Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Lol challenge him to a debate. Easiest win of my life
If I was such an easy opponent that you thought you could beat again you wouldn’t be here 3 years later still bragging about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Typing in "Trump jury" gave me nothing on who those people are. But that lack of info empowers me to question its reliability
No, it doesn’t. The reason we know nothing of these jurors is because the judge went to great lengths to protect their identities. This was necessary because the defendant has demonstrated at every opportunity he’s ever had that he will publicly attack anyone he perceives as being against him and will do absolutely nothing to dissuade those he inspires from threatening the lives of everyone involved.
There’s nothing to glean from that, so all we do have is the credibility of the process itself which has been revered around the world for centuries. This is why Trump and his minions are working so hard to tell you the system itself has gone to hell - because they have no arguments so instead of accepting the results they would rather burn the country down. This is what makes Trump so dangerous.
Any speculation is fair speculation in a zero-information game
But you’re doing more than speculation. You’re arguing that the jury was unfair to Trump for political reasons. That requires evidence, not speculation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's funny to see people trying to debate double R when he has spent months losing every attempt to debate every case involving Trump.
Says the guy who thinks Biden discovering that he had classified documents and then returning them without being asked is the same thing as Trump being asked for the documents back, lying about not having them, ordering them moved to stop the FBI from finding them, then ordering the evidence of there whereabouts destroyed.
You don’t get a say on who “lost” the debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Trump will gain more power, support and popularity from this.
Yeah, we know. Because you know, party of law and order right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
To call him an extremely polarizing figure would be underselling it; people who wouldn't vote for him often have such viscerally negative feelings about the man that they'll readily believe any story accusing him of misconduct.
That is why we have a jury selection process to weed out those people.
Besides, that argument cuts both ways. Just as there are people who would disregard any rational argument to convict him, there are those who would do the same to acquit him. So even if there was not a fair juror on the bench, the statistical odds were still in Trump’s favor.
But seriously, you really need to set that aside. You focus on a jury whom you know absolutely nothing about because you have no argument defending his conduct. If the fault here lies on anyone that’s not Trump it would be his attorneys. They gave the jury absolutely nothing to work with. The only question is why. I say it’s because they themselves had nothing to work with, reality is a bitch. But if the facts were on Trumps side you really need to wrestle with why they were so incompetent to point it out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Finally, after some deliberating, they find Biden guilty on all charges...Does this hypothetical sound like justice to you? Would you object?
Up until this post of your post, my opinion on whether it was justice would depend on the charges against Biden and the evidence supporting them. Everything else is irrelevant.
To that end, as a comparison, I find it remarkable that the entirety of the Trump defense was to call Micheal Cohen a liar, as if his testimony wasn’t corroborated by every other witness along with the documents and video evidence provided. There’s a saying in law; ‘When facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When you have neither the facts nor the law on your side, pound the table’.
The fact that Trumps own lawyers chose option 3 should make you think.
But let's say Biden gets lucky and they don't. No matter; the prosecutors will find something else on their bucket list and repeat the cycle all over again, until eventually they get a jury that throws the book at the man.
This nothing more than a prediction based on projection.
Even if Biden’s prosecutors were just searching for anything they could find, they’d still have to secure an indictment, gets passed the pre trial appeals, convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and then face post trial appeals. You act as if Biden could just order Trump jailed and it becomes so. Not how it works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Even assuming Trump's attorney's did any such thing
They did, that’s how jury selection works and this one was especially grueling given the circumstances
was it not a group of twelve NYC denizens? Wouldn't a fair trial have 6 jurors from blue-leaning parts of the state, and 6 from red-leaning parts of the state?
That’s not how juries work in a rule of law system. The most fundamental principal is that politics has no place in a courtroom, so the last thing they would ever or should ever do is consider which counties are “red” vs “blue”.
It doesn’t matter where in the country you are, there will always be people with opposing political beliefs. NY is heavily democratic, but even if jurors were selected randomly the statistical odds would have still been in Trump’s favor because a guilty verdict required a unanimous vote, so all he needed was one. He got zero.
Jury selection started with literally hundreds of prospective jurors. The point of going through all of them was to determine which ones could be fair. We can’t read people’s minds so the system will never be perfect, but these are the ones that were picked for that purpose out of all of those people.
This isn’t to say the jury wasn’t stacked with anti Trumpers, but it is to say that there is no reason at all to believe it. Every indication is that these jurors took their oaths seriously.
A word that has no credibility when used in this context.
That’s because credibility is no match for a solid hand waive away of facts and logic.
Again, says who? Twelve Biden voters?
You have no evidence that any of them voted for Biden but you assert it anyway, so who is showing their bias?
There is absolutely zero evidence that Biden had anything to do with the chargesNo, but he is de facto head of the party whose members led the prosecution against Trump. And he stands to directly benefit from the outcome, either by having his opponent thrown out of the race or his reputation unduly muddied to the point where winning is improbable.
In other words, you have no evidence but it sounds really good to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
If Trump gets reelected, after the way he was treated, he has every moral right to burn the fcking world down.
Yeah, that’s been his strategy from the start. All he needed to do was convince the psychologically vulnerable among us that the consequences for his actions is everyone’s fault but his own. Check. Now once elected he gets to use that as the permission slip he has always wanted (as evidenced by his constant fawning over dictators).
This isn’t new, it’s the tired old tactic used by every fascist over the past century.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Every juror was predisposed to assume Trump's guilt; they may or may not have been actively selected to produce this outcome
The jurors were selected with the veto power of Trump’s attorneys after having the opportunity to have them questioned and comb through their social media posts.
If Trump is literally imprisoned, then Biden will officially be a Putin-style autocrat, with political opponents being jailed akin to Navalny
Trump is now a convicted felon because of his own actions and disregard for the law. There is absolutely zero evidence that Biden had anything to do with the charges, this isn’t even a federal case so he has no power here whatsoever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
The only thing the guilty verdicts tell these people is that the justice system is rigged.
It’s entirely a results based epistemology. If they win, it’s them. If they lose, it’s everyone else. Heads I win, tails you lose.
Created:
-->
@Mall
You're basically saying I can support the choice resulting in abortion even though I'm against abortion.This is a contradiction.
No, it’s not. You can disagree with someone’s decision while believing they should have the right to make that decision.
This has been explained repeatedly to you throughout this thread. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
You're asking me to explain how a dilemma you cherry picked is not a dilemma.
Cherry picking? WTF? It’s literally the topic of this thread.
So in a case where there's no dilemma and there's more than enough justification to actually bring a pregnancy to term…
If everyone agreed that there was justification to bring the pregnancy to term we would not be having this conversation. This debate exists specifically because there are instances where, for whatever reason, the woman who is pregnant does not wish to carry the pregnancy to term, so she has already decided that there isn’t justification. The only question at hand here is whether she gets to decide that or not. This debate has exactly zero to do with whether you or anyone else wants her to have the baby.
So let’s try this again:
A women is pregnant with an unwanted child. You can either:
A) Allow her to terminate the pregnancy thereby killing the unborn child
Or
B) Force the woman to carry the pregnancy to term against her will.
Explain how this is not both a dilemma and a true dichotomy.
Do you support the choice of a continuous murderous person?
Even though you have ignored my question, I will still be courteous enough to you as to not pretend you didn’t ask it.
I do not support the right of anyone to decide whether to murder another person.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Why would I support the choice resulting in abortion, if I truly don't support abortion?
Because as has already been explained to you, supporting someone’s decision and supporting their right to make their own decision are two entirely different things.
You're not stuck in the false dilemma.
A women is pregnant with an unwanted child. You can either:
A) Allow her to terminate the pregnancy thereby killing the unborn child
Or
B) Force the woman to carry the pregnancy to term against her will.
Explain how this is not both a dilemma and a true dichotomy.
Created:
-->
@Mall
How can I be in favor of a choice without attaching what its choosing?
The point of the saying “lesser of two evils” (it’s just a figure of speech) is that you aren’t “in favor” of any of the choices but you pick one because the alternative is worse. If I gave you a choice between losing $100 or losing $1000, I’m sure you would pick the former, that doesn’t mean you are in favor of losing $100.
So imagine if I then painted you as someone who loves to lose $100 - that would be silly and dishonest. That’s exactly what you’re doing with regards to those who are pro choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
which is why we now have one of the two major political parties that doesn't believe in democracy or the rule of law.I love how Biden is scheduling a Whitehouse address to comment on the political court case against Trump. Irony.
How is that ironic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Meaning, they don't see Trump as someone that can't be challenged no matter what
And I never argued that, so what's your point?
Regardless, this is all besides the point. Every rule can have exceptions.But your political moral code should not have an exception.
We're not talking about moral codes, we're talking about what it means to be a part of a political party. Calling yourself a democrat or a republican (in a colloquial sense) doesn't necessitate that you agree with everything the party stands for, only that you are aligned on most issues such that you want that side to taker power.
Independents are the only people that don't need a consistent moral code; everyone in a party does.
First off you are confusing political parties with ideologies.
Second, ideologies are themselves generalizations. There is no reason someone cannot call themselves liberal even if they are more conservative on some issues or vice versa. You cannot assess someone's entire "political code" off of one word nor was that ever the point of these labels.
Third, a moral code is a completely different thing and that should always be consistent regardless of what you call yourself. The idea that independents get some kind of pass on that is a flagrant double standard.
So let's get back to the point of this thread. You didn't ask about any individual, you asked about what it means to be a republican and how the GOP does not have a consistent ethos. The GOP is not a person, it is an entity and should be treated as such. Entities change and the GOP is certainly no exception. Quoting something Trump said back in 2015 does not negate the point, this is his party and will take just about any position he demands which is why we now have one of the two major political parties that doesn't believe in democracy or the rule of law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
I always want to know the truth, this is my first principal in life which is what lead me to studying logical fallacies and epistemology, which is what lead me away from religious beliefs.Funny... It lead me to religious beliefs.
Then you're doing it wrong
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
What if you were wrong? Would you want to know? And if so, why or why not?
I always want to know the truth, this is my first principal in life which is what lead me to studying logical fallacies and epistemology, which is what lead me away from religious beliefs.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
here is my response to someone who tried debating this with me... what say ya'll?
I think the person who tried to debate this with you is right.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
this is another example of an irrational response to my points.yes, perhaps, the brain is able to detect things after all currently scientifically accepted signs of life have ceased... but that wouldn't explain how it's almost always, in a way that's 'accurate or consistent with reality', the case that a dead person can determine what happened outside his body.
What's irrational is to argue that not having an explanation for a phenomenon = having an explanation for a phenomenon. That is a logical contradiction which is why it is a formal logical fallacy to assert, and asserting logical fallacies is the literal opposite of what it means to be rational.
Setting aside the accuracy of your statement that what the brain has been shown to experience during these occurrences are 'almost always consistent with reality', an impressive quality of the brain is not evidence for the supernatural.
the only possible rational response to this stuff, is to question the credibility of the science
You can question the credibility of any scientist, you cannot question the credibility of science because science is nothing more than a method of understanding reality based on the fundamental principals of logic. Unless you can explain how we're getting our fundamental principals of logic wrong, then arguing against science is in effect arguing against logic itself which would again be self contradictory.
the problem with that, is that the science looks credible. given you dont even make that argument, you resort to just ignoring it
I'm not ignoring it, I'm pointing out why even if we accept the premises of your argument your conclusion still does not follow. The problem is not that you're working with facts here that I've disregard, the problem is that you are failing at the most fundamental level to understand how we come to know anything in the first place.
There is a reason science does not address the supernatural; because there is no method of testing something in the physical universe that could confirm what lies beyond it. We can only access and interact with the physical, so the only knowledge we can gain from that limitation would necessarily pertain to the physical.
None of this means the supernatural doesn't exist or that NDE's are not tied to the afterlife, it just means we could never confirm it and therefore it is irrational to assert.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
No, they're not. They're evidence that the brain has the ability to continue picking up information even after our ability to detect brain activity ceases. Nothing about that necessitates an after life.then there's the blind people coming to grips with seeing for the first time while dead.these things are objectively evidence of the afterlife.
i maintain that there's ample evidence and other common sense things that point to humans being more than elaborate flesh robots. yet, you irrationally ignore or respond to it...
What's irrational is appealing to something that hasn't been demonstrated to exist as the cause of something else and rejecting all possible alternatives.
Created:
-->
@Mall
The issue... As in, what about this are you not understanding?
You asked how one could be pro choice without being pro abortion, so I asked if you understood the concept of the lesser of two evils and you acknowledged you do. That's your answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
- Pro COVID booster
- Anti confederate flag
The GOP base disagrees with him on this because these are left wing beliefs.
Trump is the reason the base became so anti vaccine/booster. He's the one who marked COVID as some left wing conspiracy. And if Trump had any position on the Confederate flag I've never heard it and certainly don't but it as anything more than lip service to whomever was accusing him of being a racist.
Regardless, this is all besides the point. Every rule can have exceptions. I never said Trump's command over the base has no limits. Pointing to some obscure example does not change the overall fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The GOP does not have a consistent ethos.
"RESOLVED, That the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President’s America-first agenda;"
In other words, the GOP ethos is whatever Trump says it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
LBJ was allegedly behind the Kennedy assassination
A much more reasonable conspiracy theory than this one
Created:
Posted in:
"Former President Donald Trump pointed to standard language in an unsealed FBI document to baselessly claim that the Biden administration wanted to kill him during a search of his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, nearly two years ago."
This is today's republican party.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I didn't
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, he does say that death to America is universally accepted on the left, and there can never be a wrong amount of support for the jihad in Palestine.So that [right wing prapoganda] seems to be doing just fine.
Fixed
Created:
-->
@Mall
Then what's the issue?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah I really love how Satan is asking the democrats to tone down the extremism in their marketing because of how it comes across to people who get their information on what democrats want from Fox news and right wing podcasters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes but that is a meaningless usage in a political context. Politics is entirely about ideologies, so there is no such thing as a set of political beliefs that would not meet that definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Let's hear the arguments for that.
Tribalism isn't a cult. Bad, incoherent, or immoral policy/philosophical positions are not a cult. A cult is when a movement centers not around a set of ideas or principals but around one person. You can criticize the left all you want for whatever positions you disagree with, you cannot pretend everyone is just following some left wing figurehead.
If you think MAGA isn't a cult then you are free to explain why, but for your own sake please stop responding to charges of MAGA cultism by calling the left a cult. It just makes you look childish and ignorant. "I know you are but what am I?" worked in third grade.
Created:
-->
@Mall
How can you be pro choice of the abortion without be a champion of the abortion itself ?
Do you understand what lesser of two evils means?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That has nothing to do with cultism, completely different thing
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
He did used to keep Hitler's speeches by his beside so...
Created:
-->
@Mall
Oh you think I'm trying to portray badness.
Uh, yeah, duh. That's why you referred to it as pro abortion. That description doesn't reflect how anyone on the left see's this issue. It's no different than describing someone who is pro Capitol punishment as pro murder. This is how the demonization game is played; every political position has pros and cons, so when you want to portray your opposition in a bad light you pretend that the practical result of their position is their motivation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The one on trial is the people of NY,NY. Do they still belong in the union? This jury will tell us.
MAGA cultism perfectly demonstrated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You just contradicted yourself.
Yet another demonstration of everything I just said. It's like you're trying to prove me right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you really so far left that you now see anyone who disagrees with you as a "MAGA cultist"?
No, I see anyone so depraved of thought that they can't respond to a single argument and instead just runs away every time their position is shown to be BS but keeps peddling it anyway as a partisan hack. It goes to another level when that same person can't recognize the basic problem with a person who tried and continues to try to overthrow the American experiment and instead defends that person at every turn while attacking anyone who attacks him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
There is also no ambiguity when you say "they're mine" like Biden and Reagan did.
Show me where the FBI came to Biden asking for the return of classified documents and Biden said no. I'll wait.
And after you're done finding that example, please explain how Biden lied, concealed, and obstructed the FBI's investigation into their whereabouts.
he doesn't get to declare classified documents his any more than you or I.Then why can Biden and Reagan?
Neither of them did. Reagan asserted executive privilege, something Trump could have tried even though he did not have a legitimate case. Instead he lied, concealed, and obstructed. Those are two different things.
So you think some nameless bureaucrats in the justice department own presidential records but the president doesn't.
Do you know what legal entity is? Do you know the difference between an entity and the people working for it?
sometimes you need to use your common sense to say 'that person shouldn't be going to jail for that'...and then do it 99% until people actually think it's legal waiting for that one time your political rival "breaks the law"...
No former office holder ever took classified documents and then lied, concealed, and obstructed the FBI' investigation afterwards.
You can pretend as many times as you want that this didn't happen, it did. Deal with it.
No, you just used it as an excuse for why you don't have to explain why Biden isn't guilty under your interpretation or justify that your interpretation is correct.
I have explained, multiple times now, how Biden isn't guilty. Biden didn't lie, conceal, and obstruct. Do you know what those words mean? Can you read? How much longer are you going to keep pretending that I'm not making the argument I've been making for months now?
You "don't want to get into legal details" because don't you just feel deep in your gut how evil Trump is?
I have gone way further into the legal details on this topic than you have, but pretending is your MO so of course you'll pretend I haven't.
The reason I would prefer not to get into the legal details is because it's obvious that you really don't care about that. This is all just a distraction to you because you can't defend Trump's actions, so you instead pretend illegality is the bar for a former president and current frontrunner so that you can try to hide the obvious fact that he was wrong in a web of arguments around legal statutes, legal definitions, legal precedent, and legal theory... Because there's so much there that you can use to obfuscate the conversation. That's the only reason we're talking about the law instead of what's right. It's fundamentally dishonest.
See how quickly respect and obedience to those institutions has evaporated without control of the media.
Doesn't address anything I've argued
As far as your interpretation of the law is concerned his actions are precedented by every president and probably every vice president since classification existed.
When you give yourself the luxury of just ignoring the parts that are unprecedented, of course what's left will be precedented. That isn't shocking.
Trump lied, concealed and obstructed. No one else ever has. Deal with it.
You appealed to discretion because the law did not describe his action as criminal, and without that there is no obstruction and no crime to cover up.
I appealed to descretion because the law absolutely describes Trump's behavior, but it takes thought to interpret it, because that's how laws work. But this is the game you play; you can't defend your position so instead you turn this into a debate over whether we should be able to think when asking ourselves whether a person's actions violate a law. It's essentially a version of the nuclear method, if you can't prove your position just blow up all knowledge so that any assertion at all is just as unjustified as yours.
And no you're just wrong; it is not required for an underlying crime to be proven in order for someone to be guilty of obstruction of justice and for obvious reasons, if someone successfully obstructs the investigation then of course the authorities would not be able to find the evidence of the crime. In this case, if Trump's employees did wipe the footage the FBI would probably Jane never had the evidence they needed for the search warrant. So no, you don't get to lie and obstruct regardless of what you did or didn't do.
If the only difference is whether you admit to what you're doing that's not much of a difference is it? I was just predicting democrats aren't fully realizing that it won't be as fun when the victim fights back.
Yeah, this is the difference between us. You have been so conditioned to think of politics as warfare that you can't even fathom that others don't see it that way. That when others hold someone accountable for their crimes out couldn't possibly be due to belief in the rule of law, no it must be lawfare. It's called projection.
Democrats don't "admit" to weaponization the justice department because we haven't. Republicans want to. That's why we're different.
Bill Mahr did a pretty good job of highlighting it here.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Operates from the same basis.
The two have nothing to do with each other in terms of what they actually mean, but there is a frequent common denominator in the majority of people who are both pro choice and pro LGBT rights: the belief in freedom.
I don't know why you try to portray that as a bad thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why do you bother? You clearly aren't trying to make an intelligent point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
Science wasn't created, it was discovered.By who?
Humanity.
And was so long before the events the bible describes.Before the creation of the universe science, a method of investigation of the natural world, was was discovered?
I'm talking about the stories in the bible, such as the resurrection. Genesis isn't the only event.
It is only in recent ages that we have truly embraced its power.Oh, I see. The same power as religion.
Pretty much, we just shifted from believing whatever we were told because it was in an old book to figuring things out on our own.
That's like the vaccine for Covid being patented before Covid.
How?
All Bibles are updated versions.
Who updated them and when?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Krickbaum attempted to ask Biden about whether he was authorized to have notebooks he kept full of handwritten notes about events and items he was briefed on. "You view those as yours —" Krickbaum began to ask."They are mine," Biden interrupted, in one of the more defiant moments of the interview."Every president before me has done the same exact thing," Biden said.
They didn't come to Biden to tell him he has to turn anything over. And even if we pretended they did, Biden didn't lie to them, then move the documents around so they wouldn't find them, then order the evidence of their whereabouts destroyed.
Why are the MAGA cultists so incapable of telling these two things apart from eachother?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The charge here is not that he had them and he knew he had them.Yes it is. Read them. Look at the law.
Scroll up. I literally cited the entire law and even highlighted in bold the parts that applied to this case.
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.
During criminal litigation involving a former Reagan administration official in 1989 and 1990, the Department of Justice stated in public court filings that the "currently classified" diaries were Mr. Reagan's "personal records." Yet we know of no steps the Department or other agencies took to investigate Mr. Reagan for mishandling classified information or to retrieve or secure his diaries.
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 and not Reagan's, that's irrelevant to everything that Trump did afterwards.
If emergencies are a valid exception to the speed limit that should be in the law. If the severity of the offense varies with how much one is exceeding the speed limit that should be in the law.
You can't write every exception or account for every possible circumstance when crafting laws, it's not humanly possible nor is it practical in any sense. As much as you pretend (only when it applies to Trump) that human judgement and the ability to recognize that not every letter of the law violation is a spirit of the law violation and that sometimes you need to use your common sense to say 'that person shouldn't be going to jail for that', this has never been how any rule of law in any functioning society has ever worked and never will.
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, I'm talking about a practical reality that there will always be exceptions based on unforeseen circumstances. No citizen is responsible for the failure of their lawmakers to foresee the situation they might find themselves in. 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. That is not the fault of the libs or whatever group you insist on demonizing. Trump is entirely at fault here, deal with it.
Then, unable to look at yourself in the mirror you went on to try and justify the relevance of your subjective feelings about the man by alluding to 'circumstance' and 'discretion'.
lol. Unable to look at myself in the mirror? That has to be projection.
The circumstances are that he lied, then obstructed. It doesn't take much subjectivity to recognize how flagrantly he violated the law and that nothing that any former president did ever came close.
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 so you want to make this a purely legal argument where instead of evaluating Trump's actions you evaluate how laws are enforced and then you take an extreme view that descretion cannot play any role in any law enforcement ever. It's a ridiculous position but you take it so that you can paint my argument that descretion is sometimes necessary as 'all laws are enforced entirely subjectively and that's great'. It's brazenly dishonest but when you have nothing else to work with...
There is no merit to your position that laws should remain vague and enforcement need not be equal.
Exactly my point. You aren't arguing with me, you're just trying to save face by strawmanning my position to take the attention off of the absurd notion that Trump shouldn't be indicted for what he did.
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. A system run by humans is always going involve human judgement, so I don't know if your ideal is some sort of Terminator-esq utopia where we're all ruled by machines but whatever it is it's not reality.
That is not rule of law. It is insanity.
It's also a slippery slope. There is nothing about the natural and inevitable reality that human judgement will have to play some role in a system of law that leads down the path where the system in run entirely on poor judgement and corruption. In any society of human beings, our collective judgement will determine our fate. You cannot legislate out of that.
You will NEVER convince me or any other Trump voter that your motives are pure for not excepting Trump from your so called "law against presidents having national defense information"
Yet another strawman. I've made clear by this point that this has nothing to do with whether Trump was allowed to have those documents. This is all about the fact that when the government comes to you and tells you that those government documents you're stashing need to be returned and your response is to lie and obstruct the investigation into their whereabouts, you deserve to go to jail. That's common sense to anyone who is not victim to the MAGA cult.
You and I have very different ideas about what is wrong with bureaucracy.It's that they're making stupid rules without constitutional authority
That has nothing to do with the connotation or the definition of the word.
"an official in a government department, in particular one perceived as being concerned with procedural correctness at the expense of people's needs." - Google
Procedural correctness... As in following words on a piece of paper with no thought, no judgement, no descretion based on the real life circumstances of the people their decisions are affecting, which is exactly what you are advocating to be expanded.
You're entitled to your ideals, I'm just pointing out that it's quite a strange ideal on its own let alone one for someone on the political right.
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.
Ok, that's a viewpoint you're entitled to have.
I am saying that he broke no rules AND that even if there was such a rule if he was the first of many examples to actually be charged it would still be lawfare.
Last I checked lying to the FBI and ordering the destruction of evidence is breaking rules.
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.”
"Because they're doing it to us" =/= "because that's how the rule of law works"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ADreamOfLiberty
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. No one who actually values democracy and the rule of law would say that to their supporters.
It's basically the same argument about election fraud. It's impossible to do
No one said election fraud is impossible, we've said there's no evidence is actually happening to the degree the conspiracy theorists claim.
so we don't have to worry when Trump counts the votes.
Uh, yeah we do, because that's not how our election system works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
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. When the government asked Trump for the documents back it was no longer up to him to decide whether the government gets to have them. His willful refusal to give them back, his lying to investigators, and his attempt to destroy the evidence of their whereabouts is why he is being prosecuted. Neither Biden nor any former office holder had ever done something so stupid. That's why he's being treated differently.
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 destroyedAll of these probably false accusations are irrelevant.
No, they're not. Those are what makes his retention "willful" beyond a reasonable doubt.
It doesn't matter if a serial rapist is speeding or mother Theresa. If you charge one but not the other when they are both going above the speed limit that is unequal application of the law which is not Rule of Law.
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
you know how we know that the Bible was right on that and the doctors were wrong? Because of science.Which was created by theists to learn more about God's creation
Science wasn't created, it was discovered. And was so long before the events the bible describes. It is only in recent ages that we have truly embraced its power.
Religion has been correcting itself since before science was born.
Then can you provide an updated version of the bible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I will not obey respect or listen to God.
That is by definition, not an atheist
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you even read my responses, or just see that words were typed and respond to the argument you wanted me to make?
The documents case isn't lawfare. Do you understand?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I just explained how it is not lawfare. As usual, you have no response to that except to just keep pretending.
Created: