Total posts: 4,346
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Not sure where the confusion is coming from. You say "hate speech" is speech that leads to violence against people. I'm asking if an idea has historically lead to death and starvation, should it also be banned from advocacy, or do you put an arbitrary rule of "might cause violence" on speech?
My description of what qualifies as hate speech was a response to the OP, not an all encompassing definition to be held to. I think the context of the discussion should have made that clear.
This is a debate site, if you’re looking for a definition I’m sure google would be a much better option.
Are stupid ideas that lead to mass starvation 100% of the time also banned? Or is that fine?
No. We’re not talking about ideas we’re talking about speech, particularly speech directed towards a certain group.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you determine what I was thinking at the time?
With evidence, just like anything else.
The fact that we can never be absolutely certain as to what someone was thinking is not an argument, the same holds true for anything else. Video footage of a murder could be faked, pictures could be photoshopped, finger prints could be planted. That’s why “beyond a shadow of a doubt” has no place in our justice system.
Trump made clear in that phone call that he was looking for 11,780 votes, the exact number he needed to pull ahead. That right there says it all. Even if he sincerely believed the election was rigged that’s no defense because he demonstrated that his intent was not for Georgia officials to determine to the accurate number, just the number he needed to win.
If there were any such thing as a neutral, objective observer, this would be a no brainier.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sure he does. He has already suppressed the CDC's science on schools by claiming CDC doesn't know anything about what they are talking about regarding schools.
Just accepting your characterization as fact for the sake of argument... claiming another agency doesn’t know what they are talking about is not “suppressing ideas”. But if you really believe that then you must have been in a constant state of outrage over the last 4 years.
Government is a monopoly because they have Authority to destroy their competition like the CDC and other political threats.
Government isn’t a business. It doesn’t have competition. What are you talking about?
CDC provided a solution. Government cares about preserving political power over doing the right thing.
What are you talking about? Government is not a person. “It” does not care about anything. “It” does not have political power.
Please explain what you think a government is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Are stupid ideas that lead to mass starvation 100% of the time also banned? Or is that fine?
I’d be happy to answer your question... as soon as you can tell me what this has to do with this the topic of this thread or with anything I have said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Questioning authority today makes you a traitor and a pariah. Most people are just going to give up and let the government do whatever.
Questioning authority is the right of every American, claiming that makes you a traitor is just plain stupid. What does get you treated like a pariah is when you pretend you’re asking questions while really just spreading conspiracy theories. And in that case it’s not the government that holds you accountable, it’s your fellow citizens exercising their first amendment right to call you out on your BS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Isn’t that what you are trying to prove to us?Good question.
This reminds me of Matt Slick’s TAG argument where he began with the premise “everything that exists is either physical or mental”, this was supposed to lead us to God. But when someone asked him “so what is God?” his answer was: Neither.
Either causality applies to everything or it doesn’t. One cannot argue that it applies to everything “except the thing I’m trying to prove” while claiming to be logical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So you are okay with voting out the entire government for using the military and police to wield violence?
No. Read my statement again, take note of the phrase “without question”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The government as an uncontested monopoly actively suppresses any ideas that could challenge their monopoly on power. A case in point is Biden's loyalty to the teacher's unions when the CDC has a solution.
You should take some time to read up on monopolies to understand what they are and why we recognize them.
Biden doesn’t have the power to suppress ideas, and taking a side on a contentious issue while doing whatever is in his power to effect the outcome is what political leaders are elected to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Does that include speech supporting government violence against the public?
Provide an example.
Or should the government be trusted to wield violence unrestricted and without question?
You act as if the government is a person. It’s not, it’s an institution made up of our representatives chosen to answer questions such as these. If our representatives enact laws allowing anyone to wield violence without question they need to be voted out immediately.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It wasn’t meant as an all encompassing definition, just a response to the false examples provided in the OP.
Another element of hate speech is that it focuses on a person or group and characterizes them or their behavior. It is not merely a logical response to a perceived fact, but an attempt to paint a particular picture of a person or group in order to portray them in the worst light possible.
What is the point of this? Are you trying to argue that hate speech doesn’t exist, or that we as a society should not fight back against it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
What qualifies speech as hate speech isn’t whether someone listening gets their feelings hurt, it’s whether the content of your speech taken to its logical end would incite or serve as justification for violence towards another group.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I appreciate the response, but it doesn’t address the crux of what I am asking.
Small government is really not a value one can assert because it doesn’t lend itself to any particular outcome or direction. For example, if we were to accept this and downsize our government, what would be cut? The purpose of ideals is to serve as a guide for more complex decision making. “Small government” does nothing to assist in that process, all it does is feed into people’s opposition to government solutions while providing no solutions of their own.
Personal responsibility fits into a value system, I suppose, but ignores the complexity and interconnectedness of the real world. The difference between conservatism and liberalism isn’t whether one believes an individual should be responsible for their own actions but rather the question of to what extent the circumstances one faces is a result of their own actions.
I suppose my point is that when I look at the more predominantly asserted “conservative values” I don’t see any values at all, just opposition to any attempt by anyone else to assert their values.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
My opinion is irrelevant since questioning the outcome of the election isn't an option.
This is a debate site. The whole point is to share your opinion.
A rational person in a free society would probably believe the election was legit. Not in this society.
How is this not a free society? Enlighten me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I believe the Washington DC Oligarchy believes he was elected legitimately without question.
You sound like a politician. I didn’t ask what the Washington DC oligarchy believes, I asked what you believe. Care to provide any thoughts?
The outcomes of both events are the same. A cowed populace afraid to question the government and total authoritative dominance.
I didn’t ask about the outcome, I asked what you thought about them.
Any reason you are avoiding giving us your opinion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The misinformation war has just begun now that it is acceptable to equate fact with opinions.
I’m pretty sure the whole point to this thread is that it is not.
Do you believe Biden was chosen by the electorate?
If not, then what is your view of the Capitol attack?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
No, prove to me that a single event had no cause - prove to me that ONE SINGLE EVENT was "not involving causation or arising from a cause"
Isn’t that what you are trying to prove to us?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
If it is changing, then each change is the cause of the next one. Therefore, the first cause would not really be the first cause, the previous iteration of the first cause would be more "first".
This is just a contortion of language. The definition of time I go by is “the progression of existence”. When you say that the first cause is unchanging, that essentially means there is no progression to its existence. This would negate the possibility of it causing anything since the act of causation would require some form of progression. Also, the idea of this theoretical first cause progressing in some way would not negate that it was in fact the first cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The argument concludes that God, or something similar, must have been the first thing in existence - it must have been both uncaused and eternal. The first cause would, by definition, be static and unchanging.
Where did you get this from? Why is a theoretical first cause not subject to change?
Created:
Posted in:
In a new Suffolk University/USA TODAY poll 73% of Trump voters say they believe the election was stolen. The same poll also found that 58% of those same voters believe January 6th was "mostly an antifa-inspired attack that only involved a few Trump supporters."
Let’s just assume the first question as our premise... the election was stolen and the rightful president whom the people voted to represent them will be kicked out of the Oval Office by hijacker’s of our federal government. Congress by certifying Biden would then be complicit in this. What should the people do? Head to the polls and vote out the same people who are manipulating the vote totals?
If this were true the only means left would be to take power back by force, which is exactly what Jan 6th was about. If Trump voters really believe the election was stolen they wouldn’t need to dissociate themselves with the attacks by absurdly blaming it on antifa.
I think this poll speaks to the logic pretzels many of Trump’s voters are twisting themselves in to hold onto their views. It’s one thing to argue with someone who doesn’t believe widely accepted facts about the world, it’s another to argue with someone who doesn’t even believe facts they themselves profess to believe.
Curious to know what any Trump voters think about this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
If LGBT person Dave wants to charge $50,000 a year and some random guy named Paul wants to charge $75,000 a year for their labor, If a business wants to discriminate on the basis of Dave's sexuality they are incurring a $25,000 a year cost to be bigots. That seems fair to me, since Dave is still free to take his talents elsewhere.
So all LGBT people have to do is work for 33% less. Problem solved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It took a Hitler to bring 75 years of crippling FDR reforms to the Constitution about what the government can control in your life.
What is it with conservatives and their view of the government as some boogeyman coming to intrude upon us?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Policies that harm America, liberals don't mind because it improves the world. For example carbon taxes harm America because we end up exporting our carbon emissions to China. It benefits china because they take our jobs and our money goes there, but it hurts america, and democrats think the extremely marginal impact on the environment is worth it because of how global warming effects other countries.
You’re not even talking about America vs other countries, you’re talking about shortsightedness vs doing what’s best down the road.
No one benefits short term by forcing changes to combat climate change (except those who get ahead of it). This is about future generations. The fact that the rest of the world also benefits doesn’t mean they are our first concern. The world is not a zero sum game.
You are basically just using rhetoric to say you disagree with me, while when you explain yourself further it proves you actually do agree with me.
That’s your take. To me it doesn’t sound like you are listening very closely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Being told that a higher power says murder is wrong is the only thing that makes murder wrong in the collective eyes of humanity. Your fear of punishment is the only reason you don't commit crimes like murder, not because you think it is wrong.
Curious as to who is the "you" in this sentence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Pimps can be left wing. More left-wingers support legalised prostitution than right-wingers.
Because you know, small government. So small that it can tell two consenting adults what they're allowed to agree to
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
I thought accepting somalian refugees only benefited Somalian refugees. If not what is the let's argument for why somalian refugees benefit America?
No one is arguing it benefits America, it also doesn't hurt America. So absent an "America first" argument to be made, the only thing left is to consider the action on it's own merits. If I need to explain to you why it's good to do good things then we have much bigger issues than politics.
But even if you can find some reason to claim this it hurtful to the US, this is just a red herring. We're talking about ideologies. There will always be some situation where we have to make a choice as to whether we should give to someone else. Holding firm on never sacrificing for the good of others doesn't make you "America first", it just makes you an asshole. (not talking to you specifically, just describing the inference)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
1. Let's do what is good for the country first and the world will benefitVs2. Let's do what is best for the world first and america willl benefit.
This is a false construct. The choice in any situation is "how will America benefit?". Greater benefits demand higher priority. It matters not who benefit's "first".
This is why Trump is so toxic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
There are a handful of issues the parties disagree on (guns being probably the biggest one), but the majority of Republicans couldn't reasonably be called "conservatives"
This is one of the reasons I started this thread. Once upon a time (before Trump) the republican party declared themselves the champions of conservatism, and every republican debate was essentially a dick measuring contest for who could prove themselves to be the most conservative.
That seems to have all evaporated now and from where I sit it makes sense. Conservatism, or at least the brand I laid out in the OP made up a pretty significant chunk of the ideas being championed by the party and yet I find it utterly vapid. I think for many on the right it was just a fassaud, what was really driving them was nothing more than hatred for the left.
I'm certainly not talking about everyone, my point is that these ideas are not as appealing as the party once swore they were and I think what we are seeing in our politics today is a reckoning on what to do about that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Most everyone builds their ideology on straw man's of others as opposed to it standing on it's own merits.My neighbor has a sign that says something like"We support gay rightsWe believe in scienceWe believe in equality"
This is not the same.
It is true that every ideology requires opposition, otherwise it’s just stating the obvious (belief in science being an example).
It is also true that many people do strawman their opposition, that’s not relevant to the question here. It wasn’t me describing conservatism as “being against hand outs” that was the self described conservative being interviewed. That matters in this conversation since the point is for conservatives to define their own ideology.
But more importantly, on that point about less taxes and less regulations... this is where it gets incoherent to me. This is not an unusual characterization of conservative principals, but unlike “belief in science”, this isn’t a principal at all. One may need opposition to science in order to consider their belief in science an ideology, but absent that opposition they can still believe in science.
Less taxes and less regulations in contrast, cannot be held at all without someone first proposing taxes and regulations. The only position one could take to make this coherent would be total anarchy, but I’ve never heard a prominent conservative figure take that position and I don’t think it would be tenable they did. So I’m back to square one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Blaming the wrong people is probably worse than blaming nobody, wouldn't you agree?
Agreed. I fail to understand how this is relevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Conservatism today means conserving traditional values from the enlightened thinkers of Western Civilization that the founding fathers created the country on.
And what values would those be?
Created:
Posted in:
Watching right wing media fawn over Rush Limbaugh yesterday really got me thinking about something...
In one interview Dan Quayle was talking about Rush's ability to speak on conservatism and highlight its virtues, which he summarized about 3 or 4 times as "less taxes, less regulations". In another interview (I did not get the speaker's name) she described conservatism as "not being for handouts, but rather an opportunity to build your own leg up in life".
Regarding the first interview, what I realize is that "less" anything is a relative term. In order for you to be "for" less of something then someone else must first propose an amount of that thing. In other words this cannot be a value, it's merely opposition to someone else's values.
But I found the second interview more bothersome, for if this is how conservatism is defined then it is an entire ideology built on opposing a strawman. To define yourself as being against handouts is to assert by definition that anyone who does not share your ideology is for handouts. Setting aside that this completely misrepresents what liberalism is all about, this is more importantly and once again; not a value but merely opposition to someone else's values.
So I ask, if you are a conservative and you largely agree with what these interviewees had to say... what is your ideology "for"?
Created:
Posted in:
Political correctness is the result of living in a society where other people have been marginalized individually or as a group for their perceived inferiorities.
Fat people for example are often made fun of and treated less favorably because of their weight, which is why they get offended when you speak of their weight in a certain manner. For them such speech validates that which has caused them much pain.
Political correctness simply says that we should all speak in a way that takes other people into account as to minimize such disrespect. Naturally, this is why the anti political correctness movement consists of a largely white male population who as a group has little to complain about, and consists mostly of assholes who don't have any ability to empathize with the plight of others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I thought it was more than obvious I was selecting your option "(C)".
It wasn't a serious response, and you previously suggested that teaching our kids about the history of racism would serve to promote racism. Seems like a logical inference to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Prove it.
Prove what? That something which is subject to God's word is subjective? Are you serious?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
that's not true at all. the "process" is a sham, it is just used as an attempt for hateful sick people in congress to attack a President AFTER he already servedif donald trump was treated normally, he would be in the office again
If Donald Trump acted normally, he would be treated normally.
Trump just spent the past few months claiming that he won an election where his opponent had 7 million more votes and won the electoral college by the exact same margin that Trump spent 4 years calling a landslide victory. Then when the people he riled up over those few months attacked the US Capitol, he sends out an "I told you so" tweet telling all of us to "remember this day". I can only imagine what you would be saying if Hillary did that.
And that was just the finale. It only scratches the surface of the record this man has amassed over the past 4 years. Right wingers talk about Trump derangement syndrome, that's just comical. The derangement is watching all of this and thinking anything other than this man should be convicted and barred from running for office again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, yes it is. If you steal $100 out of a cash register, and the store owner decides not to report the event, the police don’t ask any questions at all.
Of course not, because theft requires the absence of consent which only the owner can attest to. That's a legal argument, which has nothing to do with this conversation. We're talking about assessing the value of that which is stolen. If the owner does press charges then we're back to my point - he doesn't get to decide how much that $100 is worth.
We make sure to pin the blame on people who aren't responsible for the situation and are powerless to fix it.
Based on your responses thus far including this one I'll take that as; (A)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The infraction is measured purely by the value the ownerplaces on the goods taken.
No, it’s not. If you steal $100 out of a cash register, the police don’t ask the store owner how much they value that $100.
An act of theft can in some circumstances be considered more or less heinous based of the rightful owners self imposed value, but that is generally not how we go about passing judgment (personal or thorough legal processes) on that individual, especially when the victims of said crime have not even been born yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you teach people that, historically, rich land-owners extracted value from their land-ownership by exploiting captive labor, wouldn't that promote resentment of people (and institutions) who have inherited that extracted value via familial (and institutional) happenstance?
Yes. So what is the fix for this problem? Do we;
A) pretend it didn’t happen
B) attempt to make amends
C) other
?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
*subject to*Doesn’t mean subjective.
That’s literally how you define the word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If there’s no afterlife I would say so, no reason to care is enough reason not to.
What reason do you have to care if there’s an afterlife?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I mean isn’t quoting and responding the whole purpose of the debate?
You don’t need to quote to respond. The voters just read the argument, they don’t need to read it again.
But whatever that’s just my opinion. Not a big deal, I’ll draft my arguments how I wish and you are of course free to do the same.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
How tf is context relevant to this when Biden, Warnock, and Ossoff word for word said they support 2000 dollar checks in people’s pockets.
Let’s try an analogy
Imagine a married couple disagree on how much to give their kids as an allowance. One says $100 and the other says $25 so they give their kids $25 and continue discussing whether it should be $100... deciding it should be $100 doesn’t mean you give them $100 on top of the $25 they already got.
It literally is because two Democratic Senators have already said they will vote Nay if 15 dollar minimum wage is a part of it. It’s literally dumb af to move to a vote when you know you don’t have enough votes.
And Lindsay Graham said he was off the Trump train. It turns out politicians don’t always stand by what they said they were going to do. I know, shocking.
Why can’t they pass a simple bill with 2k checks. It’s simple.
They can, they want more and see this as an opportunity to get it. What is so difficult about that? What is it about that that is so hard for you to believe that you take it as proof that democrats do not want the bill to pass?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Either way why don’t you and I have a formal debate over this rather than just chit chatting over a forum. Let the voters decide who’s more convincing.
Fine, send me a challenge. No more than 8,000 characters, and how many days to respond can we have? 3 days is rough for me cause I can only log on in spurts.
Oh and no (or at least minimal) quoting each other. It just ruins the quality of the debate. If you’re cool with that I’ll accept.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
This was after the 600 dollars had already started going out. Only an idiot would believe they meant 2000 total when Biden talks about 2000 dollar checks.
Because once again, context be dammed.
I know this doesn’t make sense to you because right wing media has no interest in educating you, but anyone actually following the conversation knew this. Yes there were some left wing politicians calling for a whole new $2k, that’s not relevant to what the majority of the party was talking about.
No they put it in there because they don’t want the bill to pass lol. If they just cared about the money they wouldn’t attach if 15 dollar minimum wage lol. They’d pass that in a separate bill.
I’m starting to realize this is all you do. You don’t respond, you just repeat.
That’s literally the definition of poison pill. You put something into a bill that makes the bill impassable.
It’s not impassable. I just explained why. “Nuh uh” is not a response.
it’s pretty simple, but your side doesn’t want that because they don’t want the bill to pass.
Do you have any explanation for how on earth this makes sense to you?
The only explanation I gather is projection. Just because republicans don’t give a rat’s ass about helping people or fighting COVID doesn’t mean democrats don’t either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
“All” is inherently inclusive to everyone in the United States, dead or alive lol. The “all” is qualified by Article 2 Section 4 where it clearly states only the President, VP, and Civil Officers can be convicted. Trump is neither of those period.
The “all” isn’t inclusive to everyone in the United States. I already explained why, did you read it?
Article 2 section 4 establishes who can be impeached. That is an inclusive passage. I already explained why this matters. Did you understand it?
Lmfao, the Articles of Impeachment clearly name the President of the United States Donald John Trump. That means Chief Justice John Roberts has to preside.
I already explained why this is false. Did you read it?
Yes “all” means everyone in the United States, what’s the problem with that?
You would have understood the problem with that if you had actually bothered to read my response, or the constitution.
But the second has to go with the first. That’s what “and” means lol. With one the first your cannot have the second.
They’re not even the same passage.
You have the burden to prove the positive lol not me proving the negative.
The burden of proof rests on the person who makes the claim.
You are the one claiming “the Constitution clearly states you cannot convict a private citizen”. Prove your claim. Show me the passage you claim exists where the framers discussed what happens in a scenario where a sitting president is constitutionally impeached towards the end of his term and then time runs out before the senate can finish the trial.
Your premise is that Presidents are liable for impeachment based on what’s happened in their term. Therefore you can impeach someone who’s out of office because they’re liable for what they did in office. You can’t cherry-pick who can get impeached or not lmfao cause it destroys your entire premise.
There is a legitimate debate to be had about whether an officer no longer in office can be impeached, constitutional scholars do not largely agree. But the question of whether a sitting officer who has been impeached can be tried is a different question, and there is very little disagreement on that.
I haven’t taken a position on that either way. What I’ve argued is
A) Trump’s impeachment was constitutional
B) This according to the constitution gives the senate the power to try him
There is nothing explicit in the texts to rule out convicting someone in this scenario, so it takes interpretation. That is where your argument monumentally fails.
Every law comes down to two different ways it can be interpreted; by the “spirit of the law” or “the letter of the law”. You aren’t even bothering to argue the spirit of the law on this, and I don’t blame you cause you have nothing there.
The letter of the law takes much less interpretation than the spirit, but still requires some. Words are written in context, and that context is what determines what they mean. If you are just going to ignore the context of the passage then you’re not even trying to understand it, you’re just putting on your partisan glasses to block out anything inconvenient. That’s clearly what’s going on here as evidenced by the fact that your responses continually ignore my arguments and just re assert the same tired talking points.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Bruh what? Ossof and Warnock literally ran their entire campaign on 2000 dollar checks and now they’re backing off.
The $2000 is a continuation from the debate we had in December. Democrats wanted $2k, republicans stood on the way so democrats accepted the $600 and pledged to get the rest once they won the senate.
Anyone who was paying attention knew this and understood what they were talking about. It’s true that a lot of people did not understand and assumed it meant another $2k, misunderstandings that work in your favor are unfortunately nothing new in politics.
The 15 dollar wage is a poison pill. You could reasonably get bipartisan support without it, but now they purposefully put it in an irrelevant bill and their own party members are opposed to it. Why can’t Democrats pass two separate bills?
It’s not a poison pill. A poison pill is defined by its purpose; to stop the bill from passing. Democrats are putting it in there in an attempt to get it. That’s not the same thing.
The reason they don’t just leave it as a separate bill is because it probably won’t pass. The two democrats that object are more likely to cave in rather than to be stigmatized as standing in the way of COVID relief.
It’s ugly and dishonest, but this is how politics has always worked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
If you want to remain consistent with your logic, I already said that the Chief Justice should be presiding, but you seem to even disagree with that. The Constitution clearly states only the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers can be convicted. It’s not rocket science.
There’s nothing inconsistent about my position. The difference between us here is about an inclusive interpretation vs. an exclusive one. You are taking it exclusively, that is to say only these positions strictly interpreted can be impeached and tried. There is nothing in the constitution of federalist papers that supports that interpretation.
The line in the constitution for example that states that the cheif justice shall president of its the outsider on trial, that is strict to the sitting president. Why? Because we know the reason why that is in there... it is to avoid a scenario where the Vice President presides over a proceeding that could potentially result in themselves becoming president.
And as far as your rocket science comment... it’s also not rocket science that the word “all” means “all”.
Your question about resignation is irrelevant to this when the Constitution clearly states you cannot convict a private citizen
Show me that part of the constitution. Quote the texts you are referring to that discuss what happens with an official whose time in office ran out during the trial. I’ll wait.
Unless you want to set a precedent that Obama can be impeached and convicted too. Hell why not George Washington for that matter.
Trump was impeached while he was the sitting president. Neither Obama or Washington can be impeached as sitting presidents. That’s the difference. Why is that so hard for you?
Also, remember that the *two* questions the senate is tasked with answering during a trial are “should this individual remain in office” and “should this individual be disqualified from holding future office”.
The first question is no longer relevant. The second question still is, which is why the George Washington example is particularly nonsensical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
If we are using “all” then can the House impeach a member of the US Senate? Can the House impeach an American Citizen? They cannot. Impeachment is inherently limited meaning that Conviction is limited by Article 2 Section 3 that states on the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers. It’s not that hard, otherwise the House can impeach anyone in the United States.
Do you read anything I write? Do you stop and and think about any of it?
I’ve already quoted you the part of the constitution that says who can be impeached. Private citizens are not on there. This is a classic slippery slope fallacy and an absurd one at that - the idea that if we convict a former president who was impeached as the sitting president then this would lead to private citizens like you or I being impeached. You can’t be serious.
And while you entertain the absurdity of this leading to private citizens being impeached for being private citizens, you ignore the absurdity of your own position. How do you hold a president *politically* accountable for lighting a match on his way out the door? How do you bar any public official from holding future office if they just resign right before the vote? Explain that to me, then we can further discuss your slippery slope.
Pretty sure that amounts to treason
No, it doesn’t.
Oh, and just to make another... how about using federal aid to extort a foreign nation into attacking your political opponents?
False. After being removed from office, not after their term expires. Impeachment was designed to remove a President that posed a current threat in office if you read the Federalist Papers. A preemptive ban is 100% unconstitutional.
This is pure confirmation bias. You focus on everything the constitution says that affirms your view and then ignore everything about it that doesn’t.
Impeachment’s primary purpose is to remove a current office holder who abused his/her power, that’s not the only one. There is a reason why the framers included a provision that bars them from holding office again, because in some cases even the prospect of that official holding office again is dangerous. Trump is the prime example the founders feared. A demagogue who is willing to burn everything down if he loses.
You can impeach whoever the hell you want with your definition but Constitutionally you can only convict a President, Vice President, or other Civil Officers
There is no argument that the impeachment itself was anything but constitutional, and the senate clearly has the power to try *all* impeachments. Repeating your semantic argument does not change this.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Well they did back away from their 2000 promise. They’re poisoning the bill with a 15 dollar minimum wage that Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin are against.
They didn’t back away from anything, and that’s not a poison pill. A poison pill is designed to get the other side to say no, democrats are trying to pressure the whopping two senators that oppose this to say yes.
Created: