Total posts: 4,222
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Hey did you ever figure out of those Hawaii electors sent their documents and the votes were counted before the court case was resolved?
the two situations are not at all the same thing. Trump was trying to force through fake electors after the results had already been certified. No one has ever done that before. And in Hawaii there were ongoing court cases since different counts of the votes came up with different winners. So there was real evidence the results might have been incorrect since both sides could point to a count that said they won. There was no evidence trump had won, it was very clear he lost. No court was ever shown any evidence of fraud or any evidence that trump had won and all his legal challenges were thrown out for lack of evidence.
So comparing them is just deflection and right wing cope.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
They’re even more screwed if they nominate someone else. The alternate GOP candidate loses OH and IA along with all of the Rust Belt. Probably loses Georgia too without Northern GA.
what? Trump is almost guaranteed to lose since he will most likely be a convicted felon by then. I do not see how another candidate could be worse.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
If Trump isn’t the GOP nominee, GOP loses in a landslide.
I think you mean, if he is the nominee they lose in a landslide. The man is a traitor who tried to overthrow democracy. And he is going to have multiple trials where this will be proven before the election. There is a good chance he will be in a prison cell on election night. If the GOP choose him, they are sooo screwed.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
A. No I simply mean as a national social system based upon a natural hierarchical system. I'm not sure what you think the alternative is.
I mean, this describes basically all governments. It seems like such a vague thing as to be borderline useless.
In this respect Democrat and Republic are exactly the same, based upon the idea of Democratic Republicanism.
using this as a baseline, all politicians are the same. To extend it further, it's like saying democrats and republicans are both human, therefore they are the same. While true, it isn't very meaningful in a political discussion.
B. Once again, people naturally fall into a hierarchical system, and if the society is capitalist, then work and reward will be commensurate with a persons capabilities.
lol no. Capitolism absolutely does not mean you are rewarded commensurate with your capabilities. It means the rich extract as much wealth as possible and pay persons as little as they can possibly get away with.
Too many people and not enough money to fund Utopia.
Utopia? no. A much better and more equal society? There absolutely is. But we are going in the opposite direction. The rich are getting richer while the other 95% of people are getting poorer.
Although, with the rise of AI and advanced robotics, it is entirely possible that there will be sufficient "money" to fund Utopia. But the rich will never allow that.
Create your own utopia out of what you've got, be content and don't buy into social media delusions.....That's my advice.
I'm sure people said similar things to slaves. Be happy with what we give you. Don't buy into the idea that you could be free, it's a delusion. That is the same message billionaires and corporations want you to believe now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What's funny is that historically, the Mafia, for whom the RICO laws were created, usually kept their promises when extorting protection money from local capitalists. Today's government feels no need to honor any agreement while doing the same. There's no check whatsoever on that level of corruption; and it's not a problem that can ever be fixed at the ballot box at this point.
1) Violent criminals were not known for keeping their word. Except maybe to other violent criminals. I guess the main difference between trump and the mob is that trump isn't loyal to a single person. He would lie to, cheat and steal from literally anyone to benefit himself.
2) This statement seemingly has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Every tyrannical regime needs to make an example to keep people from getting the wrong idea.
lol what? Trump committed a bunch of crimes to try to steal an election he lost. And you are going to compare him to the victim of a political purge? That is absurd.
If anything, trump is the hitler in this scenario. He was planning to illegally steal power and then use the force of the government to suppress those who tried to stop him. Jeffrey Clark (the justice department official trump tried to make assistent AG), when it was pointed out to him that if they illegally seized power using fake electors there would be riots in every city, he responded "Well, that’s what the Insurrection Act is for.” A trump co-conspirator confirmed they would use the military to crush anyone who tried to stop their power grab. So saying Biden is the tyrant and Trump is the victim is a bad joke.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This should be a cakewalk.
I mean, he is REALLY clearly guilty. There is countless witnesses, statements by trump himself and his attorneys, documents etc. showing trump is guilty of much, if not all, of what he is accused. We have all heard him call the georgia secretary of state and ask him to "find" votes that don't exist. That call was a crime all on it's own. When added to all the other stuff he and his co-conspirators did, it is a massive crime.
Trump's only hope is that he is able to get elected and pardon himself, because he doesn't even have a defense. All the stuff he and his attorneys are saying is nonsense, legally speaking. It is all PR speak.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Most U.S. politicians still adhere to the concept of Democratic Republicanism.
just to make sure we are on the same page, when you say democratic republicanism, do you mean the concept where the federal government should be weak and that the individual states should have more powers?
Corporations or Totalitarianism.....I know which I prefer.
this seems like a strange thing to say. corporations can be totalitarian. They can treat their employees like slaves and literally work them to death. This used to be a fairly common practice. The only reason corporations treat you with the minimal amount of respect that they do is because the government forced them to. If they could get away with it, they would absolutely treat their employees WAY worse.
I never vote (U.K.)......Because although the system is perhaps not utopian for all, I still think that it is as good as it can be.
I don't understand this idea. different parties have different ideas for how to tackle problems. Generally speaking, the right wants to make the rich richer, free corporations to do whatever they want (even if it hurts people), and try to point fingers at some kind of "other" (mexicans, the EU, etc) to distract from problems. Centerist or left leaning groups tend to try to use the power of government to find some sort of solution to problems (regulation, public spending etc).
So saying "things are as good as it can be" is very strange. Parties want very different things. One of them has to be better (even slightly) than the other.
Created:
This one should be extra interesting. A president can't pardon state crimes. So even if trump somehow won the election, he wouldn't be able to pardon these.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
supply and demand will still be in effect. the less colleges focus on nurses, the higher nurses will be paid. so more students will pick that.
do you read the news? There is already a critical shortage of nurses. It has not caused them to be better paid. They just work the remaining nurses harder because paying them more would hurt their profit margins. So you are saying something will happen, when we already know it wont.
the most talented people will make the most money, which is justice as it should be. it will balance out.
this is emotional nonsense. Hack investment bankers can make like 10 times what a nurse can. It doesn't mean they are more talented. Just that investment banking is more profit driven and sales jobs usually pay better than service jobs. It is not, and never has been, the case where more talented people automatically make more money. It is often the opposite.
plus choosing majors will still be a basic choice of what someone wants to do for a living. people choose to be social workers now because they want to, i'm sure they still will want to. some people want to be nurses, so they will pick that.
I'm sure they would. And if the college shuts down their nursing program? Or cuts back the number of nursing slots in the school so they can focus on training stock brokers, what then? It doesn't matter how much you want to be a nurse if there is no slots for you.
i did point out that we can require some humanities classes be taught. it will be taught efficiently though, instead of incentivizing colleges to just drag college out with excessive classes because we are writing them blank checks.
I find your position a bit confusing to be honest. You want the schooling to be funded by the government and paid for with taxes. You want the government to be able to mandate (at least to some extent) curriculums, how long they take etc. You position is basically just a government funded and run university system, but you still want to allow corporations to be in the middle so they can try to gouge and make money. I simply don't see why you would want that. What value do the private corporations add to your idea?
if we didn't do my percent of income plan, i would be okay with paying tuition directly from the government, if prices were regulated. the whole world does it to some extent with healthcare, and the most sucessful countries do it a lot with healthcare, so i wouldn't mind if we did that with tuition. it sounds too complicated though, so i'd prefer just making everyone pay a percent of income.
I mean, it sounds like we have some common ground. A single payer system where the government pays for people to be educated, recoups the expense of this investment with taxes and has the ability to regulate the school. This is exactly what other countries do with health care and I would be thrilled to see schools run this way too.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
nothing the government does is perfect, everything they do will need modified, that's just the nature of the beast. so if people are trying to get around paying a percent of their income, then the other monetary rewards they get will need to be taxed somehow.
I'm not sure I understood you then. Are you suggesting that the percentage of the income being collected is being collected by the government? So this is just public education?
you can't just write blank checks to the private sector and not expect costs to sky rocket. it's throwing gas on fire. that's what would happen if you just write checks to colleges for tuition.
whose talking about a blank check? We don't just write blank checks to high schools or elementary schools.
why do you assume my version would mess up the job market? just because colleges are focusing on profitable majors doesn't mean less profitable majors wouldn't be funded.
of course it does. Private corporations want profit. If they make more profit pushing 1 major over another, they will do that. That is what capitalism is. There is way more money in investment banking than in say, social work or nursing. But social workers and nurses are way more necessary for society.
we shoujldn't pretend that the point of college isnt to make money, and the point of colleges as businesses isnt to make money... we're just acknowledging that and making the bottom line the main focus.
ok, so you are talking about the priority being completely backwards. The goal of education should not be profit, it should be public good. We don't only teach profitable subjects in highschool. We teach whatever subjects we think will help that person in life and help society. University should be no different. The whole idea that schools should be profitable is a bad one. It incentives outcomes that are not best for society or even the students.
again, like our other thread about mens rea and trump with you clearly distorting everything in that article from a prosecutor... this is just another example of showing someone how they have stupid ideas, and the person is too stubborn to accept it
whoa. That was uncalled for. the current system is broken because schools focus on profit over education. Your whole argument is that we should double down and expand their profit motive. Focusing on the source of the problem and expanding it won't fix the problem. It will make it worse.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
instead of student loans, grads should pay a percent of their income for ten years
I mean, this is basically just public education, with extra steps and extra problems. your point is they should receive a free education, then pay taxes on their income. This is exactly what we already do for kindergarten through high school. The much simpler version of your plan is to just make universities public funded and recoup the expense as taxes.
Making this a privatized system just adds in extra problems. Universities would be incentivized to only educate people in "profitable" degrees. So they would be pushing everyone to be investment bankers or something instead of other important, but lower paying degrees. This would probably mess up the job market pretty badly.
It would also probably create other problems. Like people taking low paying internships for a few years in exchange for a higher salary later or stock options or something. It would be very exploitable.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You might like this then :D hope for the future maybe?
if those people were mad at him for being the piece of shit that he is and the horrible policies he has pushed through, then yes that would be hope. But that's not why they are angry. They are angry that he isn't evil enough. They are angry that he isn't a trump bootlicker and would actually oppose trump in an illegal power grab.
Basically, they want someone who will do the terrible things he does, but also bend over and worship trump while he does it. That does not give me hope.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Sinema is an independent now.
oh yeah. I had forgotten that.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I have to say, I really do respect your perspectives on these, as it seems way less hyperbolic than the norm I see here.
thank you. I try to stay calm and make rational arguments. Although with some people on here it can be difficult when they just blatantly refuse to see or accept reality.
Also, it's not like I particularly like the democratic party. They have lots of corrupt people in it that are out to enrich themselves and their political donors and allies. If there were a better option, that would be great. I just see that the republicans are almost entirely corrupt and looking to enrich themselves and their political donors and allies. I'm not sure I've seen much, if any, redeeming qualities in the GOP. If they weren't so adept at fear mongering, they probably would have like 5% political support.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Democrats are the only reason Americans are leaving those states
I mean, partially yes that is true. But mostly it's late stage capitalism. The cost of living is going up everywhere, but in states that have historically been wealthier (IE democratic states) the costs are going up faster. But this isn't really because of democratic policies. It is because no politicians, democrat or republican, want to do anything about it. There are really only 2 ways of going about doing anything about it. Massively increasing wages, which companies (and rich polical donors) would fight against tooth and nail, or regulating the hell out of industries gouging people. Which again, companies and political donors would fight against this. Also voters would hate it since a core part of the problem is housing costs, and many voters own homes and absolutely don't want to see the price of their home fall.
It's possible "if it aint broke, don't fix it" might apply. After all, we do have a Constitution to discourage that, specifically outlining 10 things that "aint broke"
real term wages have been falling year after year since like the 70's. Cost of living has been going up year after year. More and more of the percentage of wealth is being funneled to the uber rich while more and more people are being forced out of an almost non existent middle class. Republican policies are fueling this. I don't think there are very many people who would argue america "aint broke". Donald trump says it is all the time. He just also likes to lie and say his cookie cutter republican economic policy will somehow fix it when it has been fueling the problem for decades.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
The republicans have had no new ideas for decades. All their policies boil down to: Cut taxes (mostly for the rich), deregulate so that companies can screw people over and do whatever they want, give massive corporate welfare to corporations, discriminate and fear monger against minorities.
That's pretty much it. So when any problem comes up, they have no answer if one of those things isn't applicable.
Democrats are sort of stuck since they are saddled with a corrupt, corporatist wing (which is a significant chunk of the party) that basically just wants to be the republicans but a little less aggressively evil. Sinema and Manchin are poster children of this. Manchin is basically just a corrupt republican that happens to call himself a democrat. So he systematically blocks anything good the democrats try to do. Sinema is just obviously angling for a job sitting on the board of a big corporation so she goes out of her way to be pro-corporation as possible, even at the expense of everyone else. So democrats' good ideas get watered down or blocked entirely.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Why so sure? We'll see
why am I sure he committed the crimes he committed publicly? maybe because he committed them quite publicly. For example, he has publicly admitted he had the classified documents and I have heard a tape of him showing classified documents he illegally possessed to other people. He also very publicly pushed for fake electors to be sent and publicly pushed for mike pence to overthrow the election results.
There isn't really any doubt that he is guilty. Everyone could watch him commit some of them in real time. And others, we have seen him admit to them or have heard recordings of him committing them.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Sometimes I think this is all part of a master plan elaborated by Trump with the only aim of getting more votes. I mean, judging by the polls and the conviction that Trump is going to come out unscathed as he always did.
i wasn't aware going to prison was considered "unscathed"
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Turley points out that the indictment against Trump is based on limited new evidence and shaky legal grounds
limited evidence? They just turned over more than a million pages of evidence. There are countless witnesses and documentation for his conspiracy. There is a mountain of evidence.
and "shaky grounds" is right wing cope. The grounds are very clear. He and his co-conspirators engaged in a conspiracy to overturn the results of the election. That isn't shaky grounds.
It's about trying to make what Trump said into a crime
you are aware that any charge of fraud or conspiracy is about what someone said right? People go to prison for "what they said" all the time. It isn't uncommon. But that take is also wrong. Conspiracy certainly includes what someone said, as this is part of the conspiracy. But no charge of conspiracy can be laid unless they have taken actions other than just talking.
even though it is likely to be protected by the First Amendment.
this is more right wing cope. Conspiracy is absolutely not protected. It's like this. If you and friends all said "hey, we should rob bank", but all you do it talk, then it's not illegal. That is protected. But if you then go out and get masks and guns, now it is a conspiracy and you are guilty. If all trump did was talk about overturning the election, he would be protected. The moment he and his co-conspirators took steps toward actually doing it (coercing pence, setting up the fake electors etc) they became guilty of conspiracy. So no, the moment they took action in furtherance of the plot, they passed out of protected speech. Any "expert" telling you it is all about what he said and is protected by the 1st amendment is either an idiot or a liar.
The way Trump's words led others to act could also be used against Biden own words doing the same, especially in an impeachment inquiry by Republicans in the House of Representatives.
I really don't see how. The republicans don't have any evidence biden has committed any crime at all. I'm 100% sure they will pretend that biden is the same as trump, they will be lying of course.
Biden has been accused of disregarding the Constitution, such as pushing unconstitutional measures and allegedly lying about his knowledge of his son's overseas business deals.
so he is accused of doing things that are not illegal. and?
There is quite the irony that the legal standards being used against Trump could also be used against Biden, and that could make things very problematic for him.
no, it couldn't. Trump is charged in a conspiracy to overturn an election. Biden isn't charged with anything and the republicans have yet to point to a single specific crime they think he has committed. They just ramble about random "corruption". The other day some republican in congress said they would bring articles of impeachment for drugs and prostitution, despite there never being any evidence biden engaged in either of those things. Bottom line, the impeachment talk against biden is all a political show. There is a decent chance they will never actually impeach him and just drag out an "investigation" until the election, because impeaching him is stupid. And even if they did, it would just help biden because the stupidity of their impeachment will be obvious.
Do you guys think a can of worms has been opened here?
It is absolutely new territory to charge a president with crimes. So in that sense, yes a can of worms has been opened. The idea that this will blow back and work against biden is pretty silly. comparing trump's very real crimes for which he is likely to be convicted to the silly nonsense the republicans are throwing around is just rightwing cope. They know trump is guilty so they have to try and make people think biden is guilty too, despite having no evidence of that.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Because the defeat of Russia wont happen
what makes you say that? Their economy is already in trouble. Putin has already had one coup attempt where the military basically did nothing to protect him. Their military is getting pushed back little by little. Russia is not in a good position. Putin is in a worse position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No I am acknowledging that the authority Biden used ultimately derived from the office of the president. That does not mean everything Biden did was specifically approved of by Obama or even that Obama knew everything he did under the delegated authority of POTUS.
ok. do you understand that the power to do that has to come from the president. But you think that biden had some sort of blank check to do what he wanted? Where is your evidence for that? Since the power had to come from the president, the obvious answer is that it came from the president. so if you say it didn't, you need to show that.
Either way. Just remember when they're calling people cultish traitors because they don't care about the latest accusation against Trump, you know what that kind of apathy feels like.
ok. trump has mountains of evidence showing him commit crimes. There are literally audio tapes of him admitting to the crimes. There are countless witnesses that were present when he committed them. Some of them he and his lawyers have publicly admitted to. There is no question that he committed crimes. Even he has admitted to them.
For biden we have what? Some vague texts about a deal that never happened? Some people who say they heard from a guy who maybe knows about something, but there is no evidence that guy actually had evidence.
Comparing these two things is ridiculous.
That's incredible. First you claimed there was no evidence. Then after you saw a single screenshot you somehow became omniscient of all possible evidence, after all how else would you know there is nothing tying to Joe Biden?
what? how do i know it doesn't tie to joe biden? Because I have working eyes? I looked at what you sent me and there is nothing that ties to joe biden. How is this a serious question?
Why would I go prepare a pitcher when you won't admit the cup has water in it? I won't. You enjoy your self-proscribed ignorance.
lol, you haven't shown a single piece of actual evidence. I keep asking you for some, you show me rumors and inuendo. So I can understand why you don't want to show me more of the same nonsense. If the 1st, strongest "evidence" you show me is this weak, then the rest of it is probably nothing at all.
He did not engage in a quid pro quo.That's just silly vocabulary for extortion, and he most certainly did; but I won't ask for your definitions because it's clear you aren't operating in good faith when you refuse to call a screenshot of an email evidence.
a quid pro quo is an exchange. I give you something, you give me something. Like when Trump traded US aid money in echange for Ukraine smearing his political rival. That is a quid pro quo. Biden was sent to Ukraine to remove a corrupt prosecutor by the Obama administration. He then removed them. There was no quid pro quo.
The quid pro quo is corresponding evidence.
im not sure you know what quid pro quo means. You don't seem to be using it right.
Then the chance of Biden randomly extorting the one prosecutor in all the world who is investigating (or had investigated) the source of his son's income is 1/195 * 1/10 = 1/1950. That's a 0.05% chance.
it wasn't random. There were calls for his removal from all over the world. And it was a decision made by Obama, not Biden. So your math is silly on the face of it.
On top of contact he also wanted 10%, or maybe 50% but I guess Hunter could have been exaggerating:
there is absolutely no evidence biden ever asked for or received any money from hunter or burisma. So this is just baseless rumor. As I keep explaining to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If the president tells the general staff "The VP is in charge of Ukraine" then they won't go over the VP's head at every order.
ok. so you are acknowledging that Biden could not extort Ukraine without Obama's approval. Which means the decision wasn't up to him.
Read the full chain if you dare.
It's more "read the chain if you care". No one has managed to come up with a single piece of actual evidence tying biden to a crime of any kind. so why would i read through text chains I know there is nothing trying to joe biden in there? And how do I know? because if there were, you and every other republican would be screaming it from the rooftops.
There is lots of other evidence, but you have systematically declared evidence not evidence just as you have here.
lol, you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence. Hearsay, slander, rumor, you have lots of. Evidence, you have shown nothing.
How convenient that evidence is only evidence when there is other evidence, but there is never any other evidence because when you look at other evidence it has no corroborating evidence.
you just talked in circles without saying anything. If I say "I heard trump received a bribe from russia" that is hearsay. On it's own, it means pretty much nothing. If you find other pieces of corroborating evidence, like bank transactions, etc, then maybe my statement has value. So far no one has come up with any actual evidence. Just hearsay and rumor.
The fact that Biden quid pro quoed Shokin is corroborating evidence to this.
he what? he got him fired because he was corrupt. He did not engage in a quid pro quo.
This is corroborating evidence to that. You have to look at all the evidence and simultaneously minimize the improbabilities to find the most probable theory.
except the "evidence" you are pointing at either doesn't exist or you don't understand. For example, despite all accounts being that shokin was corrupt, he says he isn't. You choose to believe him and his statements over everyone else, then use his statement (with no corresponding evidence to back it up) as a piece of "evidence" in your case. this is madness. Shokin has every reason to lie. He was corrupt and was fired for it. He doesn't want people to think he is corrupt, so of course he is going to say he isn't.
Bottom line, you are piecing together rumors and hearsay and claiming it is proof of a giant elaborate conspiracy. When the much simpler and more likely explanation is that it is what it looks like. Hunter is a shady guy cashing in on daddy's name and Joe is a parent who was losing/lost a son to cancer and wanted to maintain contact with his fuckup of a son because he was all he had left.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
As I said , You are all knowing. To question you would be to question all of creation and its existence.
lol yes. I, and everyone else with working ears, is all knowing about the things they literally heard trump admit to on tape.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Do you claim that people have no right to information? After all you can still speak, all the government is doing is preventing anyone from hearing you right?
you are correct that people have no right to information. And in your scenario it would stop people from being able to speak to others, and that would be infringing their right to speak. Twitter is not speech. It is one media platform. And it is a pretty small one by user count.
You've moved beyond the realm of reasonable discussion here so I'll drop it.
lol, a common business practice is "beyond the realm of reasonable discussion"? that says alot about your ability to comprehend basic information.
So no evidence, you just assumed that because the constitution doesn't spell out that a VP can extort a foreign country it can't happen without the president's knowledge and action.
no, they literally can't extort a foreign country. Extortion requires that they have some sort of power to hurt the other side. A VP does not have that unless the president says he does.
You choose to believe that one person over everyone else.The balance of evidence aligns with his story.
there is literally no evidence for his story and you can find many news stories about his corruption. So no, you are mistaken.
ok. so there is a text that so far can't be confirmed to be legitimate. In that text there a section for "H" and that he would hold money for the "big guy". It does not say who "h" is. It does not say who the "big guy" is. And this deal never completed and no money changed hands. So no, this is not evidence biden ever received money. If there was lots of other evidence corroborating and adding more detail this could potentially be evidence. But as it stands, it is nothing.
So if I accepted money to approve a permit for a oil pipeline, could I argue it wasn't bribery because oil pipelines benefit people?
the bribe would a be a crime. I meant something like if trump cut taxes for himself only, that would be abuse of office. If he cut it for all billionaires, he still heavily benefits from it, but republicans would defend it as being good for the country even though it's just a handout to the rich.
How convenient since motive can so rarely be objectively proved or disproved.
not at all. In fact I really wish there were much cleaner lines of what is corruption. Sadly, both parties (trump included) don't want that. They all love corruption that is technically legal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
And a right means the government can't tell you to not exercise the option (since there is no way to separate government advise from a government threat due to arbitrary authority in all conventional government)
you haven't claimed the government has prevented anyone from exercising their free speech. When did the government stop someone from speaking?
If the company was a honeypot run by the government fraudulently claiming to be a public square which then failed to facilitate the speech which the government objected to it has everything to do with the first amendment.
lmao, no it absolutely does not. You have no right to use twitter. You have no right to information. The 1st amendment doesn't say that. It says you have a right to speak.
There was official correspondence between a government office and the social media companies calling out items for censorship and giving winks and nods at critical times. Those subtle communications were used by "former" government agents (who were clearly still government agents) to know what to censor.
again, not a 1st amendment issue. If twitter wanted to say things and the government banned them from doing it, then you might have a point. You haven't given me a single specific example of the government banning anyone from speaking.
What weight does it carry when an energy company has connection to the US federal government?
It gives them prestige and legitimacy. Burisma is run by an eastern european oligarch. They aren't exactly a super friendly face to western investors and governments. Being able to point to a board packed with people who either have prestige and legitimacy themselves, or have family that do, can go a long way to opening doors that might otherwise be closed to you since now you have an air of legitimacy.
It doesn't matter how common it is. It is legally criminal because every government in the world has laws against bribery and extortion for officers of the state.
it isn't bribery or extortion though. It is a completely legal transaction. I would be fully in favor of cracking down on it. But as of this moment, it is perfectly legal.
1) Biden didn't decide to fire the prosecutor. Obama did.Rumor?
lol what? you think the vice president has the power to put pressure on a foreign government? the VP has basically no power whatsoever, other than what the president says he does.
He wasn't in office for years,
my apologies, you are correct. It was 1 year. So year(s) plural was misleading.
It's a he said she said thing.
lol, so countless people from governments all over the planet agree that Shokin was corrupt. Shokin says they aren't. You choose to believe that one person over everyone else. You really do love conspiracy theories don't you.
None before Biden started getting paid and the prosecutor said he was investigating.
there is no evidence joe biden was ever paid and there is no evidence the prosecutor was investigating. That is just a thing they said later trying to cover their ass.
3) Burisma was not under investigation when Biden pushed for Shokin to be removed.This is disputed as I said.
by who? the person who was widely agreed to be corrupt? the person who didnt push for any cases and rich and powerful people? Did they provide any evidence they were doing any investigating?
whatever this link is, i get an error when I click it. So i'm not sure what it is.
First admit that if Biden (or even Obama) quid pro quoed Ukraine for political or personal advantage that would be a crime
That is correct. If they engaged in a quid pro quo to trade government policy to only benefit themselves, then that would be an abuse of office. However, if they took actions that benefited america and also happened to benefit themselves, that would not be an abuse of power. In that context motive would be important. Just covering my bases since I don't want to be accused of being a hypocrite if what you are talking about turns out to be something dumb.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It shows just how egregiously he held to interests in contradiction to his supposed duties as an employee. Cementing for all rational observers that his true loyalty was with corrupt elements of the government (which has been come to be called "the deep state").
You aren't making sense. The 1st amendment means you have a right to speak. It doesn't mean you have a right to information. So if the government told you that you cannot say something or you will be punished, then that might be a breach of the 1st amendment. If a company decides not to publish information, that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.
Maybe when they can stick them on the side of a building in gold letters. I don't see "Biden" in gold around Burisma.
No, but i'm sure Burisma advertised how prestigious their board was and used that to help them schmooze business deals. That is why they had multiple people on their board that had nothing to do with the industry they were in.
It was in the article. This lawyer is FBI.
ok. How does that infringe on the 1st amendment? Did the allegedly FBI/twitter lawyer ban people from speaking?
The person in question did not see any crime. He said that someone else had seen a crime.False
what crime did he say he saw? As far as I know, he alleged there was a recording of some kind of crime. But he did not have it and was not a witness to it. What witness says they saw joe biden committing a crime?
Text records on phones he provided data him up. All the circumstantial evidence surrounding the Bidens backed him up.
what texts? what data? show me a single piece of evidence that connects joe biden to any kind of crime? So far, absolutely none has been provided.
Digital evidence and testimony provided by a whistleblower.
what digital evidence? you haven't provided any and as far as i know, none exists. And that "whistleblower" never claimed they witnessed a crime. They claimed someone else witnessed a crime. But no evidence of said crime could be found.
Burisma also had a former president of poland a foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign on the board among others.I didn't know that, but it would not surprise me if true. That supports my criminal theory.
What? it does the exact opposite of that. It shows you that they regularly get people with some prestige or legitimacy to sit on their board. It makes them look more legitimate. It is a common practice. It doesn't mean that any of those people committed a crime.
and Biden fired the prosecutor through a quid pro quo to protect Burisma.
there are multiple things wrong with this sentence.
1) Biden didn't decide to fire the prosecutor. Obama did. Biden was just the one sent to it. So saying biden did it as a quid pro quo is silly because it wasn't his choice in the 1st place.
2) the prosecutor was well known to be corrupt and had been killing investigations of burisma and basically every other rich individual for years. There had been calls from the IMF, European governments, the US government and others to remove him for his corruption.
3) Burisma was not under investigation when Biden pushed for Shokin to be removed.
There is no evidence any money went to joe biden.Yes, except for the text messages, emails, witness testimony, and financial records that's correct.
What text messages and emails. As far as I know, the only such records that exist show Hunter trading on his father's name and getting paid for it. I have not heard of any texts or emails that show joe biden being involved.
There are no witnesses that say they witnessed any biden committed a crime in relation to burisma. If you say there is, provide proof of that.
There are no financial records that show any crime being committed in relation to burisma. Hunter made money, but that isn't illegal. So what financial records are you talking about.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
and then you try to spin everything in the article as having to do with motive and not the state of mind or mens rea of trump
do you understand what mens rea means? "the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime". the crime here is conspiracy to overturn the election results. the mens rea for that crime is knowing that it is illegal to overturn the election results, but engaging in a conspiracy to do it anyway. The reason why you engage in the conspiracy is motive. This is a pretty basic legal concept. I'm not sure why you are struggling with it.
maybe the new yorker made no mistake, and you are simply mistaken on how you perceive the article?
nope. I have both taken law courses in university as well as seen legal experts commenting on the case. I understand correctly.
anyways, motive isn't necessary in proving guilt if a mens rea isn't required in the law.
this is incorrect. Mens rea is required in almost all cases. The mens rea in trump's case is that he knew attempting to overturn the election results is illegal. That is the "guilty mind" here. Motive is a useful thing to have. Mens rea is usually a requirement.
made a whole article about how the prosecurtion wants to determine motive just to avoid a run away jury.
I laid out multiple examples of why motive is useful. I feel that I was very clear that showing a convincing motive is helpful for getting a conviction. So prosecutors always want to show motive. But it isn't a requirement for conviction.
plus you are really trying to weasle your way into trying to spin the article
I literally quoted the article where he said that even if he believed the election lies that would not make him innocent. I haven't spun anything. I showed you exactly what they said.
trump had to knowingly and without mistake about the circumstances, break the law.
you are correct. They need to prove that trump knowingly (or at least that a reasonable person would have known) broke the law. Whether or not trump believed his lies doesn't change that though. Let's assume that trump's lies were true. The election was stolen and he wasn't able to find any proof. He would still be guilty of the same crimes when he tried to overturn the results. There are legal ways of challenging election results. Trump used those. When those failed because he had no evidence, he went to illegal ones. Whether or not he believed there was fraud wouldn't change the fact that trying to overturn the election results is illegal.
i've concluded that you don't have a reading comprehension problem... you have a psychological problem. my argument is plainly in the article and we have to assume a lot of ridiculous stuff to make your argument make sense
we don't have to assume anything at all for my argument. My argument is that the mens rea for trump's crimes is knowing it is illegal to overturn the results of the election. Why he did it, when he did it, who he did it with, these are all important details that will help prosecutors secure a conviction. But as long as you can prove, for example, that he asked Pence to delay the count, then he is guilty. A reasonable person would know that is illegal, and he reportedly did it. That is both mens rea and actus reus
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
(he kept lying and trying to cover up even as Elon Musk was trying to tear Twitter away from the grasp of the deep state)
I don't understand. A twitter lawyer didn't release information? how does that have anything to do with the 1st amendment?
People don't pay for names. They pay for goods and services.
this isn't true. People pay for names all the time. It's a cornerstone of trump's business actually. Having someone who looks important or prestigious on your board makes you seem more legitimate and prestigious yourself.
and if any of those accusations and related evidence was censored by state actors that would also be a breach of the constitution which conveyed moral sanction for any actions needed to remedy.
I don't understand. Your previous post showed a twitter lawyer covering up information. When are we getting to the government stopping people from speaking?
HistoryBuff, WITNESS TESTIMONY IS EVIDENCE.
in some cases it can be. If I saw someone commit a crime, then I am a witness to that crime. My testimony would be evidence. The person in question did not see any crime. He said that someone else had seen a crime. Since he is not a witness to any crime, it is just a rumor.
You understand that to me and those like me that fact (if it is a fact) only makes him seem more credible right? We see the DOJ as an enemy institution. Whoever the SS drags away was probably the one telling the dangerous truth.
That is sad. You see a criminal make wild accusations without anything to back them up. And the fact that he is a criminal makes them more credible to you.
I just told you one excellent reason: He got 10%.
you told me there is a rumor he got 10%. You provided absolutely no evidence that this ever happened. no one has provided evidence of that despite years of looking.
People don't pay you for rendering no service. Not unless you're defrauding them.
people do this all the time. Trump has been paid huge amounts of money for putting his name on things without him doing anything.
Any sane jury would see a payment from a suspect to a hitman as incriminating evidence. Aspire to sanity HistoryBuff.
ok. but there is no such thing here. Hunter biden got paid to sit on a board of a company because it gave them prestige and legitimacy to do so. This is a common (albeit scummy) practice that lots of companies engage in. Burisma also had a former president of poland a foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign on the board among others.
There is 0 evidence that anything illegal happened. There is no evidence any money went to joe biden. There is no evidence joe biden did anything that could be construed as helping that company. You are just trading in rumors and conspiracy theories.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The story was true
what story? that a laptop exists? sure, it does. It had nude photos that republicans have illegally published. I have yet to hear of anything more substantial being found on the laptop and certainly havne't heard of any evidence that Joe biden committed any sort of crime. And if it doesn't affect joe biden, it has no bearing on an election.
t was censored in violation of the 1st amendment
what? how? Was someone banned by the government from speaking?
The laptop contained evidence incriminating Joe Biden. Referring to him as "the big guy" in foreign dealings where a whistleblower and Hunter's own text messages confirm that "the big guy" is Joe Biden and he gets 10%.
that isn't evidence of a crime. hunter used his daddy's name to make money. That is super scummy, but sadly isn't illegal. Many children of politicans do this. Trump's children for example made TONS of money abusing their relationship to trump and their access to the government.
And that "whistleblower" made a single statement with no evidence. no evidence for those claims has ever been found. And the "whistleblower" himself has been indicted with many corruption related charges.
If he never delivered anything, why did he get 10%?
there is no evidence this ever happened. Why would you think it did?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Well, any time you’re talking about criminal charges, state of mind is important. In legal parlance, it’s mens rea, and there are very, very few crimes in the U.S. code that do not require a state of mind that involves the intent to commit the crime that you’re charged with. That’s called specific intent or even general intent. There are very few that say regardless of your intent, you can be held criminally culpable.
this says nothing about whether he believed the election fraud lies. the mens rea is whether he knew (or a reasonable person would know) that his actions were illegal. He isn't charged with a crime specially related to his fraud lies. He is charged with multiple things, but primarily conspiracy to overturn the results of the election. So they only need to prove that he meant to break those laws. Whether he thought the election was fraudulent or not doesn't tell us whether he meant to engage in a conspiracy to overturn the election results. It tells us why he did it. IE motive.
There are other things like the Pence example in there. But, remember, this is ultimately going to be a question for the jury to determine. Did he honestly believe there was fraud in the election, or is that just an excuse right now to not only try to get reëlected and campaign on that but also to try to avoid criminal responsibility? And so that’s one of the reasons you see time after time in the indictment the fact that he was told by all of his closest advisers, by the investigators actually investigating these claims, that there was no merit to them. You can’t stick your head in the sand and ignore all of the evidence and say, “I had a firm belief.” I mean, you could do that, but it’ll be up to the jury to determine.
this is in establishing motive, which they are also going to do. They are going to show that he committed the crime (ie conspiracy to overturn the election results) and that he did so knowing the election was legitimate. The fact that it is knowingly will make it easier to convince a jury to convict him, but the fact the he knowingly tried to overturn the election results is all that is required to convict.
if motive doesn't matter in determining his guilt, why would proving his motive even matter?
In some cases, it is important if you are missing other aspects of the case. For example if you can't find the murder weapon, but you can show a person had a really good motive, was at the crime scene etc, then showing a strong motive can help secure a conviction. That doesn't seem to be a factor here since many of his illegal actions are public knowledge.
It matters to juries. If you had a good reason for doing something, juries will sometimes refuse to convict you even if you committed the crime. Like attacking someone who harmed your child. In some circumstances, people see this as a behavior that they could see themselves doing and the prosecutor could fail to convict. If you can establish that their motive was also wrong, it is harder to defend them and easier to convinct. So if people thought he was committing all these crimes trying to save america or something, some jurors might think he was right to do so, even though it was wildly illegal. If you can show that he not only committed the crime, but did so knowing he rightfully lost the election, it is easier to convict.
It also matters to judges. If your actions were technically illegal, but morally justified, you might get convicted but the sentence is then really light. Proving his motives were corrupt makes this less likely.
Bottom line, proving motive helps to secure convictions and get a proper penalty, but you don't need them to convict.
you are making the opposite argument of what the law is.
I have already explained that I am not. the mens rea for his crimes has nothing to do with his beliefs about the election. He isn't charged with making statements about the election. He is charged will trying to steal the election. So his beliefs about the election are just motive, not mens rea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't have a problem when you dismiss credible information. I do when the FBI does it and then censors the information with government force.
what information were they censoring exactly? What was on the laptop that you think was important for people to know?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
are you seriously arguing the new yorker made a typo?
no, I didn't say that. I'm saying their headline doesn't match what the person being interviewed said.
the whole article is reinforcing the headline.
point out what he said in the interview that says if trump thought the election was stollen then he isn't guilty of what he is accused of.
why did trump say pence was being too honest?
Ok, maybe saying "it doesn't matter" is too strong. You can certainly convict him without proving he knew he was lying about the election. But showing he was lying about the election and still tried to steal the election anyway makes his conviction easier. Showing the accused's motive for committing the crime is always useful in convincing a jury.
even beyond the headline, the article starts out defining specific intent and that it matters if trump thought the election was stolen.
I showed you an exact quote from the article where he specifically says that even if he believed the lies about the election it would not absolve him of culpability. The headline is completely contrary to this statement. So show me where exactly in the article he says that they can't convict him without showing he was lying about the election fraud.
if you can't admit you're wrong here, it's just a case either of reading comprehension on your part, or more likely a case of 'you can't change a person's mind even when the facts are against them'.
point to the "facts". Show me where in the article it agrees with your opinion. I pointed to exactly where in the article he said your interpretation is wrong.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The bank bailouts was the absolute worst.
agreed. The government didn't put any rules in place to control their overwhelming greed and allowed them to tank the economy. Then bailed them out after they tanked the economy. And now republicans are rolling back what little regulation was actually put in place to dissuade them from doing it again. The american people got the worst outcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The story had nothing to do with joe biden.Yes it did, Joe is "The big guy".
What are you talking about now? where has there ever been any evidence that joe biden committed a crime? Show me what policy he changed because of what hunter was doing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
True. Only 10-17% (depending on the poll) would have switched their votes. But would that have decided the election?
polling someone years later and asking them if they would have switched their vote because of some bogus story doesn't mean very much.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The government should never be in the business of purchasing equity of private businesses with tax payer funds.
I disagree with the broadness of your statement. There are lots of government owned and run corporations that work towards the well being of citizens in countries around the world. As long as a government is planning on using the investment to provide services to it's people, then buying a business could make sense. But yes, the refusal of governments to reign in the stupidity and excesses of the corporations, then bailing them out when their stupidity and excess catches up with them is horrifying.
Created:
Posted in:
INTELLECTUAL COWARDICE DENIALISM!!!!
lol. I actually have thoughts of my own. I am willing to explain to you what my views are and provide sources to back them up other than youtubers. You have yet to make any arguments of your own. Who is the intellectual coward here? You are either incapable of explaining thoughts and arguments clearly, or you are just a troll trying to waste my time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you think Vivek has a point here?
no, not really. The laptop story was nothing. It showed that the son of a presidential candidate was a bit shady. The story had nothing to do with joe biden. Even to this day, it is little more than an attempt to smear a politician by attacking his children. most voters don't care about hunter biden.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
you are making the opposite argument of what the law is.
no, i'm not.
This is lifted from the article.
Is there something wrong with our system, just to take a step back, in that you could imagine a President who sincerely believed there was fraud pushing something like this really far without breaking the law?
Well, let’s just take a real-world example. There are people who commit murder and say, “I sincerely believed that the devil was telling me that I had to commit this murder to save the soul of whomever.” And that does not absolve them of culpability, necessarily. It might support a defense of not guilty by reason of insanity, in which you did not have the ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of your action. But it’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
This article doesn't say he is innocent if he believed the election was stolen. In fact, he basically says the opposite. I'm guessing the new yorker wrote the header because he doesn't say that in the interview.
Someone is usually required to have mens rea to be found guilty. But whether or not trump believed the election was stolen doesn't affect his mens rea. Trump knew, or at a bare minimum should have known, that asking pence to delay the counting of the vote was illegal. He asked him to do it anyway. Therefore his mens rea is based around asking pence to do it. Whether he thought the election was stolen or not is useful information in establishing his motive for committing the crime. But it does not affect his mens rea.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
guess Trump was accidentally right about not subsidizing this corporation with welfare.
What? Trump did subsidize this corporation with welfare. That is the point. That he pissed tons of money down the drain.
Created:
Posted in:
Fucking hypocrite. You will watch this clip but won't watch the clips I cite.
lol this clip was 1 minute long. I didn't have to sit through 20 minutes to an hour of nonsense to try to get to the point.
You're dismissed. Never to be taken seriously ever again on this site.
lol literally all your opinions have been from some right wing grifter. It is unclear to me if you have any thoughts of your own or if you are even capable of summarizing the points of those grifters because you have never tried and may not even comprehend what they are saying. I would be shocked if anyone on this site takes you seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The MSNBC anchor who laughed at white genocide.
I watched the clip and didn't hear him laugh, mention genocide, or mention south africa. He did mention how lots of white americans get all angry and bent out of shape at the idea of non white people moving to america. Is that what you think genocide is? That's just demographic shifts.
Created:
Posted in:
Unlike you I’m not lazy. I watched, listened and am ready to discuss the points raised in the video.
lol. what you are doing is the definition of lazy. You fail to make a single argument, provide a single shred of evidence. You just expect everyone else to watch some right wing drivel and make them do all the work of disproving. If you weren't lazy, you would be making an argument. But you're not. And you are.
I never see you demands the cliff notes from greyparrot or others when they post links to videos to start a discussion with. Now why could that be!
I can't speak for greyparrot, but I personally do ask him for that. But he usually does actually make an argument and/or provide a source other than a youtube video of some right wing grifter.
Biden Crime Family Exposed
lol, sources please. Because so far, other than some tax offenses, I haven't seen any evidence of the biden family committing crimes. And literally no evidence of Joe Biden committing crimes. Just lots of rumor and inuendo.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
a judge wouldn't allow them to hire scabs to replace the union workers. Now every union worker is permanently out of a job. Go unions!
If they can't afford to pay their workers properly, then they are a poorly run company. It is never pleasant for a company to go bankrupt, but if you prop up bad companies then nothing will ever improve. With them gone, it makes room for more competent companies to take their place.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Then why are his poll numbers improving?
A quick search shows me not much has changed. Biden is winning in most polls with the odd poll showing trump winning. It was the same in July and the same in June. So what improvement are you talking about?
And for now, much of the evidence isn't public yet. We know the highlights of what he is charged with and a couple pieces of evidence have been released. When the trials start and all the evidence, witnesses, recordings etc become public, only the trump cultists will still deny his guilt.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
ntent is a central factor in the crime. it's not just wanting to know motive just for kicks... if he didn't have knowledge or intent, then no crime was committed. that's what the article says. you are confusing motive with criminal intent. n
no, you seem to misunderstand what intent is. Wanting to change the official results of the election is the intent. So if he told anyone to send a fake elector, then he showed the intent to break the law. If he told mike pence to delay the counting of the electoral college (as his lawyer admitted on TV that he did), then he had the intent to break the law. It doesn't matter if he believed his election lies were true or not. It doesn't matter if he thought the election was stolen. If he took those illegal actions (which it is public knowledge now that he did), then he is guilty. What he believed is not relevant.
Try this as an analogy. Let's say the bank rips you off somehow. They take money out of your account and you believe they robbed you. You can tell whoever you want that they did this. You can sue them, or try to get criminal charges against them. You cannot, under any circumstances, try to steal your money back. It doesn't matter what the bank actually did. It doesn't matter what you think the bank did. The moment you try to steal the money, you are guilty. Similarly, it doesn't matter if the election was stolen (it obviously wasn't). It doesn't matter if trump believed the election was stolen. The moment he took action to try to change the outcome of the election, he was guilty.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Yours is superior, you know all. Trails are for suckers.
lol, I have literally heard him admit to the crime in an audio recording. You don't have to be superior to hear someone admit to a crime and think "well I guess he did it". You just have to have working ears and a basic understanding of the english language.
Created:
Oh joy, another unsubstantiated TDS thread.
oh joy, another example of you not actually engaging in what was said and just throwing out nonsense. Seriously, why are you even here?
Created:
Posted in:
Ben Shapiro and/or Mark Levin are no idiots, but you're certainly living up to that self-ascribed label to the proverbial "T" with this banal name calling genetic fallacy retorts.
they are, yes. They are paid millions to keep right wing assholes angry. So they will lie and twist the truth to make sure their viewers stay mad. And since trump became a cult leader, they also now need to defend him pretty much 24/7, because they can't cross him.
Claiming Shapiro makes millions per podcast is equally childish.
i never said he makes millions per podcast. I said he makes millions. You really need to check your reading comprehension.
Bugger off and go play with the rest of the neighborhood children and stop spamming the forum with your nonsense.
lol literally all you are doing is giving out links to right wing grifter podcasts, then insulting people who try to actually debate with you. You clearly don't want to actually debate. You just want to link to other people and do absolutely no thinking or work for yourself. you want us to all the work for you. I've seen children that can debate better than this.
Created: