NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
 
So if the worst ever had 5 exceptional skills (say motivation, leadership, organization, vision, consistency...?) then Trump having only half of them makes him a worse leader...no? 

Evil....the other guys were able to do a lot more damage....but as far as horrible leadership, Trump is an eternal low spot.  It's hard to imagine given Harding and Johson, but he will go down as the worst President in history.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
 

One need only stand in front of the ovens in Dachau and listen to the wind to gain some perspective...

 steeler wrote:
 
Agreed. And yet there are idiots still supporting him.

I understand why the GOP is still supporting him... fear. But I can't figure out what the average Joe's motivation is... too stupid to fathom what he really did? Understand but just don't care? Is their own personal identity too wrapped up in his "cult of personality" to ever see the forest because they are too close to the trees? Have they so deeply bought into a martyr complex that somehow Trump has been this misunderstood, downtrodden figure that has been forced into making mistakes and is not responsible for any/all of his transgressions? Too embarrassed to acknowledge that they have been played by someone who despises them?

I do understand what their motivations were for originally voting him in... but it's all the stuff that has happened during his presidency that I can't turn a blind eye to.

Heck even the horned guy that stormed the Capitol came to his senses.

 oldviolin wrote:
 

it wasn't his shirt that was brown.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
 
I see a furor and I want to paint it black(er)

 rgio wrote:
 
Much as I agree with the rest of you post, Trump is nowhere near the likes of Hitler or Stalin.. though he might have something in common with Kim, though even this is doubtful.

Firstly, it is glaringly obvious that Trump is not responsible for the death of millions by decree. Rather, he is only responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to bumbling incompetence.

But, most of all, Trump lacks anything like the organisational skills that Hitler and Stalin had, or even their political nous. He may have been a strong-man wannabe, but even at this, he was an abject failure.

 kurtster wrote:
    
History will judge our last President, and those who pander to him and his voters, much in the way the world now looks at Hitler, Stalin, and the Kim's.  He was a disaster before the insurrection, and January 6th will go down as the first detail in his obituary.  He didn't want the job...he wanted the platform to create wealth for himself.  He was a snake oil salesman....and you keep drinking the potion, believing it's going to magically fix all that wrong with your life.  It won't.

The "you've been trying to impeach him since day 1" BS is tired, and plays to Trump's "they're all out to get us" crap.  Stop doing illegal stuff....and you'll stop getting impeached.

The people who invaded the Capital, killed cops, gouged cops' eyes out, broke cop ribs, and injured a few dozen cops....all say they were following orders from OUR President.   Law and Order?  The hypocrisy is Shakespearian.

Wanting him impeached or not has nothing to do with the facts Kurt.  Facts...like the American people selected Joe Biden in November.  The entire purpose for the rally was to disrupt the ratification of our election.  No theft.  Do you still believe Trump won?  I'm sure you'll duck the answer..."I've already stated my case"...somewhere none of us can find?

You keep saying YOUR...but it's OURS.  OUR last President tweeted that Mike Pence failed 10 minutes after hearing he was being rushed from the Capital with his family for safety!  Why?  Because he was doing his Constitutional duty.

If you really do love the country, and you believe in OUR democracy and the Constitution, then you have no choice but to agree he needs to be convicted of inciting domestic terrorists.  That's not opinion...it's fact.  The only reason he won't be convicted...it's because idiots like Cruz and Hawley want your next vote.  That strategy is going to fail, and you and they will be left miserable in your belief that socialists are ruining everything. 

 kurtster wrote:

     


YOUR FATAL ERROR is that you think Trump has never committed an impeachable offense and that the Democrats invented evidence and crazy reasons for impeaching Trump. But the facts and the Constitution are against you, Kurt.

The Democrats impeached Trump twice because he committed (at the very least) high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic Party never claimed the 2016 election was a stolen election. 

History is going to make you look very foolish, Kurt. 

 kurtster wrote:
 

"The Chief Justice refused to participate. "

False. The Chief Justice presides over an impeachment trial for a president. But Trump was no longer president at the beginning of the trial. The president pro tempore generally presides over impeachment trials involving non-presidents.


https://www.scotusblog.com/202...

As Frank Bowman explained inan article for SCOTUSblog before Trump’s first impeachment trial last year, the Constitution requires the chief justice to preside over an impeachment trial for the president. But Trump, who was impeached on Jan. 13 for his role in inciting the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol that left five people dead, including a Capitol police officer, is no longer the president.

In a statement released on Monday, Leahy wrote that the president pro tempore “has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents.” Leahy pledged to adhere to his “constitutional and sworn obligations to administer the trial with fairness.”

The Supreme Court had no comment regarding Roberts’ absence from the second impeachment trial.

See https://www.nytimes.com/2021/0....    and https://www.newsweek.com/fact-....   for more details. The Newsweek piece notes that there is no evidence that Chief Justice Roberts refused or was even asked to preside. 

Do you have evidence showing that Senator Leahy said that he would convict Trump?



"Just because the Senate voted that this was impeachment is constitutional, does not make it so. The SCOTUS is what determines what is constitutional and what is not."

Gosh Kurt: who wanted the Senate (and not the SCOTUS) to vote on the constitutionality of an impeachment trial for a former president? Why it was Republican Senator Rand Paul. Do take a look at this link: it's a Fox News article which includes this excerpt: 


The Senate has held impeachment trial proceedings for lower office holders that were no longer in office in the past, including in for former Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876. The Senate acquitted Belknap after he departed office.

turley's take

Did The Democrats “Tank” The Second Trump Trial?

 steeler wrote: 

I am the victim of what ?  Please elaborate.

 steeler wrote:
 

He's a nazi.

 kurtster wrote:
 

I see you continue to support Trump, are not ashamed of that in the aftermath of what happened on January 6, and see him (and yourself) as the victim here. I am not surprised.

You might notice upon re-reading my posts that I did not tie them to Trump being convicted by the Senate. I do not expect that to happen. I based my comments on what has been presented during the impeachment trial. It is damning. Regardless of whether Trump is convicted, it is damning. His legacy will be what he did after losing the election on November 3, culminating with the January 6 insurrection. Of this I have no doubt.

The vast majority of the Republican Senators seemingly have made it clear that they — like you — do not believe the Senate has jurisdiction to conduct an impeachment trial of a former President. A vote based on that belief in a lack of jurisdiction means that vote is not based on the merits of the case against Trump.  Such  a vote does not equate with exoneration of Trump. In fact, it means the Senator casting that vote is not even considering the merits. 

The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the question of whether the Senate can conduct an impeachment trial if the President (or other public officer) who has been impeached is no longer in office.   It is an open question. The majority of those  legal scholars who have opined recently has weighed in on the side of the Senate having jurisdiction. The Senate did proceed with an impeachment trial of Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876 even though he was no longer in office, having resigned. Right now,   it is the Senate’s call as to whether it has jurisdiction and it has made that call. The vote should be on the merits at this point.

 steeler wrote: 

  

I'm not so sure about your historical interpretation.  Maybe if this was a real impeachment of a sitting president, but it is not.

The Chief Justice refused to participate.  The current presiding judge has already said he would vote to impeach; a private citizen over which the Senate has no jurisdiction.  Why am I thinking about Roy Bean ?  ....

Just because the Senate voted that this was impeachment is constitutional, does not make it so.  The SCOTUS is what determines what is constitutional and what is not.  Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Your party with the help of your media, has been trying to impeach Trump since the day after the 2016 election and has never stopped to this day.  Your party leaders have never stopped calling Trump an illegitimate president via a stolen election.  To think that this has no bearing on anything regarding how Trump is viewed by his supporters is your fatal error.  To think that history will not factor any of this is foolish as well.  But I know that you are not susceptible to confirmation bias so you will bet the farm that you are right.

Have a nice day and a happy impeachment !

ymwv ...

 westslope wrote:
 
History will not be kind to Trump nor to those who enabled him . It will be scathing.

4/10 Republicans are polled as saying that political violence may be necessary.

Trump is not the only one 'on trial' here.  

The Senate may very well let Trump walk but at least the video evidence and charge of inciting insurrection are there to allow history to decide.  The Democrats had no choice.

 steeler wrote:
 
He keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

c.

Those who continue to ardently — and blindly — support Trump after all we now know happened inside the Capitol on January 6 should be deeply ashamed.

What we are now seeing is that it could have been much, much worse. It almost is beyond comprehension. Grossly disturbing. Seeing it again, in great detail, traumatizes anew.

Trump said his speech and behavior at his  January 6 rally was ‘totally appropriate.” That tells us all we need to know about him.

 rgio wrote:
 Yeah, it's pretty interesting. Republicans are in a bad spot. If they vote to acquit, they will violate their oath of office - there's no other way to put it. If they vote to convict, the base, goaded by Trump, is quite likely to start more violence. GOP Senators who vote to convict are certain to get death threats, if not attempts.

The only way around it is a secret ballot, which I'm not sure the Dems want - they may want Republicans on the record.

Either way, the GOP laid down with a dog. Now they wonder why they have fleas.
c.

 rgio wrote:
 

Pretty much.