TWS1405_2

-->

@n8nrgim

but if he had the authority to take or keep the documents in the first place

he didn't. He took the documents after he lost the election. He did not have a right to take them. 

then obstruction is trying to find something with no underlying basis to it.

also untrue. Even if he had the right to take them (which he didn't), once he was told he had to give them back (because he was no longer president and wasn't allowed to have them) then refusing to give them back was illegal. 

 in my opinion, if someone like a president takes documents, it's a special circumstance, even if we dont like that he did it.

this is fair. And that is why he wasn't charged immediately. They spent like a year repeatedly asking him nicely to return the documents. He refused. He lied that he had them. He lied saying he had returned all of them. He hid them when they came to check if he still had them. They could have charged him right away after he took the documents. That all by itself was illegal. They didn't need to spend a year asking him nicely to do that. They did it because it was a special circumstance. 

 if the underlying act wasn't a crime, then the obstructing of the underlying act should't be a crime either.

this is a misunderstanding of the law. If you do something that isn't illegal, but then try to cover it up by doing things that are illegal, you still committed a crime. Take watergate for example. It was the coverup that sunk nixon.

it's too hokey to say taking the documents should be a crime, even if it technically was.

you aren't really making sense. You understand it was illegal for him to take them. You understand it was illegal for him to refuse to give them back. You understand it was illegal for him to hide the documents. You understand it was illegal for him sign a legally binding documenting saying he had returned them all when he had not (his lawyer did this at his instruction). You understand it is illegal to attempt to destroy evidence of your crimes after it has been subpoenaed. You know he did all of these crimes, but you don't think he should be punished for it because he's "special"? 

i was watching the news and they had a bit on trump trying to sabatage the election process even outside of georgia.

trump and his team tried multiple ways to steal the election after he had lost. From trying to get state officials to mess with the results so that he won to trying to get state to send fake electors. Georgia is going to charge him for this in the next few weeks. 

-->

@n8nrgim

I could give ya the obstruction charge, at least if it's normal to charge people for obstruction when the underlying activity wasn't illegal. It does seem pretty serious and not right that he wouldn't comply and actively obscured them

from what I can see, all the charges against him are valid. It's possible some of them might be unsubstantiated, but so far it's looking like he committed ALOT of crimes in the tail end of his presidency and the aftermath. 

Intellectual cowardice and denialism is exhibited by the unwillingness to engage in rational dialog, 

No, it only makes a vibration in the air, "sound" is an experiential quality, you need an ear and sentience to convert the vibration into the experience of sound.

Even if I granted your first contention, this still would not explain why anyone should care.

Who, as a serious person, uses the term "libtard"?

Conservatives are the kings of whataboutism.

Plea deals are a normal everyday thing that happens in criminal proceedings. This does not address why anyone should care.

Juxtaposing "fiscal" with "autonomy" in regard to the "right to life" is completely illogical

Why?  Fiscal autonomy matters too.  If it didn’t, then I could force you to give all your money to the state.  It would also legalize theft.

A pregnancy has NO LEGAL RIGHTS!

This is positive analysis, not normal analysis.  The unborn right now in most states do not have rights.  But pro lifers argue they should.

Such bans/restrictions apply to the pregnant girl/woman, not the pregnancy.

The bans/restrictions apply to the pregnant woman because of the belief that the unborn deserves the right to not get murdered.

Pro-lifers argue, demand, and push for pregnant little girls and young women to give birth. Once they do give birth, pro-lifer's go dead silent. They have no responsibility or obligation to the birthed child.

Then the argument you would make is, “fiscal conservatives are selfish” (which is technically correct, but I just don’t see the issue with some forms of selfishness) not pro lifers.  A pro lifer that wears a mask in 2023, got vaccinated and boosted, wants vaccine mandates, wants to tax the rich more to save people’s lives, wants to ban all guns to save lives, spends all their money adopting children from Africa, wants universal healthcare, and is pro life for the whole life on all applicable issues would NOT be selfish according to your claim.

@<<<TWS1405_2>>>

Conspiracy theories are not evidence.

> 

@<<<TWS1405_2>>>

Because Daddy is directly tied to his son’s foreign business affairs and the bribery and the scandals and so on and so forth. 

Or so we're told. Now if only they could find credible evidence of this...

Under the jail…incoherent as usual

--> 

@Barney

I should add that not all descriptors are insults,

So it’s agreed then. TWS is a dummy and it’s fine to say so as long as I am responding to something stupid that he said.

0

TWS has a lack of marketable skills so he chooses to live off the government. By not having kids he is able to live off his small government check.

Generally I’ll say context and repetition matter.

I have acknowledged errors when I found legitimate points against my stated position. It's rare though, so I'm not about to dig through my posts looking for them, and I really couldn't care less about proving myself in that regard to anyone.

> 

@<<<TWS1405_2>>>

How is “THATS THE FUCKING POINT!” an insult? 

I didn't say it was, that falls into the category of shouting and profanity. An example of an insult would be this:

No, HISTORICAL FACT!!!

Ignorant DENIALIST!!!

Ignorant denialist ≠ an ad hominem when that observation = truth 

Then dummy does not = an ad hominem when that observation = truth

And you were never reported for using the term “dummy,” dummy.

So either dummy is ok or TWS must be reprimanded.

Which is it going to be Barney?

That is stating an observable FACT, not an ad hominem.

Some people are ugly. Calling them ugly is an observable fact. Yet still an ad hominem.

Would you prefer I take the TWS approach and just start shouting insults at you in all caps?

Frankly, I would like to see the last time you said “That’s a fair point”, “I stand corrected”, “I never looked at it that way before” and responses of that nature…

--> 

@Double_R

My post 16 response to you:

“The OP contains a brief quote lacking context. Care to provide any?”

Your post 44:

we don’t need some black professor to explain to us what it says or what the point is, it’s right there in plain English.

So, even when another poster directs you to the missing context, you refuse to give it any daylight… Surprise!

The left’s (and your) denialism of historical truth is…

Complete strawman.

Moreover, just think about the absurdity of what you’re fighting so hard to point to; Slavery in America occurred for about 400 years, 

Yes it is a fact that slaves learned some skills that did benefit some of them

Your analogy of the Muslim school board is a false equivalency fallacy. 

The historical fact remains that over the course of slavery in N. America, slaves did (and their offspring), in some instances, benefit from slavery that aided them in slavery and whence they became freemen (or born post slavery).

The Muslim school board is a nearly perfect analogy.

who tf said I was 

There's like 1 debate per like 3 days or smth. dead site ??!?!?!?!?!

How about an actual stated position

Republicans are a disgrace because they are willing to kill children trying to come across the border.

This contributes absolutely ZERO to this discussion. 

STOP derailing threads with your trolling, IWRA. 

Your idiotic posts contribute nothing to any discussion found here.

When you say stupid things I feel compelled to point out how stupid they are.