delayed for 55 days and suddenly released after WB complaint comes out
-It was merely the announcement of an investigation that was required
-Cancelation of that announcement on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria after aid was released.
-Mulvaney: “we do that all the time”, Get used to it”
-and so forth...

Inside of 60 seconds I found the mannequin guilty of treason and sentenced it to be melted down and repurposed as recycle bins immediately following senate conviction and removal from office.

So I guess what I am saying is this. Give that non-partisan, faceless, nameless mannequin a fair trial inside your head. Not Barrack. Not Trump. Removed from bias, you might get there too.

What would you think if Mike Pence told the president of Ukraine that he had President Trump's approval to offer $1,000,000,000.00 if he would fire Ukraine's attorney general who - as reported in the NY Times - was investigating millions in graft money from a Ukraine company?

You are 100% perfectly fine with that. So your starting the 20th thread expressing the same pure partisan hypocrisy is worthless and only confirms the hypocrisy.
 
What would you think if Mike Pence told the president of Ukraine that he had President Trump's approval to offer $1,000,000,000.00 if he would fire Ukraine's attorney general who - as reported in the NY Times - was investigating millions in graft money from a Ukraine company?


You are 100% perfectly fine with that. So your starting the 20th thread expressing the same pure partisan hypocrisy is worthless and only confirms the hypocrisy.

Why would we be fine with our administration pressuring Ukraine to fire someone who was carrying out a legit investigation? I don't think I would accept that. I don't follow your logic.


If the prosecutor was not doing anything then I can understand why there might be pressure.
 
Back
Top Bottom