Total posts: 4,222
-->
@Greyparrot
America probably wouldn't even rank in the top 10.It's a known fact America supplies 40% of all the weapons traded across the globe.The U.S. also provided more than half of the weapons purchased by 13 of the top 17 arms importers, with Saudi Arabia, Japan and Australia buying the most from the U.S.
ok. I pointed out that there are many empires who killed millions of people and that the US doesn't even come close to being as bloody as them. You replied with "american companies make and sell weapons". I mean, sure they do. And? America doesn't make countries go to war. They go to war because they want to. And whether it is American weapons, russian weapons, or chinese weapons, they are still going to go to war.
And none of these even attempts to address my point that the world is much more peaceful today than it ever has been in history.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Selling arms is getting involved.
no, it's not. Sadly, war is business. Always has been, and likely always will be. All major nations in the world produce weapons. Most sell them to 3rd parties. Both because they like money, but also because it allows them to build up their defensiveness. Banning arms deals harms the ability of those companies to be able to produce weapons to supply america. I'm not justifying what america does, but it is much more complicated than you are attempting to portray it as.
And even if it were exactly what you are portraying it as, it still doesn't counter my main point. the world is the most peaceful it has ever been because of the united states. You still have not even addressed this fact as you keep desperately bringing up anything you can.
America is responsible both directly and indirectly in more warfare deaths than any other nation that has ever existed on Earth during its short 200 year reign.
lol, what? you either know nothing about history, or you are lying through your teeth. History is VERY bloody. Every empire has left a mountain of corpses in their wake. The british, the french, the russians, the chinese, the japanese, the mongols, etc. America probably wouldn't even rank in the top 10.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Except, it's not a cancerous tumor. And the subject of personhood is made all the more moot (and frankly absurd) when a State CAN GRANT A BODY OF WATER PERSONHOOD.
I don't think that makes it moot. Legal personhood is a complicated subject. And yes, inanimate objects can be a legal person. Deciding what is and what isn't a person is always a difficult question to answer. Saying that because a question is difficult and sometimes comes to strange answers makes the whole concept absurd and moot, is a bit silly.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, when they are not playing that gameshow, they are selling arms globally and pretending they are not the enemies of global peace.
so when america gets involved in conflicts, it is evil. And when america decides not to get involved in conflicts, it is evil. You are just starting from the assumption that america is evil and making up reasons to justify it. America does bad things, no one is denying that. They also have caused the most peaceful and prosperous time in world history.
Your examples of peace are easy to embrace only from the comfort of a NIMBY chair.
again, you are engaging in nonsense arguments. I never said the world is universally peaceful. It is not. Regions of the world are war prone and parts of africa are certainly included in that. But america is not causing wars in africa. It is not invading them, it is not making them fight each other. Africans want to fight and kill other africans. When america does nothing about that, they get blamed. When america tries to stop that, it goes badly since you can't force peace on those who want to fight, and america gets blamed.
The world today is much more peaceful than it was in the 1800's or 1900's. It is the most peaceful it has been in human history. Pointing out that wars still happen is irrelevant. I never said they don't. But there are alot less of them today than in any other period in history.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
the issue of whether it's a human is its own issue, if it's clearly not a human then of course the woman's autonomy is highest. but if it's a human, then the woman's autonomy in my opinion is on the same level as the baby.
I never said it wasn't human. I said it wasn't a person. Technically a cancerous tumor is still human.
but as time goes on, the fact that she assumed the risk of pregnancy comes into play. also comes into play how soon she chooses to abort.
this is true. At a certain point a fetus is far enough along that you shouldn't allow an abortion unless there are extreme circumstances. For example, the day before the due date is obviously too late for an abortion to be OK. Where exactly the line is, I don't pretend to know the right answer. But many of the states passing "heartbeat" laws and things like that, the date they choose is often before the woman even knows she is pregnant, or so soon after there is no reasonable way she could get an abortion that fast.
what's fair is fair... if you cause someone to need an organ, and you have the organ, it's only fair.
that does not sound fair to me. That sounds like the kind of "justice" they used back in the times of the old testament. I'd like to think we have moved beyond an eye for an eye.
i concede by social standards my position is insane, but i think your position is insane that you would let a victim die at the hands of a criminal when the criminal could fix the situation.
Murdering one person to save another is not just. It is not moral. The death penalty in general is barbaric and pointless.
i dont know why you could try to pigeon hole me into thinking i dont care about people's rights. of course i do. at least give me the credit that i think the baby has rights at a certain point. so, if anyone is heartless, it is you, because you are not trying to find a common ground between the baby and the mother.
of course I want common ground. Aborting the day before the due date is obviously wrong. Expecting a woman to carry a fetus to term from the moment she gets pregnant is also obviously wrong. There is a middle ground. But your argument was basically a woman should lose her rights because she got pregnant. That is a morally repugnant stance. And one which, if extended, means the government could do almost anything to anyone.
if you concede that the baby's rights eventually come into play, then we're just talking past each other
so if I am literally anyone, we are talking past each other? I haven't heard of anyone who thinks an abortion is ok the day before the due date (except in cases where the mother could die or something). That isn't an opinion that almost anyone has. So I don't know why you would suggest that baby's rights don't eventually come into play. But basically every law that I have ever heard of attempting to restrict abortion is basically designed to make them impossible to get. They don't want to find common ground, they want to make it impossible for anyone to have one.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
a better analogy would be if someone causes an accident, and the victim to the accident is somehow dependent for life upon the body of the person who caused the accident
that is a terrible analogy since there is no 2nd person. There is a fetus. That is not a person. You are saying that if someone makes a mistake, they must lose their legal right to control their own body. Do you really want the government to have that power?
another example, if a criminal stabs someone in their organ, and the victim needs a replacement organ, i say the criminal is responsible to provide it.
so basically, you are in favor of invasive surgery, likely causing death if you injure someone. That is insane.
i know some people are absolutely on the right of bodily autonomy even for criminals who cause dependency, but that just ain't fair in my mind.
basically, you don't care about people's rights. You want the government to step on them the moment you think you are morally justified. What about when other people think they are morally justified? If the government has the power to take any and all of your rights, it won't only be used just when you want it to be. If you are going to suspend people's rights, you need to be extremely careful when and how it is done. And your position is that there should be very little justification needed to do so.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
For America, sure.
no, for most of the world. There are regions where violence still occurs. Though, for the most part, america doesn't start those wars. But, on the whole, there are much fewer wars than in the 18th or 19th centuries. Having 1 super power able to leverage influence, and actually want to leverage influence, to prevent wars makes a more peaceful world.
There's also a ton of wars that happened around the world that America did nothing to stop during that period.
this is true. But weren't you just criticizing america for playing world police? So which is it? Do we blame america for intervening in wars, or do we blame America for not intervening in wars?
Especially in Africa, although America did do a lot to sell arms around the globe Tony Stark style.
this is also true. I have never claimed america is perfect. I only tell you that the pax americana is the most peaceful the world has ever been. It is still far from perfect though.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
U guys r forgetting that if a woman gets pregnant she assumed the risk of pregnancy. If it's anyone's fault she's pregnant, it's hers.
and? Is that relevant? If you get got sick because of something you did, would that be a relevant factor in treating you or something? Whose fault it is has no bearing on a person's bodily autonomy.
And, as time goes on with pregnancy, she assumes the obligation of aborting sooner than later, while the morality is more debatable.
I mean, while sooner is better than later, when right wing people say that (I am not presuming that describes you) they usually mean so early that most women don't even know they are pregnant yet. Many laws intended to restrict access to abortion are designed to be so restrictive as to make it virtually impossible for someone to be able to legally access an abortion. The truth is it takes awhile to even notice the symptoms, and then it can take even longer to confirm you are pregnant and be able to schedule the procedure.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This refers to a peaceful period in the area in and around china specially. It describes nowhere else in the world. The Pax americana has created the most peaceful period in the history of the world. Not just in one region. China has only ever created peace in it's own sphere of influence. And it did so through extreme violence. It forced those around it into becoming tributaries of their empire because they saw/see themselves as the center of world and everyone else is inferior.
The american system of peace if primarily based on trade and mutual defense.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sans Iraq, Yemen, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, Serbia, Palestine, Cuba, Lebanon, Niger, Uganda, Somalia, Bosnia, Grenada, Haiti and DR.
and? most of these were wars the US did not start. Some of these I wouldn't even say the US was involved in. Like Yemen. They have carried out drone strikes on Al-Qaeda. That's it.
Almost all of these are small regional conflicts that the US got involved in to try to end them. The US didn't start most of them. And even with all of these conflicts, it is still the most peaceful period in recent history. Pre-WW1, there were wars on every continent pretty much all the time. Usually more than 1. Post WW 2, some regions are still conflict prone, but the number and severity of wars is significantly reduced overall.
Russia doesn't have a century of history operating as "the world's police force"
No, they have centuries of history as the world's oppressor. At least, as much of the world as they can reach. The soviet union wasn't powerful because people wanted to join. They joined by force. And the russians used force to keep them there. And they have been doing it uninterrupted for hundreds of years.
It's entirely possible there could be more international peace and freedom without such an arbitrary force in the world than what you have been conditioned to accept as "normal"
it's possible. But literally all of human history suggests that no, it would be worse. So suggesting that we would be better off when all available evidence says otherwise is foolish.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
no country has ever existed that you could say is unequivocally "good". Because being "good" is not what a country is even for. Until fairly recently, being a "good" country would have been seen as a bad thing.
So once you move past the childish idea that any country is going to be always "good" you can move into the realm of the real world. And in the real world you have to compare shades of gray. How good/bad is one country compared to another. And the comparison isn't even close. Russia is am imperialist power that doesn't care even slightly about people, or rights or rules. They will screw over anyone, at any time for power and wealth.
America often acts in ways that are shitty, but they at least have restraints. They have free elections where if a leader acts shitty enough, they are removed. Russia has no such thing. In Russia all media is kremlin controlled anyone who could be a threat is murdered or imprisoned.
America has to at least pretend like they care about the rule of law and getting along with other countries. They have allies whose opinions they need to actually listen to. Russia has no such thing. They don't care what other nations think of them. They don't really have allies or "friends". They have subjects. They do whatever they want, whenever they want, and there is no other country that can even try to convince them not to.
America has arguably ruled the world since the fall of the soviet union. It has been far from perfect, but it has been the most peaceful and prosperous period of human history. America can certainly be better, but it is madness to suggest that Russian rule would be preferable.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The US did not “run out of ammo”Biden said it did. Are you saying that Biden lied?
they are running out of ammo they can safely give without depleting their own combat ability. So there is much more ammo, but if they give it and china starts another war, they wouldn't be able to respond effectively.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm not sure that anyone will win.
It may be sad, it might not have been worth the cost, but someone will win. Russia's goal was to annex and/or puppet Ukraine. It's not clear whether they meant to annex all of Ukraine, or just like half of it and violently install a puppet ruler over the rest.
So if the fighting ends and Ukraine exists, then they won. If Ukraine ceases to exist, or russia successfully installs a puppet ruler over Ukraine, then they won.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What's going to happen to the Donbas Russians if Ukraine conquers them and wins the civil war? Mass Exile? Like the USA did to the Native Americans? Trail of Siberian Tears?
they will get a choice. They can remain in Ukraine and be Ukrainians, or they can go to Russia (who have already given them russian citizenship) and be russian. I don't think a short car ride is anything like the trail of tears. It's just a drive across a border. There are major russian cities like 30 minutes away.
Since I am generally against forced relocations,
it isn't a forced relocation. They get a choice of whether they want to be russian or Ukranian. They only need to leave if they decide they want to belong to a foreign country.
I am hoping the Russian dug trenches will hold long enough for Americans to get distracted with another plaything.
this is pretty terrible. Census data from the region shows that Ukranians made up the largest ethnic group in the area before the russians started killing them. Russians are the majority now only because Russia forced Ukrainians to flee or die.
f "winning" means a return to the 2014 peace agreement before USA started the 2014 civil war, then I am in full support of such a "victory"
lol what? russia armed and funded terrorists as a pretext to invade. Russia started the civil war. But I'm glad you are in favor of returning Ukraine to their 2014 borders. They also need to get crimea back, but the 2014 borders are a good starting point.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This article suggests Russia will feel compelled to use similar weapons as the Americans continue to escalate instead of negotiate.
so they will feel compelled to use the weapons the have been using the whole time? That doesn't make much sense. They are using them today. they were using them last week. They will use them next week. Providing Ukraine the same kinds of weapons doesn't change that.
This "article" is just quoting a russian official. It doesn't have any information at all on the Russia's current usage of them.
Ukraine using them too doesn't change the fact that this entire region will need to be demined after Ukraine wins regardless.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
WAPO article I cited says they are illegal because they have a greater than 1% failure rate, and according to the Wapo article it's known that a cluster bomblet that does not immediately detonate becomes a land mine
all munitions have a failure rate. Every grenade ever thrown, every missile ever fired, every bomb ever dropped, have some that fail. Probably at higher than 1%. So saying that any munition that could fail is a landmine, is willful ignorance.
The cluster bombs were part of a defense package sold to the American taxpayers
this is nonsense. Americans aren't "buying" them. They are giving them.
Cluster munitions are terrible weapons. I would fully approve them being fully banned and never used. However, Russia is extensively using them. They are also heavily mining large areas of Ukraine. So saying that Ukraine using them somehow makes the situation worse, is a little silly. The areas these will be used in, are already being heavily mined and cluster bombed anyway. I don't see how it makes the situation much worse. And if it helps Ukraine win the war, then all the better. They will help save lives.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What's the difference between the 2 categories?
you're not really making any sense. The "category" of "legal in all cases" means they think it should be legal in all cases at the week specified. So next to 6 weeks, they think it should be legal in all cases at 6 weeks. Next to 14 weeks it weeks it means they think it should be legal in all cases at 14 weeks. Next to 24 weeks they think it should be legal in all cases at 24 weeks.
And that is where this poll ends in this graphic. They do not ask people's opinions past 24 weeks (ie in the 2nd trimester). They do not ask if people think it should be legal in the 30th week, or the 40th week. So you cannot draw any conclusion about late term abortion from this poll.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What do you think the difference is between the category "at this point" on the 24 week row and the category "In all cases no exceptions"
It means that those people believe that at 24 weeks (ie in the 2nd trimester) an abortion should be legal in all cases. It says absolutely nothing about the 3rd trimester, let alone shortly before the due date. So it absolutely does not confirm or even support the assertion you were making that significant numbers of people support late term abortion.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's not what the poll says. If you want me to break out the photoshop and circle the English words on the poll, I can do that for you.
lol the poll you linked to (I'll put it below in case you forgot) shows people's opinions at 6 weeks, 14 weeks and 24 weeks. None of these options are in the 3rd trimester, let alone right before the due date.
Now you are guessing instead of reading the English words on the poll. Seems like you may have unconsciously projected your error onto me.
I have no idea what you are talking about. that poll you linked only shows opinions up to 24 weeks and you are going on and on about how it says people want abortions at 40 weeks.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
He is making suppositions about what the poll means without evidence
oh I am aware. I have pointed that out to him. He wants to find polling that will say what he is looking to prove, so he finds polls that give information that look like they might say what he wants them to say, even though they don't.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The poll clearly says 19% want abortions in all cases with no exceptions.
24 weeks is the 2nd trimester. A standard pregnancy is 40 weeks. So no, this absolutely does not say that 19% want abortions the day before the due date. It says 19% want abortions in the 2nd trimester, months before the due date. And I'd bet you most of the people being polled didn't know what a fetus was capable of at 24 weeks. I don't know that without checking 1st. So the idea that you could just call people up and ask week by week when the cutoff should be is silly. They aren't going to know off the top of their head, but they will still have to give an answer.
I keep telling you, you cannot use a poll with such limited answers to try to get this kind of detail on such a complicated question.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
My poll showed 19% of people want this.
No, it didn't. It said that 19% of people believe that abortions should be available in the last trimester. So it is entirely plausible that those people meant in month 7, not in month 9. Additionally, the "legal in all cases" was 8%. 11% was "legal in most cases". But there was no option for "legal in case of medical emergency" or "legal in case of rape or incest" etc. So alot of people would just take the one they think would give women the ability to protect their rights. I'm sure if you actually had a conversation with those people, almost none of them think an abortion right up to the due date is appropriate.
A poll like this isn't going to be able to capture a nuanced opinion on a complicated issue.
What you think with your sample size of one doesn't match up with the pew poll.
you didn't link to a pew poll. Nor did you seem to understand the results you brought up.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Like, it's OK to tell the abortion on demand through the 3rd trimester crowd to take a back seat.
I don't think there are very many, if any, people who want an abortion to be an option like the day before the due date. So you may be making a straw man argument. I won't go so far as to say no one believes that, but they would be a tiny minority.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Presumably it would be codifying Roe. Overturning it was extremely unpopular so there seems to be some level of agreement there. But you will never get everyone, potentially even a majority to agree on exactly where the line should be.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So I can be against abortion and also against abortion ban.
not really, no. You can be in favor or restrictions on when and where an abortion can be done. But that would still make you someone in favor of abortion, just in the right circumstances. If you are against abortion, then you want no abortions at all.
And a large majority of Americans are in favor of abortion rights for women.
Created:
Yeah, abortion rights are extremely popular. opinions of when one should/shouldn't be allowed vary considerably, but the idea that abortion should be banned is wildly unpopular. The idea that anyone would try to run on banning abortion seems insane to me. I know it plays well in a republican primary where a high percentage of voters are rightwing loons, but it is toxic in an actual election.
And ron desantis has come out trying to go even further to the right to outflank trump. This basically makes him unelectable. But is probably his only hope at winning the primary, even if it is extremely remote.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You realize that Trump can easily go to jail for contempt if he released those FBI photos/docs/tapes to the media.
Lol they have audio recordings of him admitting to crimes that carry a penalty of like 15 years. Contempt is the absolute least of his worries. His only hope is to win the election and pardon himself. He will do literally anything to win the next election.
Do you have any evidence it was Trump and not FBI leakers from the SCIF that ruined case evidence? You do know Trump has no access to the SCIF, right?
all evidence of the case was turned over to trump and his attorneys. They were given copies of the photos and audio recordings.
Admittedly, there's motive on both sides to sabotage the investigation as both have something to gain, but the FBI clearly has more access and cover to do it than dumbass Trump.
trump doesn't need cover. As long as no definitive evidence comes to light that it was him, he's fine. And even if he did get caught, so what? He is looking at potentially decades in prison (which for him is a life sentence). He has nothing to lose. Leaking some of the more damning evidence early in little bits and pieces will allow his cultists to dismiss it drip by incriminating drip so that by election time they don't care that there is incontrovertible proof that he is a criminal. His only hope is that he can get elected before being either convicted or so much evidence coming to light at trial that he is unelectable. A pardon is his only hope.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Most of the documents the FBI took were photographed and leaked to the press.
do you mean the images of the classified documents sitting on a stage or in a bathroom? Those weren't leaked. They are part of the indictment.
You aren't likely to see those photos in any court case because the FBI did that.
Unless you are referring to some other photos, this is untrue.
. Similarly with the recent leaked audio tapes, that won't ever see the inside of a courtroom because it's tainted prejudicial evidence.
The FBI already included the transcripts of those calls in the indictment. They didn't need to leak audio. And the tapes leaked within days of them being handed over to trump. Most likely trump or one of his people leaked them. So also, not true. They will definitely be used in court.
Biden has no discernable incentive to fix the FBI because it's likely the FBI is extorting Biden with a ton of evidence (besides the laptop) about his publicly admitted corruption in Ukraine.
this whole sentence is just make believe. There is no evidence of corruption in Ukraine that i have seen. It is all just rumor and inuendo.
The system is so broken, nobody knows where to start, but it sure as hell won't be magically fixed after Trump is gone.
I agree with you. But trump is undoubtedly guilty of multiple crimes. Him not being punished for his crimes doesn't make anything any better. It makes it worse.
There's so much extortion going on with the legal system, it's hard to tell who the real bad guys are.
there's lots of bad guys in positions of power, that is true. And trump is very obviously one of them.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
some "secret" lolI like how you did not use the word "codes" though. Shows you still are cogent.
I honestly don't know what you are talking about. But Trump stole nuclear documents after losing the election. I don't see any possible innocent explanation for why you would would want or need secret nuclear documents nor why you would lie about it and hide them when the government asked for them back, repeatedly. Taking them was a crime, hiding them was another, bigger crime. And what he did/planned to do with them likely was another significant crime. But we may or may not find out what that was.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I can't believe that allegation still has traction in educated circles.
you mean the allegation he is currently being indicted for? The fact that he stole nuclear documents is in the documents case indictment.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There's so much extortion going on with the legal system, it's hard to tell who the real bad guys are.
that's true. But the guy stealing classified documents including nuclear secrets and showing them to people in his club. Then lying about it and hiding the documents. that's probably a bad guy. definitely a criminal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
Very good strategy, I see. In Russia our leaders do the same. Minimize their crimes while exaggerating the opponents, that way it does not appear corrupt to only arrest red team favorites.
minimize what exactly? There is no credible claim that biden has done anything. Just random claims he did this or that with absolutely 0 evidence to back any of it up. Trump's crimes are well documented and obvious to anyone who cares to read the indictment. There is no comparison.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
See, the left admits justice is only relevant in relation to power. That is how we know the left is weaponizing the law to gain power and eliminate threats to power.
no, it is in relation to the desire to commit more crimes. Trump wants to go back to the oval office and commit lots more crimes. Therefore punishing him for the crimes he engaged in recently is more important.
Which is more important, someone who committed an assault 50 years ago and the offender is now in a nursing home unable to walk, or someone who committed an assault last year and is planning to do it again? One carries a significant risk to the public, the other does not.
And now the Right has learned from the Left with a slew of impeachment charges set to roll through Congress.
and the whole country laughs at them since they can't point to a single crime he has committed. They are just a joke.
Banana Republic.
the right is certainly trying to make it so. Having your leader be a known criminal and trying to fight to make him unaccountable for his crimes is exactly what banana republics do.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
ok, so you've shown me a rules violation that has no prison time for it. One that I'm quite confident you could find for most high ranking politicians. These rules have no teeth and little enforcement so all politicians break them freely. And all i see here is that the biden campaign did this. I don't see any indication that biden personally was involved. So you can't say that Biden broke the law.
Is this supposed to be something that is in any way comparable to what trump has done?
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
Blue team members want Trump arrested but not proven criminals Biden and Clinton
tell me a single crime biden has been proven to have committed.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You say you would like to do it, but none of you Americans are doing anything to make it happen. So you are either lying either mentally disabled.
I get that you aren't american. But deciding whether to indict a former president for war crimes isn't something the average american has a say in. And considering all the other problems going on, going after a retiree who isn't going to hurt anyone any more is a low priority. Going after criminals who would very much like to hurt more people is a higher priority.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
Very smart move I see. Do not arrest all Republicans just the most popular ones so they win office less and public will be blinded thinking "we are still fair country not all red team is arrested" .
lol did you miss the point where i said that desantis has a higher polling chance to win the next election? Trump is not the most popular candidate. He's just the most popular among the republican base.
So you support arrest of Biden in latest corruption scandal also?
what corruption scandal? all i've heard of is republicans desperately looking for something and coming up with nonsense. Like how they said there was recordings of biden talking to a foreign oligarch!!! then it turned out that a guy no one had heard from in years once claimed that some other guy no one has heard from in years said there were tapes. And no one has seen or heard these tapes or can even confirm they exist.
I dont know if it is smart to arrest sitting president thoug.
I would say if the crime is serious, and it affects the way he is/will govern, then yes you should. The justice department disagrees.
I hear he can pardon self so maybe you push hard for his arrest if he loses in 2024?
depends on the charges. A president can pardon federal crimes, not state crimes. So hypothetically a sitting president could be charged with a state crime and he couldn't pardon himself. But the crimes trump committed are federal, so that won't be tested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
I thought you approved of arresting red team members.
I support arresting criminals, democrat or republican. There's just alot of republican criminals.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So why dont you seek to punish Bush?
which part of "I have no problem with him being charged." was unclear? I would like bush to be tried for his crimes. But his crimes were like 15 years ago and he has no intention to be in a position of power again and therefore cannot commit more crimes. Trump very much does intend to regain his position of power so that he can continue his crimes. That makes it a little more pressing for trump to be punished to prevent him from committing more crimes.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Best action for a country is to steal from other countries
i didn't say anything like that. You are just making things up now.
So I assume you think Putin is justified too, and Hitler.
absolutely not.
Also, there is no need to sentence a war criminal, since he helped USA by stealing from other countries and bombing them.
this is some pretty desperate deflection. We are discussing someone who broke the ethical guidelines of his profession being punished by the body that regulates that profession. I have no idea why you are bringing this nonsense up. Even if we did entertain this deflection, it would be meaningless. Bush did bad things and wasn't punished so we should never punish criminals? That's just dumb.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
am glad that you think that evil benefits America.
Evil can benefit anyone. If I rob a bank, that is evil. If I don't get caught, i benefit from that evil. If I then die, my family would inherit the money and benefit, even though they have done nothing wrong.
For a second, I thought you guys were honest people who would never justify evil.
I didn't justify evil. I very clearly said it was evil.
So lawyer was also justified because he thought his evil would benefit him.
of course not. I'm not saying Bush was justified. He should be charged for his crimes. But at least he took actions he thought were best for his country. Trump's actions were only to benefit himself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
Yes it is good to arrest political opponents.
who arrested a political opponent? Did joe biden slap handcuffs on Trump? No. Trump is being investigated for his many crimes and the charges are now dropping. They aren't done either. There is at least one more case in georgia where charges will be coming. But trump's political opponents aren't making any decisions on investigations or charges.
Less opposition means more united country.
what do you mean less opposition? No one has arrested to the republican party. They will still field a candidate. And since current polling shows desantis has better odds of winning the next election than trump does, it would actually be making it more competitive, not less.
Created:
Posted in:
Also a fun side note, Trump tweeted that he wanted to postpone the 2020 election. So let's not pretend like US presidents haven't floated it too. And trump wanted to do it just because he knew he'd lose. There wasn't even any emergency.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Bush was a monster who killed alot of people. But he at least took his job seriously.Wait, what?
Bush was a war mongering asshole. But he believed his actions, as despicable as they were, were for the betterment of america. He wanted to steal some oil. Evil, but at least a tangible goal that could benefit america.
Trump has no such goals. He commits crimes however, and whenever it benefits him to do so.
I concede that all of your presidents are war criminals.
Bush certainly is. Others are debatable. But that really has nothing to do with the topic. A trump accomplice is being disbarred for advising his client to commit crimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The United States did not suspend elections during the War of 1812
again, an example of a war where the vast majority of the people were perfectly safe. Since america was the aggressor, most of the fighting was done far from american cities. There was no risk in congregating large numbers of people in one place at one time because the fighting was happening hundreds of miles away.
As opposed to Ukraine where their cities are bombed by the russians regularly. And the russians regularly target civilians. So again, a not very useful example.
Got any more wars that are completely different situations you feel like bringing up?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
Nah. Looks like we all will see it real time soon.
trump behind bars for his many crimes? We can only hope. There a more charges coming after all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
[Lincoln thought] if you suspend democracy in the middle of the war, you are basically undercutting the whole purpose of the war,” he continues. “So even when he thought he was going to lose, he never really contemplated suspending the presidential election.”
so, in a war where there was absolutely no danger to the public going to vote, they didn't stop an election. And now, where there is immense danger to the public they are stopping an election!!!! my god!!! stop the presses. Clearly he must be a dictator for trying to protect his people from russian bombings!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
Your head is too hard for mine to beat against, that's all. I'm bored on the subject for now.
alright, feel free to come back any time and tell me more about how democracy is bad and corrupt and how dictator trump will save us all.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Fundamentally flawed legal opinion would be to think you should have a war criminal living comfortably in your country, such as Bush. Remind me again, why didnt Bush face charges for war crimes and lying about the weapons of mass destruction?
I have no problem with him being charged. But pre-trump, everyone assumed that presidents would act and should be treated with some level of professionalism. Bush was a monster who killed alot of people. But he at least took his job seriously. So other politicians are hesitant to try to punish him for what he thought was the right way to be president.
Trump's crimes had nothing to do with being president. He just wanted to commit crimes and he believed that being president would shield him from all consequences for it. His supporters agree that he should be allowed to commit whatever crimes he wants because other people might also have done bad things.
If only presidents were required to follow certain professional standards, maybe US would have less criminals as presidents.
if presidents had to follow standards, trump would never have made it through the front door.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
I mean, you didn't really say much of anything. Just generally being pro-trump and saying you would be happy to see him installed as dictator. But whatever, if you want to ride off into the sunset after being pro-dictator, go for it.
Created: