Total posts: 1,080
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I am not advocating anything, no one knows jack shit and everyone's opinion on what to do isn't worth jack shit, including the so called experts. I am not asking a question about masks I am saying that mask manufactures don't endorse anything that so called health experts are saying about masks.
A lack of endorsement is not an endorsement against. Which is probably the best course of action to take when manufacturers cannot offer relevant medical advice, and that endorsement of masks when not having relevant or requisite medical knowledge opens you up to liability.
And with that said I will go back to what I said in the beginning forcing me to wear a mask against my will without due process of law is a violation of my constitutional rights.
The supreme court has already ruled on the constitutionality behind exercising power in the interests of public health in Jacobson v Massachusetts, and more recently in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v Gavin Newsom. Obviously this does not mean anyone will hold you down and force a mask on you. But it does mean that you have no legal recourse if you get slapped with a fine.
I also believe it is a form of torture.
Hysterical nonsense.
It is not natural to wear a muzzle over your face 8 hours a day 5 days a week or even longer for month or years on end.
Nor is wearing clothes or using electronic gadgetry. Appeal to nature summarily dismissed.
This could last for years and there is no reason to believe it wont.
Perhaps on a global level sure. But I imagine that it could be mostly eradicated in a more localized sense if there were a sufficient community effort to reduce spread via self-isolation, quarantining, social distancing and/or wearing masks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
2. He did not say consumption of household disinfectant might be a solution to the coronavirus.
???
What is your interpretation of this then?
"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?
"So it'd be interesting to check that."
Created:
Posted in:
To add an addendum after RM's post: Some majors are incredibly competitive. In which case by all means, skip past frats and parties. However ultimately the objective of going to college for most people is getting a job after it. Depending on your career goal, networking can be an incredibly important part of this because often who you know is as important as what you know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The obvious ones:
Attend your lectures as much as you can. They will keep you on the right track, regardless if you don't feel you're getting much out of them. If you miss a couple for frivolous reasons, it'll slide down to you missing a lot for frivolous reasons, so avoid skipping out on them in the first place.
Academics are only half of the university experience. Joining clubs, attending events and networking with people is the other half. This half is Incredibly important, so don't neglect it.
Created:
Posted in:
The adoption of a flat rate income tax generally is not expected to lead to significant increases in the tax revenues because labor supplies are believed to be fairly inelastic. However, if the economy is plagued by ubiquitous tax evasion, as was the case in Russia, then flat rate income tax reform can lead to substantial revenue gains via increases in voluntary compliance.
It's obviously not applicable in general. But it can work if your country is full of tax evaders I guess?
Created:
Why stop at just blood? If you're intent on violating the bodily autonomy of criminals, think of all the body parts you could harvest. Furthermore, why stop at just convicted criminals? Surely there are plenty of other "undesirables" that are a net negative to society whose rights shouldn't matter. For example, hispanics in America are having an undue influence on overall American culture. Many of them are rapists and murderers, even if some I assume, are good people. Would it not be appropriate to gather them up and place them into re-education camps until they integrate with true American culture?
Food for thought?
Created:
-->
@Vader
Well you can.. it just comes at a economic cost. The main questions now are which strategy minimizes the economic cost, and if the strategy is a "Sweden" or "USA" type strategy, do those saved costs justify the disease rampaging through your country
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I’m telling you that people still died even with a vaccine. You blame it on the different mutations of the flu. I said that coronavirus also mutates so it’s a pretty similar comparison?
The comparison is shitty. All viruses mutate, but not all vaccines are rendered ineffective after a year a la influenza vaccines. The pertinent point is not the ability to mutate but the rate of mutation.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Nah. If militia are miltary forces, and military forces have applications outside of shooting guns at people, militia also have applications outside of shooting guns at people. Hence arms are not a requirement for being militiaThen a militia is simply a group of people lol. Without weapons you can’t have a militia.
Because Democrats don’t like the way 2nd Amendment, so they create a narrative based on emotion rather than the intention of the Founding Fathers which was very clear: Americans should have guns. And this interpretation is common in various Federalist Papers and as a result has been upheld in the Supreme Court today.
No, that's your incorrect interpretation of democratic positions. The opposite and equally ridiculous assertion is that Republicans love the 2nd amendment so much that any and all interpretation of the 2nd amendment is skewed towards as free ownership of guns as possible.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
It was an example. The point was that a militia is not predicated on being armed or having weapons open to the publicThe whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the government out of it....
Its not an interpretation if that’s what the Founding Fathers wanted lol. They wanted people to have guns lol.
If it were so clear cut and dry as to what the founding fathers wanted, there wouldn't be a debacle over what the 2a means.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
To form a militia you have to have weapons open to the public.
Not really. A government could distribute arms to a militia for example.
Unless you classify those weapons as sticks and stones, there’s no justification for banning guns. The Court has made it very clear that to form a militia arms are needed. Banning arms is therefore a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Discussing an interpretation of the 2a has nothing to with banning guns.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
No. I'm saying that we shouldn't be applying any extra meaning as to what a militia is. I used the sticks and stones example to demonstrate that a militia is "type of arms" agnostic. A militia is generally a military force raised from civilians, regardless of what arms they carry, or whether or not they even currently carry arms.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Let's not pretend anyone knows the intentions of the founding fathers to exact detail.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
A militia armed with sticks and stones is still a militia if they intend to utilize those sticks and stones for military purposes..
Created:
What's crazy to me is that voting is set up in such a manner such that the winner takes all. A state could vote 51% republican and 49% democrat or vise versa, and the electors will all go to the majority, despite it being roughly 50%. Why not just have proportional distribution of electors?
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
if I understand this correctly, they are in the country illegally but still get a tax id and the government should include the people here illegally, working illegally (because they are here illegally) taxpayer money from people who are here legally?
I wouldn't say "should". Clearly governments have an obligation to its own citizens first and foremost. But it would definitely be morally righteous, especially with such a rich country like the US.
Also the taxpayer money is from people who are also there illegally, because they also contribute. The ones who are relevant to AOC's complaint anyway.
If things were "fair" wouldn't people here illegally be deported? They are breaking the law and should pay the consequences for doing so like the rest of us, that would be fair.These exceptions specially made for illegals is not fair.
Sure. But at this point it's oranges to apples. We can discuss the legality of their presence in the US and the corresponding punishments and this is a separate conversation. But as it stands, they are there, they aren't *all* being removed, they contribute tax dollars and they are being impacted by COVID-19.
I'm not convinced they should get anything let alone a tax id.
You don't want illegals to pay taxes at all? <.<
I'm sure they'd be more than happy to oblige
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Neither do many typical Alabaman rednecks and yet...Illegals don't even have the capital to create jobs. why do they need "stimulus" again?
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I guess I don't understand what this "unequal treatment" is referring to. Admittedly I couldn't listen to her rant so I don't actually know what she said, I'd rather listen to scraping fingernails on a chalkboard.
This appears to all stem from a tweet
Essentially the stimulus is given out to those with social security numbers, based on their filed tax returns. This excludes people with tax IDs who obviously still pay tax. So the unequal treatment is the distribution of the stimulus monies to some tax payers, but not other tax payers (people with tax IDs).
What would have been fair (another 4 letter "f" word people shouldn't use btw) is payroll tax withholding cuts. If the withholding was lowered by 50% for people making between blah blah and blah blah blah that would be equitable.
Possibly, but another factor might be the lump sum nature of the stimulus
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Not really no. What's being targetted here is more about unequal treatment rather than "the illegals need help". So while she could petition the suspension of certain taxes, this wouldn't impact the idea of the stimulus monies being unevenly distributed to taxpayers.
Created:
Yes, they are in your country illegally. But the classes of immigrants AOC refers to are tax payers. So from a moral and humanitarian perspective, it would be righteous to care for those who contribute to a countries greatness and live within it, because they are also impacted by covid-19.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Not an unreasonable answer if answering strictly from a religious perspective. I believe Destiny's own reasoning against it revolves around power dynamics which is good enough from a non-religious perspective although this still leaves it morally neutral.
Though of course it's infinitely more entertaining when you don't have the opportunity to copy and paste and instead fiddle around with birth defects all day.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Now quote the report saying so.
Stop being lazy.
No sir. Its all the same case with you rabid democrats anyway.
Blatant lie. And then goalpost shifting.
"Them" referred to the American people. Now the democrats know that too.
Blatant lie. Or you've confused your own words.
All the democrats. Your single party coup failed.
Deflection.
You have shown nothing other than your bias that Trump did wrong, and Trumps approval ratings increased after the sham impeachment. Sorry, reality matters.
Deflection.
OK Adolph, but in democracies, trials are to determine innocent or guilt, and unless the defendant is found guilty, the law considers him innocent, since that is what he was before the trial.
Impeachment isn't a criminal trial. Your quibbles are pointless.
Clinton confessed. The evidence was there. The dems played politics. In Trumps case, you had no evidence, just a sham.
And Clinton was acquitted despite the confession. QED Being acquitted does not mean you did nothing wrong
I have reality and law. Reality supports me.
Vacuous statement
I said that a majority of Americans did not think Trump should have been impeached. This is true. Your semantic dancing now will not save you.
A simple google reveals this to be false. Willful ignorance and denial of reality.
After you've danced yourself out, you'll see that it's true.
Vacuous negation
Going by how senators are apportioned, it is impossible for a majority of Senators to represent a minority of Americans. You need a civics class.
A simple google reveals this to be false. Willful ignorance.
And the fact you're trying to dodge is still there. The Senate voted to dismiss the sham impeachment, and most of America agreed with that judgement.
Vacuous statement and accusation.
You inferences alone cannot be used to convict anyone Clem. You lack evidence. And without evidence, your inferences are just subjective nonsense.
Vacuous statement
Your inferences don't because you have no evidence. That is why both the Meuller investigation and the impeachment trial came to the same conclusion. No evidence, so no charges against Trump. Its called reality Chet.
Repetition of little consequence. False conclusion. Repeated misunderstanding.
If. Your bias is not evidence. Get some real evidence. Something not dependant on your subjective and biased opinion, and Trump will be convicted. Until then, reality will always disappoint you.
Repetition of little consequence
Not in the way of reality apparently. Maybe Trump will one day be found guilty based just on your TDS. Keep hope alive!
Vacuous statement
And when the courts are alerted to such unconstitutionality, they reverse the convictions.
Willful ignorance and denial of reality.
Lol. The state of my country will be fine as long as people like you, who want to convict on accusations and inference alone, never rise to power.
Repeated misunderstanding.
Right, democrats are honest. Lol.
Deflection.
And they will remain uninformed of your loony irrationality with Trump. One drumming of democratic elites was not enough. November has another lesson coming for you.
Vacuous statement
You address your strawman, not what I said. I said that the Senate disagrees with you. The proof is that they dismissed the impeachment.
Blatant lie and/or confused own argument progression
Right, there is tons of evidence but the senate is dishonest, and the supreme court is packed with conservatives, and Mueller was hamstrung, and the American people are dumb.
Ironically, closer to the truth in satire than ever was in seriousness.
Do you know what it means when no one but you and Adam Shiff can see your "reality"?
Dishonest representation
OK Clem. Pay attention now. Have you been exonerated?
To what accusation? By who?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Why?It is morally wrong though, not neutral
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I mean.. birth control has been a thing for a while nowSo incest doesnt have to be sexual??
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I mean.. it's a very general situation. The fact is, no reproduction is required for all incestual relationships. And if this is the case, then the possibilities of genetic deformities is not a logically consistent argument against incest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No. Establishing reasons why some arguments against incest aren't logically consistent is not the same as declaring incest is good at all times. I doubt he's ever said this.
For example, if your primary reason against incest is genetic deformities, why not an incestual relationship without any reproduction? Does that then mean you are in favour of incest where there is no reproduction?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
From what I understand, he argues against common arguments against incest and bestiality to test their logical consistencies beyond "It's icky".Be careful though, he has openly advocated for incest and bestiality.
For example,
Genetic deformities -> what about non-incestual genetic deformities? What about birth control?
Underaged incest -> Not all incest is underage
What about homosexual incestual relationships? Why are they wrong?
And so on and so forth. This isn't the same as advocating for incestual relationships
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Can you name a crime of Trump discovered by Meuller?
Obstruction of justice
Yet the democratic partisan hacks impeached.
You're confusing Mueller's investigation with the Zelensky case.
And yet he was not removed and the single party case from the house was dismissed. Reality matters Clem.
Non-sequitur. We were discussing if "Very few of them" believed he should've been impeached
So in the vote to confirm or dismiss the impeachment, did half of the Senate vote for impeachment? Your claims don't even give a passing glance to reality.
No. The slightly less than half did, which is more than "very few of them"
No sir. I said that the majority of American people did not agree Trump should be impeached. You tried to change "impeached" into "did something wrong". And as yet, just like Meuller, you cannot show us anything Trump did wrong other than your biased opinion.
The topic revolves around about whether Trump did anything wrong in terms of Zelensky and public perception of such. Not whether the American people agree that Trump should've been impeached. I mean.. you're wrong in either case. You're just more wrong when you're framing it in terms of impeachment because you've completely missed the entire topic.
Then why did the founding fathers require the Senate to decide on it? The Senate found that the "impeachment" was a single party coup attempt. Trump was found to have done nothing wrong, and the impeachment was dismissed.
1. A vote for acquittal does not mean "done nothing wrong". It means what was done was not found to reach the bar for removal. And this should be obvious given that Clinton clearly committed perjury and yet was also not removed
2. You're entitled to your interpretation of the intent of the senate, but note that it but one interpretation and poorly supported at that.
No, Democrats are not the house. They are only a single party in the house.
Sorry clem. The reality is that the democrats do not decide impeachment, the house does.
I said that a majority of Americans did not think Trump should have been impeached. This is true. Your semantic dancing now will not save you.
Actually false
I said nothing about them representing the majority. I said they were more representative than a single party. The majority of the Senate voted to dismiss. They represented the majority of Americans who also did not agree with impeachment, republicans, democrats, and independents.
You've just contradicted yourself. The majority of the senate that voted to dismiss represents a minority of americans.
Inferences should use evidence. But you have no evidence other than your bias. So you think you can substitute your bias for evidence.
I'm sorry, but your interpretation of my inferences is wrong. I should know, because they are my inferences.
I did not deny inference. I said inference alone cannot be used to convict anyone.
Well which is it? Do inferences use evidence or do they not use evidence? If they do use evidence, why can't they be used to convict anyone?
Nice try Chet. But as you yourself said, inference should be made from evidence, and I have demonstrated that you have no evidence. You pretend you bias is "evidence". It is not.
I mean.. if by demonstrated you mean asserted without proof. Sorry bud, this is Dart, not a republican town hall meeting.
This is proven by reality in that Trump remains unconvicted of any crime. The standard you are trying to apply to Trump is the one used in countries like Iran and Congo, not the one stipulated by the US constitution.
So one more time, repeat it with me now: A president cannot be convicted of any crime. The fact that he has no been convicted of a crime does not mean a crime has not been committed by him.
Sorry, Mueller looked, the Senate looked, the Supreme Court looked, and the electorate looked. No thumbprints were found. Your inferences are based on your bias.
Well many thumbprints have been found. Again, your biases are getting in the way.
You only wish that America was a socialist nation, it is not. No one in America is convicted on inference alone. We have laws that prohibit that. And that is why Trump remains unconvicted.
Plenty of people in America are convicted on inference alone. I'm sorry you're blind the state of your country.
The US Senate is uninformed? The constitution calls "them" citizens, and luckily, they are not judged by your biased standard. They have not been informed by your bias, I concede that.
No. I think they are just dishonest. The citizens are uninformed however
"In my delusion" the Senate quashed the fake single party impeachment? And "in my delusion" Meuller found no crimes of Trump? Lol. OK Einstein.
Well you are delusional since Mueller did find crimes of Trump. I do believe denial of reality counts as a delusion.
Untrue. I said that the Senate disagrees with you. The proof is that they dismissed the impeachment. Trying to use the fakery of individual senators is deceptive.
You've explicitly said that very few of the senate believed Trump should've been impeached which is what I addressed. This is incorrect. As is most of what you've said
I didn't say it was. Under our law, unindicted people are considered innocent, and innocent people need no exoneration. Your fascism, along with Bernie's socialism, has been rejected by the American people.
Please look up the definition of exoneration. It might surprise that it's not only used in the context of indictments.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
You may be sure, but, apparently, more than half of the Senate does not agree with you, unless you believe more than half of the Senate violated their oath. Prove that. As you do not wear their knickers, I'll submit you cannot.
Again, when you intrude into other conversations, some substance is lost. Ethang5's assertion that very few of the senate agree with me is patently false when slightly less than half were willing to vote to remove.
Oh. And you Senate accusation above is not expansion?
No. We're still discussing who thought Trump's actions were inappropriate. The senate's thoughts are relevant, especially when he is insisting than very few of the senate thought that the actions were inappropriate.
If that were true, you'd have more than inferences.
Inferences and the implied underlying evidence behind the inferences are generally sufficient I should think. After all, it does imply the employment of all underlying evidences.
But, if you want to argue that inferences are sufficient to convict, where's the conviction? You keep blowing bozone into your wish balloon, someday it's going to take flight. Bon voyage.
This topic was on a more general nature of convictions. As you should be well aware by now, the president cannot be convicted regardless of whatever inferences are drawn. Of course, that does not mean inferences cannot be drawn to conclude that he did something wrong.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
"He," being Mueller. Why would Mueller, a professional prosecutor, and, then, a contract employee of DOJ, consider leaving a case for Congress to solve?
He did not leave a case for Congress to solve. Congress has the sole power of impeachment, and deciding what is impeachable is their concern.
He had the power of indictment for a criminal offense, and decided he did not have the evidence to do so, by his statements in his Report that I have already cited.
I reject the notion that he did not have the evidence to do so. This is pure conjecture. As previously cited, regardless whether he had the evidence to do so, he could not.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
By all means, I would be delighted if you would analyse the flaws in this poll and explain why the results should be scrutinizedI happen to be a certified Six Sigma Black Belt. Look it up. In this arena of statistics, I have exceeding proof of capable knowledge, so your opinions fail against my steel wall. I don't care who operated the poll. I stated the facts of sub-standard political polling. The flaws of the typical political poll are:1. Lack of a sufficient polling sample size. Hint, it's not a large number, but most polls, including yours, fall short of that number.2. Lack of the correct sample group [registered v. likely voters in your example].3. Lack of equal sub-groups within the sample.4. Lack of a sufficiently low MOE to establish statistical accuracy within a 95% confidence level.5. Too many questions [10 is the suggested limit. 40 is the typical minimum political poll number of questions]6. Some questions are biased, leading to an expected answer to meet an agenda.
I note that we may already discard your criteria for polling sample size
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
They [the actions] fit with the law because, though you claim otherwise [your opinion], they are not both crimes and unactionable. That's the point of Mueller's argument. They were not crimes, and therefore were not actionable.
In this case they were crimes and unactionable in the case of this president.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I agree with that statement, however, it is a good start. Moreover, an exoneration statement is not legally, nor syntacticly a necessary follow-up statement to the declaration that there was no crime. As said, it is a non sequitur.
But there was no declaration that there was no crime. Your logic is flawed from the onset. A non-conclusion that the President has committed a crime does not exclude the existence of the crime and hence he is not exonerated affairs related to those crimes.
Therefore, Mueller's exoneration statement is the opinionated statement, not mine. Opinionated, because Mueller's entire investigation of Trump was backassward. One initiates a criminal investigation by first identifying that a crime absolutely was committed, and then begin a pursuit for suspects. In this case, Trump was assumed to have committed a crime, but no one could pinpoint what, exactly, it was. It was an investigation for a crime that Mueller admitted, ultimately, and to his shame [the Congressional testimony in July was evidence of that], was not found.
In this case, Mueller's investigation was focused on Russian interference in which the crime was absolutely committed.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
To be clear, if about half of the senate were willing to have Trump removed, I'm quite sure at the very least that half of the senate agree that Trump should've been impeached.Yet nothing was done? Very few of them believe Trump should have been impeached, even the ones who agreed his behavior was not the best.
The majority of the American populace agree that Trump should not have been impeached. Playing with words will not help you win.
No wordplay here. The discussion was on whether Trump had done something wrong. You're the one trying to expand the argument.
The reality is that Trump did nothing wrong, judging by reality itself. Reality matters Clem.
Well the reality is that Trump did something wrong. Hence the impeachment.
By democrats. A single party. And that foolishness was thrown out by the Senate.
You mean the duly elected house?
No crimes of Trump.
He did find crimes of Trump.
Yes they do. Every part of the country has a Senator. And they are more representative than a single party.
The senate members that voted to acquit represent > 50 of the countries people. Hence they do not represent the majority.
If you had evidence, you wouldn't need inference to convict, you'd use the evidence.
Inferences implicitly use evidence. So evidence is used.
Please stop being dense. The law says people will be convicted on a preponderance of evidence, not on bias and inference.
Since your denial of inference is a denial of evidence, your standard of evidence excludes evidence and requires a standard nothing short of sworn confession.
You have no thumbprints. You only have baseless inference.
The inferences are based upon the thumbprints.
In China, Cuba, and North Korea sure. Not in America since 1957.
And America and in every other first world nation.
Yes. Deplorables. I heard of them.
Personally I'd just call them the uninformed. But whatever floats your boat
I guess my views would seem extreme to a far left liberal. But sorry, I am not in the minority. You need to watch more varied news outlets.
Oh wonders of wonders. You both concede that you are in the minority, but also reject that you are in the minority. It's a wonder that you're able to think at all given the amount of spinning your head does.
And reality agrees with me, that's why Meuller found no crimes of Trump. And the Senate quashed the fake single party impeachment, and why Trump will be reelected in November.
Only in your delusions
An unindicted person needs no exoneration.
An exoneration is not predicated on an indictment. You are factually wrong.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
<br>He has the power to go to Congress and ask for impeachment right? Cause that’s what happened in the case of Special Counsel Ken Starr. Why didn’t he do that? Oh wait, he didn’t have enough evidence and therefore could convict.
I believe he left the decision for congress. In general, obstruction of justice without the criminal nexus is not a good case for impeachment. However there is a stark difference between the existence of crimes and sufficiency of evidence for those crimes, and the overall crimes being sufficient for an impeachment. In this case, while there appears to have been sufficient evidence for crime, the crime itself was not determined to meet the bar for impeachment
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Have a care to understand who your "majority of Americans" really are. Political polls almost always make registered voters their target audience for polling. Who are registered voters? In 2016, there were 250M of them. Only 51%, 127M, of them actually voted, split between Trump and Hillary. Meaning 123M of them never bothered to vote, having no will to make their voice, and opinion, heard. They are included in your "majority."
The poll I checked was pew. Judging by their methodology, they use random digit sampling split between landlines and cellphones in some proportion
In fact those 123M ARE your majority; people who have no valid opinion. You trust them? You want likely voters, not just registered, but you won't know who they are for another 6 months, minimum.
Even assuming for your assumed poll methodology, this is a baseless assumption.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
If, by the law, there is "gray area," then you'e going to have to cite what you're talking about, specifically. The law, my friend, appears to you to have "gray area" because the law is pretty black regarding what is not legal, leaving plenty of white that is. If you want to call some white gray, that is your privilege, but don't expect the court to necessarily agree. Loopholes are what satisfies the public in their ignorance of the law as that which should be closed, made black, but currently is not. Since not everyone who identifies loopholes agrees by what shade of back to fill them [i.e. by definition of severity in terms of negative effect on the public and commensurate punishment], violà, the acceptable to the public, but legally unsupportable gray.
Sure, so OLC opinions and practice are not laws in and of themselves. In which case is adherance of such things consistent with current law?
And as a consequence, how do the actions detailed in the report fit in with the law when they are both crimes and unactionable?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
is a legal and syntactic faux pas by virtue of the previous claim of a non-crime. The latter statement is, as is your argument, superfluous by non sequitur. By concluding there is no crime, it does not follow that there is no exoneration. What precedes, moreover, is that Mueller found himself at the end of a two-year, $30M-plus investigation of having to inflate a bozone-filled wish balloon of what might have been. Sorry.
I'm sorry, but your statements boils down to opinionated puffery. It is quite clear that per definition, exoneration is not necessarily predicated by crime.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Why didn’t he convict then
Standing OLC opinion and practice dictates that presidents may not be indicted.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes, Mueller ended with 30+ indictments, and some convictions, but the target of the Mueller investigation was Trump, and not a single indictment names anyone wearing the Trump name. Other targets do not count as none had a farthing of relation to the subject of a favor requested by Trump on 7/25 to President Zelensky. You cannot broaden the scope of this string just to justify your opinion. As its instigator, I declare your entire commentary in this post as superfluous. Stay on point. I'll allow you discussion of Mueller as relevant, because the president mentioned Mueller in the 7/25 conversation, but your conclusion about the Report is demonstrably wrong. Mueller did mention several areas of concern, but defined none of them as indictable crimes, and he did not indict on their suggestion.
To be accurate, the title of the report is "report on the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 investigation". As it's title suggests, the report is not exclusively about trump and admirably details the ways and methods in which russia interfered in the 2016 election.
As has been established, no crimes by the president are indictable by the standing OLC opinion and hence by definition, no Trump crimes detailed in the Mueller report are indictable by definition and you are demonstrably wrong.
Finally, as participant, I have no obligation to stay on point as conversations evolve. However, do note that I am not the one who is shifting topics, so I would advise that if you wish to maintain a singular topic, you should admonish the one who's actually instigating the straying.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
If there’s not enough evidence, a person cannot be convicted, hence he’s innocent. Any logical person would say he’s innocent.
1. I do believe that Trump cannot be convicted by virtue of being a sitting president anyway
2. The correct term would be "not guilty" rather than "innocent"
3. We don't know if there is enough evidence
The not exonerated talking point is stupid and only serves as a base for more investigation in the hopes they get Trump the next time.
The not exonerated talking point is important because it highlights that contrary to what he espouses, he's done some pretty shifty things that sit in a grey area within the law that he cannot be exonerated on. More importantly, in the context of this discussion, the point is not that Trump is guilty or not guilty of anything, it's that Mueller *did* find crimes contrary to what ethang5 claims.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
"…this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" - Mueller Report, "Conclusion," Vol. 2, pg 182
"..., it also does not exonerate him" - Mueller Report, "Conclusion," Vol. 2, pg 182
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I mean... about half of them still agree with the interpretation that Trump did something wrong.Yet they threw out the impeachment. Reality matters dustryder.
Untrue. Most people disagreed that Trump should be impeached, and that number grew AFTER the dems laid out their case.
I'm not sure about what figures you're talking about, but in the polls I've looked at, the majority of the American populace agree that Trump did something wrong.
Yet Trump is President, still in office, and remains unconvicted of any crime. Reality matters dustryder.
The reality is the Trump did something wrong, judging by your quality of argument.
You are biased. If a majority of the country believed as you claim, Trump would have been impeached, Kavenaugh would not be a supreme court juror, and Meuller would have found a crime. Reality matters dustryder.
1. Trump was impeached
2. Mueller did find crimes
3. The senate does not represent the majority of the country
4. The chambers of congress follow their own agenda. While this agenda is often lead by their constituents desires, quite often it is not.
Sorry. Your inferences are not evidence.
Correct. But they are based upon evidence
Where have I applied this standard inconsistently? The standard is not mine. We do not convict people on accusations and inferences alone. This does not change no matter how much you hate Trump.
I vaguely recall that you bash other politicians from time to time?
Correct. You convict people based on evidence from which inferences are made. Which implies that you are convicted based upon evidence.
Untrue. The standard is written down and codified. It is not lower.
Tell where me in the books of law does it state that a person must make a sworn tape confession in order to be convicted.
No murderer is convicted on accusation alone, not since 1957 in the deep south anyway. Without confessions, murderers get convicted on evidence, not inference.
You seem to have a misunderstanding of what an inference is. An inference is a conclusion reached upon considering evidence or facts. In other words, a thumbprint found in the scene of the crime belonging to the thief is the evidence. The conclusion that the thief must've been at the scene of the crime is the inference.
So yes, murderers are convicted upon inferences.
Yes, me, the United States Senate, the Supreme Court, Robert Mueller, and the Attorney General, and a majority of Americans are all biased, and you alone see clearly.
People are biased on a case by case basis. I have no idea if the entities mentioned are biased. For example, a large amount of Americans just aren't well informed enough. That said, as previously mentioned, you're actually in a minority in this matter, and your views are incredibly extreme despite having access to all the facts of the matter. Hence you are biased.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
For some reason, you operate under the belief that your inferences are reasonable, and that your bias can be evidence. Reality keeps proving you wrong, but you just keep pretending you're right.Is everyone in the Senate wrong? Is more than half of America unable to make a reasonable inference? Any yokel call himself reasonable. How come most reasonable people didn't see your inference?
To be clear, about half of the senate agrees with the general direction of this inference. More than half of the American populace also agree. You are in the minority here. Or in otherwords, if the majority are of the reasonable sort, you must then be unreasonable. I believe that's your logic right there.
That is ridiculous. Which is why again, it is yet another one of your "reasonable" inferences. Because I won't convict a person based on inference, I'm biased?
No, you're biased because of your systematic rejection of reality despite the evidence otherwise. And while I might accept your extraordinarily high threshold of evidence as some sort of extreme bone-headedness, it's clear that you do not apply this standard consistently. Hence bias.
Not MY standard Clem, the standard set by the constitution and bill of rights of your own country.
Actually no. The standard is lower. Funnily enough, murderers don't often confess their deeds and yet are regardless convicted
Trump has been tried in the FBI with Meuller, He has been tried in Congress with impeachment, He has been taken to the SCOTUS several times, and has been tried in the court of public opinion in a national election, and today he remains conviction free.Which of is is biased? You can't even answer questions about Kavenaugh, but you're supposed to be objective and virtually the rest of the country biased and wrong?
You are. Because you clearly haven't examined the facts or refuse to honestly apply the facts, and yet you are so obviously inclined to bend over for Trump regardless.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
A favour can be composed of multiple actions and expositions related to the favour. The key indicator is whether those actions or expositions stand on their own merit as a favour.For example,"The server, they say Ukraine has it." obviously is related to CrowdStrike. It means nothing on its own - exposition related to the favour."I would like to have the Attorney General call you, or your people...". Again, means nothing on its own. It clearly an action related to the favourMore specifically, the language "The other thing" is meaningless on its own. It is an "other thing" to something else previously mentioned. Since the "other thing" previously mentioned was the favour, from my perspective it is reasonable to interpret the request into an investigation into Biden as being a secondary request in the overall favour of investigation into ukraine-us dealings.Finally, it should be noted that favours need not be explicitly expressed to be considered favours. It is clear that Trump has requested an investigation into Biden and whether or not you decide to bundle that under the "I would like you to do us a favor", taken on its own it is a favour of its own accord.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Well, thus far you've been unable to substantiate what you've been claiming past vague assumptions. Did President Trump ask for Biden to be investigated using the threat of withholding aid so as to smear Biden?
Your biases are showing, when you claim I've claimed something that I haven't
Sorry, stupidity is a poor shield. None of those things is in the text. You assume them. You assume them because you are biased. And you think your assumptions are fact because you are unable to differentiate between reality, and what passes for thought between your ears.
Rather, a reasonable inference is made, drawn from several points of evidence. The fact is, you are biased for Trump, and you are interpreting anything to do with him in the most charitable light possible, which is ridiculous. If we were to follow your standard of evidence, no one would be convicted of anything short of sworn tape recordings admitting guilt.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I'm happy to discuss the merits of my correctionCorrect according to whom? By what perspective?
Have you allowed Trump to crawl deep into your head such that you know his intentions? If that, then why are you not using his name? And allowing his intent to be in your head, rent-free? It'd either, or, my friend.
I'm happy to say I take intentions and statements at face value. It must be a very confusing for you to read a statement and then be completely perplexed as to the intent behind that statement.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Can you?
Probably. It depends on what claim I've made that you have a problem with. But for me, the greater the claim, the greater the burden of proof. So if Greyparrot is going to sit there and go "LOLLLLLLLLLLL YOU'RE WRONG. I READ UKRAINIAN SOCIAL MEDIA. I KNOW THE VIEW POINTS OF UKRAINIANS. YOU ARE WRONG". He better damn well better be able to backup his argument with solid stats that are from a representative sample of Ukrainians.
You place your assumptive interpretation on what Trump did, and this in itself is fine, but then you proceed to treat your assumption as if it is fact. That is not fine.Can you not see that the claim that Trump was asking for an investigation on Biden is YOUR INTERPRETATION of his intent, and not necessarily his intent?
Oh in that case, your interpretation of my intent towards my interpretation of his intent is not necessarily my intent. And at the same time, my interpretation of your intent towards your interpretation of my intent towards my interpretation of his intent may not necessarily be your intent. Since we've established that neither of our interpretations of our intents are reliable interpretations of intent, we both simultaneously agree and disagree with each other on all accounts because given any confirmation of our intents, such confirmations are also subject to interpretations of intent when parsing said confirmations.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
The key point in the transcript which is not expressed in your parody is that you've deliberately made a distinction between what is done with the apples and what is done with the oranges when this is not the case in the transcript.
In a corrected version of your parody, the favor can be summed up to going to the store and buying apples and oranges.
Created: