ADreamOfLiberty

You are more likely to get STDs from but sex with a dog than butt sex with a dude.

To further emphasize Islam’s categorical opposition to such an evil action, the animal with which this sin has been committed is to be slaughtered (the meat of the animal can then be given to eat). [Ibn ‘Abidin, Radd al-Muhtar]

Additionally, under Islamic governance, the person is to be penalized (t’azir) as the caliph sees fit within his discretion. [Ibid.]

This is because if the animal remains alive, it will continue to remind people of such an act, and that act may take roots in their minds and thus lead to it being committed again. Slaughtering the animal is a means to close the door to this crime spreading in society.

it is way more degenerate to have sex with animals than it is to have homosexual sex with the same species.

It's that he had them, knew he had them, and refusedto give them back when asked.

So you believe it's not "willful" until someone asks for the documents?

When someone asks for their stuff back and you refuse by lying saying you didn't have them when you did and when you take action to evade their detection and destroy the evidence of their whereabouts... There is no longer any ambiguity as to whether your retention of those documents was willful.

Of course he is the rightful owner, not NARA or the FBI;

That's just stupid. He's a private citizen, he doesn't get to declare classified documents his any more than you or I.

the Department of Justice stated in public court filings that the "currently classified" diaries were Mr. Reagan's "personal records."

The justice department made the determination that Mr. Reagan's diaries were his to keep. Last I checked the owner of something has the right to do that.

You can whine and complain about unfair treatment because of the fact that the government asked Trump for his documents back

You can't write every exception or account for every possible circumstance when crafting laws

sometimes you need to use your common sense to say 'that person shouldn't be going to jail for that'

And again since I have to repeatedly state this, I'm not arguing for more ambiguity in the laws or a system that is entirely dependant on the whims of the enforcers

This is again, why we have lawyers, judges, juries, higher courts, etc.

Hardly, you're defending totally unprecedented charges against a political rival on the eve of an election

What's unprecedented are his actions

The circumstances are that he lied, then obstructed

Again the only reason I appealed to the need for descretion based on circumstances is because you do not have a defense of his actions

If you can make exceptions on a case by case basis when exceptions are just and rational then there is no motivation to write the exceptions into the law and then what happens when the enforces are not just and rational?

If the enforcer of the law is not acting just and rational then no rewrite of the law is going to change that.

I've made clear by this point that this has nothing to do with whether Trump was allowed to have those documents.

We should live in a world where the rules are just and practical and we will never get there if people are shielded from stupid rules by the good graces of bureaucrats

Ah, so the idea is that our we punish and even imprison enough people who really did nothing wrong then that's how we'll get our lawmakers to write better laws.

He has already mused to his rally crowds that he will order the indictments of his political opponents. Not because they committed crimes, but because they're his political opponents.

Chances that you added that last part: 99.95%

"Beck said: “Do you regret not locking [Clinton] up? And if you’re president again, will you lock people up?”

Trump said: “The answer is you have no choice, because they’re doing it to us.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/30/trump-interview-jail-political-opponents-glenn-beck

"Because they're doing it to us" =/= "because that's how the rule of law works"

My research seems to show that it is conceived, however misguidedly, to impress potential extraterrestrial invaders so that they refrain from blowing up our planet.

The citizens of Israel aren't trying to kill all the Jews....

I saw this poll that said like 3/4 of Israeli Arabs don't want Israel to be a state.

You're saying all 8 million are connected to Hamas? Kinda proves Israel right if true.

I'm saying in the South Levant, there are 8 million Muslims.

But those that want to do harm to the Jews aren't going to leave for any sum of money

their goal is to be a super majority in the area which then leads to a genocide of Jewish people.

14% GDP is a small price to pay in order to not have to worry about rockets and rape gangs.

Can't they just expieriment on their rapists for science?  That seems to be a better punishment than deportation.

Vote for & donate to the most liberal candidate who can win, debate people, wait for the aliens to ask me what needs to change. What can one man do?

How would donating to any politician help Israel without stealing.

 Pay Muslim countries $10,000 / head to take them in if they want to leave.

8 million arabs; that's $80 billion (about 14% of Israeli GDP).

I believe in not stealing for a military industrial complex.

How do you plan on achieving that?

To the unmarried, what are your thoughts if you were married, what is your approach?

Are weddings pure materialistic shows?

This would include wearing what's on your finger.

Do you believe in working in the same space and place as your spouse?

Are you the type finding yourself constantly looking to occupy attention, yours and or the other person's attention?

so cheer for Israel on the sidelines if you want

I believe in an America first policy for Ukraine and Israel.

Finally, how can we extinguish the hate?

There is, it is the world implied by your claim that knowingly possessing documents that weren't explicitly declassified after leaving office is willful retention and a crime.

How is it that after all of these months of debating  this you are still fundamentally ignorant on what the basic charges against Trump are?

The charge here is not that he had them and he knew he had them.

It's that he had them, knew he had them, and refused to give them back when asked.

Having possession of something that isn't yours is not necessarily wrong, that depends on the circumstances. When it's rightful owner asks for it back and you refuse, that's theft. This is common sense.

Classified documents belong to the government.

Neither Biden nor any former office holder had ever done something [not giving every document in the house] so stupid.

Circumstances matter.

A person driving above the speed limit for the thrill of it is not the same as the person speeding to get his wife to a hospital before she bleeds out in the back seat from a pregnancy complication.

Once again, our disagreement is about balance. And again, I think there are two sides to this scale that have to be considered, you think there's only one.

Equal application of the law is important, but it is ultimately pointless of it is enforced without any thought, because laws exist for a reason and if those reasons are not going to guide us in our enforcement of them then what we end up with is not a system of justice.

What I find ironic about what you're trying to argue is that your position is essentially a pro beurocrat world view, something right wingers love to decry.

The negative connotation behind that word comes from the notion of people sitting in an office making decisions based on a rule book with no regard for the real world circumstances involved in any of their decisions and therefore no regard for real world consequences of the decisions they are making.

They're just following the rules. And that's the world you think we should all live in, apparently.

The problem is of course that you really don't, it's only because these rules are being enforced against Trump.

Something tells me suddenly lawfare will exist when Trump is holding the gun. Suddenly every prosecutor will be corrupt. Every witness threatened. Every piece of evidence planted.

He has already mused to his rally crowds that he will order the indictments of his political opponents. Not because they committed crimes, but because they're his political opponents.

You can't genocide half the population.  There is strength in numbers.

Nobody will think every law is perfect

like no need for massive bureaucratic waste on the military if the whole world is one nation because wars over territory wouldn't exist anymore

Governments (in a democracy) are owned by the people.  The only difference between Israel and Palestine (assuming one state solution) would be the flag; both places would be roughly half Jewish half Muslim.

A one world nation with one world language ends the need for war.

56 million died as a direct consequence of contact with europeans

colonists certainly would have liked to wage such a war and did talk about giving infected blankets and such to the indigenes, and they may even have done so a few times, but by and large the legend is just that, a legend. Before the development of modern bacteriology at the end of the 1 9'h century, dis-eases did not come in ampoules, and there were no refrigerators in which to store the ampoules.... As for infected blankets, they might or might notwork. Furthermore, and most important, the intentionally transmitted dis-ease might swing back on the white population.... These people were dedicated to quarantining smallpox, not to spreading it.3

On July 22, about a month after the deceptive gift, Trent wrote in his journal: "Gray Eyes, Wingenum, Turtle's Heart and Mamaultee, came over the River told us their Chiefs were in Council, that they waited for Custalugawho they expected that Day."' This entry, which is ignored over and over again in historical accounts, shows both recipients of the soiled material alive and well-smallpox should have hit them by that time.

"Neither Amherstnor Bouquet actually tried germ warfare. The attempt to disseminate small-pox took place at Fort Pitt independent of both of them.Smallpox and the Indians were a dangerous and unhappy combination.In 1773 George Croghan, who handled Indian affairs at Fort Pitt, commented that "the Small pox itts very fatal to them and allways will be, Till they become Civilised, as Till then they Cant be brought to keep themselves Warm, and adopt Such meshurs as is Necessary in that Disorder." Croghan's observationis a criticism of how Indians dealt with fevers and diseases such as smallpox-hoping that a dousing with very cold water would cure them. This technique was ineffective against smallpox. For that matter, everything the British tried failed too until the development of inoculation, which involved giving a patient a weak case of smallpox so that the full power of the disease would be avoided. However, even inoculation sometimes proved fatal and it remained controversial among the colonists. A few years after the Fort Pitt episode,rioting against inoculation rocked Norfolk, Virginia; that colony soon severely limited the procedure. During the French and Indian War, smallpox attacked both the Delaware Indians and the colonists of Pennsylvania."

and there can be no doubt that many of them were killed by person to person violence

some estimates are 10 million

but even it it was "only" 6 million

or maybe even 2 million

it doesn't really change the equation

Okay, then we won't have to worry that Trump will exercise lawfare since it does not exist.

We will stop pretending Trump will do exactly the same thing, since lawfare does not exist. One less thing for us to worry about.

Well they weren't before people went insane with TDS. POTUS is authorized, as authorized as possible actually. 

The crime occurred in 2021. Trump wasn't POTUS.

Once again, Biden realized he had them, returned them immediately

Trump kept these documents in storage, lied to the FBI about having them, moved them from one location to another so the FBI wouldn't find them, ordered the footage destroyed

There is no world in which these two things are remotely similar.

It is the classic fallacy of the subjectivist to confuse the possibility of error or imprecision with a fundamental subjectivity. The ability of a human being to confuse himself over addition, to define it awkwardly, and insist 2+2 = 5 is not proof that math is subjective.

The difference between a statement being objective or subjective in many cases comes down to definitions. If two people are defining a term the exact same way, then whether the sentence formed matches reality can be determined objectively.

Laws don't work this way and they never will because the precise meaning of the pages upon pages of texts will always be subject to interpretation.

No such thing as an indigene anyway.

Just previous settlers.

Is debunked as baseless.

of course it is, because you personally decided

So communist of you! 

European settlers killed 56 million indigenous people over about 100 years

Starting his reign in 1503, Pope Julius II was known for being domineering, hot-headed, and a manic at times. But by far his worst feature was his severe case of Syphilis, contracting it via prostitutes. It was documented that on Good Friday, his feet were so covered by sores that no one was able to kiss them.

and the smallpox situation was simply "god's will"

European settlers killed 56 million indigenous people over about 100 years in South, Central and North America, causing large swaths of farmland to be abandoned and reforested, researchers at University College London, or UCL, estimate. [[LINK]]

after European invaders killed most of Native Americans.

Instead this law along with pretty much every law ever written is intentionally vague

These are not complicated questions at all

Pretend that the level of ambiguity here is the problem.

Pretend that because there is some ambiguity on some level, well that's the problem and it means the government is engaging in corrupt lawfare.

Your argument is essentially:

P1: Subjectivity in legal charges is bad

P2: the charges against Trump are subjective

C: the charges against Trump are bad

It would never have assumed you would cede P2, but you said there are no objective charges which means they are all subjective; then this argument wins.

The argument wins at what?

So any charge using any law that wasn't written for the specific allegation becomes "bad", which means all criminal charges are bad since every charge is unique in some way.

It's a tautology, which is to say it is a pointless meaningless statement.

Have you ever hear anyone "argue" that 2+2=4?

Why do you think that is if this is all objective on the same level as 2+2?

I would really love to see how your "clear definition" of the law would apply to someone who shares US secrets with a foreign advasary without authorization. Cause you know, they inferred it must be ok.

If the inference is correct they were authorized.

The question clearly presumes the inference is incorrect.

If they were elected POTUS then action and authorization are identical.

Until the person elected is no longer POTUS. At that point all the next president has to do is reclassify them in his mind and whoala, he's back in violation.

Joe Biden didn't "think it was ok".

Then it was willful.

Not according to the law.

If you believe the meaning of laws is subjective there is nothing to debate on that subject

And yet appeallate court challenges and SCOTUS oral arguments will continue to be had as they have been for all 200+ years of our country's history.

The main reason why they CANNOT charge Trump with a campaign finance violation is because he would then be able to easily win that part of the case (due to lack of evidence), and then there would be no hush money trial....

If I were to teach a class on how to debate, and someone asked me "how do you know you've won (and are no longer hearing anything relevant)", my answer:

When they start to talk about subjectivity.

Also context magic.

The entire case revolves around the possibility that Trump used campaign funds because....well it makes sense....kinda....sorta....let's just talk about it.

Now the court has to convince a jury that a felonious man who repeatedly slandered Trump can be believed that an expenditure that was never reported as a campaign expense was actually a campaign expense....according to one man alone... and because that man cares about justice, not revenge.

So you brought subjectivity into the debate

Your argument is essentially:

P1: Subjectivity in legal charges is bad

P2: the charges against Trump are subjective

C: the charges against Trump are bad

This is why I have to talk about subjectivity and the absurdity of an argument that relies on premises that can be used against literally any charge that has ever been brought against anyone, ever.

Then go start your own country

I would really love to see how your "clear definition" of the law would apply to someone who shares US secrets with a foreign advasary without authorization. Cause you know, they inferred it must be ok.

Every former president and their staffs are not in jail because none of them repeatedly lied to the FBI telling them they didn't have the documents the government was asking to give back, none of them started moving their troves of government  documents from location to location to evade detection, and none of them attempted to destroy the evidence of their crimes afterwards.

Joe Biden didn't "think it was ok".

A law being "clearly defined" (a completely subjective determination) is not a requirement for enforcing that law

So yeah, my way is obviously better.

A better way is to abolish police and law

At least cops don't shoot white people when they go to their door.

https://apnews.com/article/police-shootings-home-roger-fortson-death-6e8db776663b684d878917e6b7ea4e57

the very idea that applying thought towards enforcement of the law is itself the problem.

"thought", that is a strawman. The thinking that is appropriate is thinking about what the law says and whether the acts are objectively part of the category.

That's exactly my point, in many if not most cases there is no such thing as an objective determination that any given act matches to what the law describes.

the reason laws exist is to remove discretion from government to minimize tyranny and abuse.

Remove descretion *as much as reasonably possible*. Because again, removing it entirely is not humanly possible.

I shouldn't have to argue this because it's plainly obvious

so you try to make this a purely legal argument (despite having no qualifications)

Anything can be abused, the possibility of abuse doesn't in an of itself doesn't justify it's removal

The remedy is to ensure checks against abuse

Please explain something then... If a president declassifies something in his mind, how does the rest of the government know to treat the information as such?

The question is; how to we handle charges of crimes that are not clearly defined?

America has done just fine with an unelected unfireable all-powerful oligarchy for decades. (allegedly)

Trump said he will cut SS and Medicare so he can have another tax cut.