Total posts: 1,080
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The point is that it *was* a right, and your argument could've also defended that right or any other antiquated rightslavery is not a right
you have no good reason to infringe on my right to use whatever means I deem necessary to protect myself and family, especially reasons based on assumptions and theories which has just as many counters to.
I mean I don't. But a government has the responsibility to keep the public safe.
Frankly your selfish objections matter very little in the light of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
In light of the widespread loss of life caused by guns, why is you preferring guns over other defensive tools reasonable?The right to self-preservation. The cops usually get to the scene after the crime has taken place. There are other means of self defense, but I would much prefer a firearm. Criminals will illegally obtain firearms and get an advantage if citizens such as myself can not acquire them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
irrelevant, it has existed for hundreds of years, you chose to ignore the reasons given on the news, articles and threads, you opinion as to what is reasonable should not negate my inalienable right.
Something existing for hundreds of years is not a good reason or a reason at all. What you've said could've been applied to slavery or any other dumb fuck right that people think they should've had.
<br>hypotheticals are wonderful aren't theymass shootings mostly involve one gun I believe, the Tech shooter had 2 hand guns.reflection? seriously? how many have made legal purchases then immediately committed a mass murder? none?
Just going off the wikipedia page for the most deadliest mass shooting events, most mass shooting events involved multiple guns.
The reflection hypothesis is based off of the fact that suicides generally decrease when you've had time to think about the action.
how many decades would that take to see any impact at all?
A great many I would imagine. But change takes time and there needs to be a starting point for change to happen.
so you are in favor of a curfew since that would be a better chance of reducing murders, or you are ok with murders so long as guns are restricted? Or probably the case you don't want to be under a curfew so that you wouldn't support but you are anti gun so you do support that.A certain level of murder you'll accept so long as it's not with a gun and doesn't impact or hinder your life or enjoyment of, like a curfew, I get it, I do. You want people to give up their enjoyment and freedom but you aren't willing to do the same.
In society, the general rule is that you are allowed to be stupid if it doesn't involve harming innocents. Going out in night would be one of those instances. Getting shot by others is not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
let's try a mandatory curfew, you can apply for a special permit if you happen to work an off shift so you can get to and from work. That will keep people off the street, especially during the hours when probably 90% of the murders happen? Most happen at night, far more often then between 8am-8pm
In society, the general rule is that you are allowed to be stupid if it doesn't involve harming innocents. Going out in night would be one of those instances. Getting shot by others is not.
I have yet to hear anyone articulate how infringing on law abiding citizens rights has any appreciable effect on crime.
I have yet to hear anyone articulate why such a right is reasonable and should be preserved.
I'm not convinced on this trickle down scheme that is suppose to take guns out of criminal's hands.
Why not?
people like governor blackface would make thousands of citizens criminals and not impact real criminals at all. is that what you really want? unless there is a military state they will just hide their guns or not comply, then what? arrest thousands who weren't criminals and probably working citizens?
This seems like irrational fear-mongering rubbish to me.
before governor blackface was in office there was no limit to how many purchases you could make in a month, this is true in many states as well, but now he wants to limit it to 1 per month, Can you logically and factually tell me how this reduces murders?what % of legal purchases are for more than one gun? I'd be it's very low.
I have two hypotheses
1. The perpetrators of mass shootings typically use more than one firearm. Spacing out gun purchases is likely to reduce casualties if not spacing out purchases, or give more time for reflection if they are
2. Less circulation of guns. Less guns less crime is the gist of it
At any-rate if there is any chance of such a law reducing murders, then I would say that the law is a net benefit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
People in general don't advocate only for gun harm reduction. It's just so happens that gun laws appear in a cross section of forms of harm that are actionable, are irrationally being ignored and are inflicted onto others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Well lets think rationally. If one nation frees all the inhabitants of hell, those inhabitants become indebted to the freeing nation. We know that the vast majority of people in history were sent to hell, because the vast majority of people in history were unbelievers of God. We also know that in human history, many more people have died than are still living today.
Hence the freeing nation suddenly gets an influx of workers several times larger than the entire population of the earth. This is an unprecedented source of manpower for economic growth, productivity and war.
And this does not stop here, because anyone who dies and is sent to hell suddenly becomes an additional asset to the freeing nation. In fact, you could form an army made of God rejecters who are continuously sent to hell but rescued. Which of course is essentially an immortal army that will perpetually keep coming back until their objective is achieved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
In that case, your Wikipedia article should be updated to include this new information.
The wikipedia article already has this information.
How could the president illegally prevent an allotment even though you just said he "does not have the ability to" do so?
The subtext is the ability to lawfully do so.
What does it mean for someone's motivation to be corrupt, and how can it be proven that Trump's motivation was a corrupt one?
Corrupt motivation is just a dictionary definition, so I would refer you to one for that definition.
As for proving corrupt motivation, we can examine stated intent and desired outcome, and see if it is consistent with existing evidence.
I suppose they would ask around and maybe also do some online research to see what others know? I'm not sure.
So in otherwords... an investigation?
How does saying "if you could look into it" over the phone = soliciting interference with an election?
He's asking for the announcement of an investigation into Biden's Ukraine activities from Ukraine. Since this would impact his results in the democratic primaries, it follows that this is a solicitation of interference by a foreign body.
If there is no objective threshold for what proof is that all sides can agree on, then I guess the courts and judges themselves would have to decide whether whatever evidence is presented against Trump is enough proof.
Impeachment and removal belong to congress, and hence they decide whether the proof is sufficient.
In a court of law, it isn't enough for you to simply "give anyone pause" about something. You must actually prove that they are guilty. Until then, they are innocent.
I wasn't referring to a court of law in this case. I was referring to public opinion.
They've already failed to prove that Trump colluded with Russia back in 2016. Now they're trying to prove he colluded with Ukraine, something that's probably going to be even more difficult to prove, since the transcript of the phone call does not show Trump directly asking for an investigation into Biden's son in exchange for foreign aid, and can easily be interpreted in different ways.
Yeah... that interpretation is only viable if you're being incredibly generous and you've fundamentally missed or ignored how object pronouns function.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
Well first of all, the whistleblower is not named, so this person could be literally anyone. It could be someone who is just going out of his or her way to spread lies about Trump to get him impeached. We don't know who this person is or what their political affiliation is so we have no way of knowing if they're even a reliable source. Secondly it says that he or she alleged that Donald Trump may have abused his power. It does not guarantee that he abused his power, so that means Trump can be found innocent, since all suspects of any crime are innocent until proven guilty.
The whistleblower identify is rather immaterial at this point. Additional sources and evidences have come out since then that have fleshed out the incident.
Is the president legally obligated to give any military aid to this country? If not, then it's not a crime or an impeachable offense to withhold aid to any other country for any reason.
So there are several points here that should be made clear.
1. The legislative branch directs the spending of funds. In general, if an allotment has been made, the president does not have the ability to prevent this except in the circumstances where there are concerns of "a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." and/or a “democratic system based on principles of the rule of law, individual freedoms, and representative government.” is taken into account and/or the conditions of the aid are not being met.
So the concern here is whether Trump was lawfully in compliance with the allotment of funds in this case
2. It's illegal to solicit foreign interference into a domestic election
So the concern here is even if the freezing of aid was legal, if the motivation is corrupt then that law has been breached.
Finally this still leaves contempt of congress
Here's the thing: All Donald Trump was saying was that there were some people that wanted to know more about the situation regarding Biden's son, and that it would be great for them if they got more information about the issue. This can easily be misinterpret as Donald Trump asking the Ukrainian dude to pursue investigations into Biden, which I think a lot of people have done.
How would a government find more information about a particular issue?
He was not asking for an investigation into Biden. If anything he was asking for an investigation into a situation that may have involved Biden. Investigating a person is different from investigating a situation. That Wikipedia article is being somewhat dishonest when it says that Trump was asking to pursue investigations into Biden.
The distinction both meaningless and irrelevant. Investigating a situation with a person core to the situation is tantamount to investigating the person. And this doesn't change the motivation of the request.
In fact, the transcript shows that Trump simply said, "if you can look into it" and "it" could be anything, but "it" is being interpreted as Joe Biden's son.
The "it" refers to the event of the stopping of the prosecution that was directly mentioned before hand. It's conflated with being Joe Biden's son, because an investigation into that event would be tantamount to an investigation into Biden and his son.
It's very difficult if not impossible to prove "intent" in a court of law. This could have been intended for that sure, but it could have also just as easily been intended for something else.
I can't say whether or not if it is as difficult as you say to prove "intent" or what the threshold for proof is, but there is certainly sufficient circumstantial evidence that should give anyone pause as to his motivations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
People have begun trying to impeach President Trump since January 21 2017, literally 1 day after he was put into office. http://archive.ph/m7PRpI really want to know why that is, and what exactly Trump did that day that he should be impeached for and warrants impeachment.
Obviously I can't speak on the behalf of people who wanted him impeached from day one, but I suspect it's to do with them conflating suitability of office with actionable impeachment offenses. Personally I don't know why people care about the opinions of a minority with no actionable power in the first place.
What foreign interference did he solicit, and which US election specifically did he solicit it into?How did he contempt our congress?
This is very basic information that can be found out on the wikipedia page
I don't mind discussing the merits of this impeachment, but you should have at the very least some sort of your own baseline knowledge first
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If I understand the impeachment process correctly, both crimes are only charges at this stage. It's essentially "Here's the evidence we have, we think you've done this based on the evidence, we'll charge you with these items and send you to trial". It's only at the senate that you are found to be guilty of any charges.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
To my understanding, the specific crimes that he is accused of committing in the articles of impeachment are
1) Soliciting foreign interference into US elections
2) Contempt of congress
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
I mean.. the democrats have laid out their case rather clearly. Was there anything you disagreed with or wanted clarification on?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
The report was handed to Barr as he is the head of the justice department which oversaw the investigation. However the determination of the actions in the report were left to congress, as was made clear in the report itself because congress has the sole responsibilities of impeachment and removal. As for the OLC opinion, we don't know why Mueller did or did not do anything, but it was made clear from the report that impeachment is a measure against presidential corruptive behaviour.Now let’s go to obstruction. It is Trump’s constitutional right to fire any member of the executive branch. Regardless Mueller did not come to a conclusion whether there was obstruction or not. He left it to his supervisors Rod Rosenstein and William Barr who both stated there was not enough evidence to warrant an obstruction claim. As for the OLC claim, the Special Counsel has the power to reccomend impeachable offenses to Congress, which Bob Mueller chose not to do. The OLC furthermore does not reign supreme over the Supreme Court where a battle could have been taken, yet Bob Mueller chose not to do so. He didn’t reccomend charges to Congress nor fight the OLC opinion, why? There’s only one reasonable explanation: he didn’t have sufficient evidence to warrant an obstruction of justice which was corroborated by Rosenstein and Barr, the top lawyers in the nation.
Well let’s see. Bill Clinton committed perjury but was set free. One could argue he abused his power to get the famous sexual relation. Hillary Clinton rigged the DNC so she would win against Bernie. Hillary And the DNC also funded the infamous Steele Dossier which was proven to be false to obtain a warrant from the FISA court to wiretap the Trump campaign..essentially modern day Watergate.Eric Holder during Fast and Furious refused to give documents to Republicans after Obama asserted executive privilege. The same “obstruction” that Democrats are impeaching Trump for. It’s a sham and double standard. Oh I almost forgot, Lois Lerner purposefully targeting Conservative organizations. Keep in mind also that the whole wiretapping thing happened under the Obama administration.
Right so in terms of presidents and their corrupt behaviour, one was Clinton who perjured himself over a blowjob and was subsequently impeached for it, and the other was Obama, who asserted privilege for Holder in one instance.
Even if you were to equivalate the 3 instances, recognizing that that there is a double standard should not also prevent you from recognizing corrupt behaviour from Trump.
Regardless, even if the question was open ended towards Congress, it’s been almost a year since the report was released. Why did they not impeach him then? Simple: there was no case to be made,
Well we know there is a case to be made, because there were listed instances of obstructive behaviour. It's probably just because the case isn't strong enough without the underlying crime to appease much of the public and garner that critical public support.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Once again, the impeachment had nothing to do with the Mueller report. Congress derived the abuse of power article from his actions in the Ukraine scandal
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What one special counsels does is not what all special counsels must do. In anycase it is useless pointing out what you think Mueller should've of done or what he could've done, because he has not done these things and has left these things up to congress.
With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice. [...] The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law. Mueller Report, vol. II, p.8
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
To be clear, Mueller listed the offenses and congress decides on whether or not those offenses are impeachable. Your statement that he listed 0 impeachable offenses make no sense whatsoever because Mueller isn't the one to decide whether an act is impeachable or not.
That, and what Trump was impeached for had nothing to do with the Mueller report in any case
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
America has a presidential line of succession to take over a remaining term should a president become unable to complete the term. In this case, the vice president Pence would take over.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
This is extremely wrong. I'm unsure if you're just rewording it inaccurately or you're just unaware of the accurate facts. Perhaps you could present a line from the report or his testimony to support your case?It is though. Mueller specifically said that he did not have sufficient evidence to convict the President nor present an impeachable offense.
In terms of conviction, Mueller made it extremely clear that because of the previous OLC opinion, he could not convict the President for anything. Conviction was never on the table for either collusion or obstruction.
In terms of impeachment, it is also clear that he left that determination purely to congress, and that there were several incidences that had sufficient evidence that could be understood to be obstruction.
That’s opinion. In my opinion there’s a massive double standard especially towards what the Clintons and Obamas did. Without equality under the law why would I criticize someone for something when another did the same thing and got away with it. It’s a precedent I guess is what I’m trying to say.
What did the Clintons and the Obamas do?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
It wasn't about sufficiency of evidence. It is known that he did those things and ordered those things and there is sufficient evidence to show so. It's about to what extent do those acts constitute crimes and whether he can be impeached for those acts, which is purely decided by the house and subsequently the senate
Of course legalities aside, such behaviour is obviously corrupt, so why do you defend him for such behaviour?
Created:
-->
@Christen
We've been increasing the minimum wage for decades, and millions of Americans are still living in poverty. We've got to find out what people are doing with all that extra money they get, and why.
I mean not really? The minimum wage has gone up but the purchasing power hasn't gone up. In fact, it's gone down. If the purchasing power has gone down, people aren't getting "extra money" because everything is comparatively more expensive.
I think people need to take a look at the kind of work they're doing. If you're working 40 hours a week behind a cash register, you can't expect to make that much money to begin with, but if you're working 40 hours a week as a doctor, nurse, electrician, plumber, scientist, police, janitor, military, or whatever, you can easily get out of poverty and move up the corporate ladder. Right now, I'm trying to get into a job working for a bank, office, tech company, news company, or an insurance company, all of which pay far more than the minimum wage.It's getting ridiculous that people are wanting more and more money doing their cheap cash register jobs, and not looking for ways to get into jobs that already pay better.
The thing is, not everyone has equal opportunity to get the prerequisite training/education for higher paying jobs. If you're born into an unstable family where you're struggling to survive from day one, and you have to work a 40 hour minimum wage job just to scrape by, you probably don't have the time or the financial means to fund your training/education regardless of the desire for it.
Raising the minimum wage just means more and more businesses are going to be finding ways to get around it, such as looking for more immigrants to hire under the table or whatever, thus negatively impacting even more lives, and contributing even more to that feedback loop you talked out.
There will, of course be negatives to minimum wage increases. However there will also be positives. I don't think you can objectively evaluate the impacts of a nation wide minimum wage increase before it's actually occurred
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
You don't have quite the right idea for part 2 of the Mueller report. Mueller's wording was specific in that Trump was not exonerated, and left the matter to the house as to whether the described incidences can be concluded as acts of obstruction, and whether they should lead to impeachmentMueller’s goal was to find Russian Collusion with the Trump campaign so that Trump could be impeached and removed from office. Mueller however stated that there was no collusion and he couldn’t find sufficient evidence of wrongdoing and hence, there was no case at all for any criminal proceedings against the President nor impeachable offenses.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
What do you mean by this? Could you elaborate?Yes and Mueller found nothing impeachable...
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
The Courts can force Trump to withdraw executive privilege and compel witness testimony, just like Nixon and the Watergate Tapes. But, since they already impeached him, now the Senate has the sole power to hold a trial. Sole power means sole power as the Supreme Court ruled in in U.S. v Nixon (1993) that the issue become non-justiciable as soon as an Officer of the United States has been impeached.
This has nothing to do with the legality of impeding the Mueller investigation, because Trump was not impeached for anything related to the Mueller investigation. Impeachment was declared to be nonjusticiable in US v Nixon, matters outside of impeachment are not.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Let's assume this is true.
How does Trump being impeached prevent a ruling on this matter, especially when he was not impeached on the basis of this matter?
and
What rulings have the courts made concerning this matter?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Absolutely. It doesn't add any practical information and is an attempt to shame the person and appeal to their emotions.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
They can’t make a ruling cause you already impeached him. Now it’s all with the Senate.
If you want to engage with me on a topic, you need to actually know what you're talking about instead of making up rubbish.
Courts make rulings based on indictments. It is standing procedure that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The courts haven't made a ruling because he has not been indicted. This does not mean that the courts cannot make a ruling because he's already been impeached. This is nonsense that doesn't mean anything
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Was that a Freudian slip? You think Meuller's "investigation" was an orchestrated campaign?
Wat?
The courts disagree with your opinion
The courts haven't made a ruling on these cases I believe. That, and they wouldn't making a ruling on whether or not the defense of this behaviour is morally reprehensible or pathethic. Any ruling would be purely based on the legality
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
The legality of these cases aside, I find your defense of obviously corrupt practices to be absolutely pathetic and morally reprehensible.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The point is that the narrative of "There were no instances of Trump impeding the campaign" is false.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There were several cases where Trump explicitly impeded the investigation
The report found that Trump fired FBI Director James Comey shortly after Comey refused to end the investigation into Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser. [Vol. 2, 75]
Trump tried to get Attorney General Jeff Sessions to protect him by limiting the investigation into himself and his associates. [Vol. 2, pg. 97, 112, 113]
Trump ordered White House Counsel Donald McGahn to fire Special Counsel Mueller, but McGahn refused to carry out the order. Trump then ordered McGahn to lie about the attempted firing and create false records. [Vol. 2, pg. 89, 120]
Trump actively discouraged his senior aides charged with crimes from cooperating with federal investigators by suggesting the possibility of pardons or threatening them in public and in private. [Vol. 2, pg. 120-128, 144-152]
The report concludes that President Trump personally helped write a false statement for his son to give the public about a meeting with Russian operatives at the Trump campaign headquarters. He falsely claimed the meeting was to discuss adoption policy, rather than the real purpose of the meeting, which was to get information benefiting his campaign and damaging his opponent. [Vol. 2, pg. 101-103]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
After Kavenough, and now this impeachment scam, I swear the dems are moving us closer to fascism. For them, "Evidence" seems to be whatever they think.
I disagree. I just think you have a high bar for what inferences can be drawn evidence. Which is fine, but it does not reflect reality as very little would be solved.
Imagined actions should not be judged at all.
I disagree. I will judge you heavily if you imagine yourself banging my dog and tell me about it. Though i would not necessarily take any action about it
If you're trying to find the person who ate your cookie, the person who most likely ate it is not necessarily the person whose breath you say smells of cookies, whose hands and mouth you say is covered in cookie crumbs, and the person who ten other people say did it, while ten others say he didn't, especially when you've been accusing the person of everything except stealing the kitchen sink since before the oven was even hot.
In this case, the breath has been thoroughly analyzed to contain particulates of cookie matter. The crumbs around the mouth were taken directly from the suspect and were also analyzed to be cookie matter. The ten others who say that he didn't were all given lollies by the suspect moments after the investigation began and are known to frequently share goodies with the suspect and before the oven was hot, he had a proven track record of stealing cookies.
And I answered you. It's called TDS. There is no crime. There was no crime on collusion. There was no crime when Shiff claimed to have proof. There was no crime with Judge Kavenaugh. No crime in the Mueller report. There was no crime with Ukraine. No bribery. No quid pro quo, and no impeding of justice, as seen from the lame charges that did not include those crimes dems swore were cookie crumbs on Trumps face.There are two types of people calling Trump a criminal. Dishonest partisan dems, and the innocent sheep who have been fooled by the sheer repetition of accusations.
You misunderstand me. I'm not asking for your interpretation of why you think they think he's guilty. I'm asking if you understand how they came to their conclusions from their perspectives.
Lol, agree with lib dems or you're a gibbering moron without any critical thinking skills huh? Your critical thinking skills are impressive.
I'm not saying that at all. If you analyze the facts and go off in the opposite direction, that's absolutely fine as long as you are able to justify why you went in that direction. This is something that you should be able to do for any position that you have (If you want any sort of credibility). At the moment you seem to just be randomly screaming that Trump is innocent and that everyone who is accusing him has TDS without any justification, evidence or logic whatsoever. You haven't shown yourself to have an informed opinion at all. Hence you are either a dishonest actor, a gibbering moron, or a troll. Oddly enough any of the three seem to be equally likely at this point.
Created:
-->
@Christen
A living wage is a minimum amount of income needed to provide a worker with basic necessities, such that they can live a basic life without government subsidies. It does not literally mean "I need x income or I cannot survive" which would be a subsistence wage. The idea is to lift people out of the feedback loop of poverty.
Apart from this, there have you considered that a living wage is typically calculated based upon a 40? hour work week. However it is likely that a person who is earning a poverty wage must work more than that (which of course negatively impacts their life and is a part of the feedback loop).
You can read more about Bernie's position here
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I think manipulating someone in an effort to prevent what should be freely their right is wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I haven't heard people describing fetuses as a clump of cells. I mean it wouldn't be wrong, in the sense that every living organism is a clump of cells anyway. But it would be very misleading.
It's an accurate and pertinent way of describing the early stages of pregnancy such as the zygote however
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Untrue. You are guessing at his motivation. You do not, and cannot know it. And no motivation can be a crime, just an action. And Ukraine got the funds without doing anything.
I don't think you understand the concept of evidence. Someone does not have to literally say "I did this" for us to know he did it.
If I'm trying to find the person who ate my cookie, the person who most likely ate it is the person whose breath smells of cookies, whose hands and mouth is covered in cookie crumbs, and the person who ten other people say did it.
If you are one of the people saying what Obama did was OK but Trumps was a crime, I will dismiss you as someone hopelessly biased.
I mean.. different actions are judged differently right?
Who's complaining? Only the lib dems, and they have been complaining since Jan 2016. Excuse me if we doubt your impartiality.
There's nothing to be impartial about really. The objective facts of what he has done are plainly recorded for all to see.
This whole thing has nothing to do with Ukraine or a phone call. There are no "facts" that show a crime. Shiff claimed he had proof that Trump colluded. Where is it?Polosi was sure Trump was guilty before she got the transcript of the phone call. Trump is innocent till proven guilty, he will not be convicted on your assumptions of his intentions.
I'm not asking you for why you think there isn't a crime. I'm asking you if you understand why other people think there is a crime and if you can list the facts that make them think so. Or in otherwords, are you a honest actor and are making fair judgments based upon reading and understanding the objective facts or are you a gibbering moron without any critical thinking skills?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
However evidence has suggested that this was not his primary motivation in withholding aidTrue. As he was charged by law to make sure the taxpayers hard earned money was not wasted.
Obama never gave them the aid in lethal weapons they needed. Trump did. That's why it is so disgusting to hear democrats cry now about how desperate Ukraine was under the boot of Russia. Why didn't Obama give them the defensive weaponry they needed? But Trump, who did give them the aid, is accused of what Obama did!It is very relevant. Trump did not withhold aid, Obama did. And it is Obama administration flunkies accusing Trump of doing what Obama did.
1. We can criticise what Obama did or did not do. This does not impact how we criticise what Trump did or did not do.
2. The primary complaint is the manner in which aid was withheld from Ukraine. People would not be complaining if aid were delayed on the basis of the determination of corruption
Nonsense. The Senate and half the country have seen the same "facts" and do not agree. Add that to the fact that every democrat has assumed Trump was guilty since 2016 and we know "the facts" had nothing to do with their interpretation.
Well why don't you personally agree? Or rather, what were the facts of the Ukraine case that you think have led people to think that it was a smear job, and why are those people wrong about their interpretation of those facts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
So the point isn't to treat each example as an inclusive or exclusive criteria on it's own, but to demonstrate a group of features that mark us as people. The sufficiency of this group of features as a decider of humanity cannot he described scientifically which is my point
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
The characteristics I refer to are the displays of sophisticated cognitive ability that uniquely mark us as human beings. For example, self-awareness, individuality and/or agency are some of the criteria that have been used to describe personhood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
<br>Obama withheld it. Not Trump. Why does reality not matter to lib dems?
The reality is that Trump did initially withhold aid. I'm not sure if Obama did or did not as well. On the other-hand whether he did or did not is irrelevant to whether Trump did himself.
Lie. Trump asked for an investigation, you interpret that as asking for a smear job, fine, but your biased interpretation is not reality.
The interpretation that it was a smear job is fairly reasonable given the facts. Here's an interesting exercise for you: are you able to describe the specific facts of this incident that have led people such as HistoryBuff into thinking that it was a smear job yourself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
There's a distinction between the scientific definition of a homo sapien and the philosophical description of what a person is and consists of. When people say that fetuses are not people, they do not mean they are not homo sapiens from a biological viewpoint. They mean that fetuses lack the characteristics of humanity typically attributed to persons. This is something that cannot be answered by science.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Presidents that have been impeached by the house but are not convicted by the senate are still impeached. ie Clinton was still impeached despite not being convicted by the senate
What makes you think Clinton is eligible to be on the ballot based on what I said?
Created:
-->
@sadolite
That's an interesting viewpoint. On what basis did your source make that argument?
To me the 22nd amendment reads quite plainly that you cannot be elected twice, or if you have been president for at least two years of a term you may only be elected as president once more.
Despite Trump being impeached during his first term, this does not negate the fact that he was elected as president and served for at least two years of a term. Or so my interpretation goes.
Created:
Posted in:
Nice try crossed. No one's falling for your Dr.Franklin disguise
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
The whole point of precedent is that a decision has already been made for the interpretation for a law. Further situations that are similar to the precedent refer back to the decision of the precedent. The precedent in this case has already established that the president does not get to arbitrarily invoke privilege. I'm not sure how clearer it could possibly be
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
The judicial branch has already issued a precedent on the usage of executive privilege in a case like thisYes and no. As a coequal branch, he has the right to withhold information from Congress. Every President has done it. It’s called executive privilege which is not limited to documents...it encompasses people that the President has communications with. The method to overcome that is by going to the other coequal branch - the judicial branch. He’s not immune from being investigated. In fact the President has been getting investigated for 4 years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So we are in agreement that the concept of quid pro quo does appear in the articles of impeachment but you don't really care that they do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I was more referring to quid pro quo as the concept rather than strict wording. I don't really care if the words "quid pro quo" appear, only if the concept of a corrupt exchange of goods or services is detailed. Is this something you agree with or is the phrase "quid pro quo" necessary for you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The quid pro quo is included in the abuse of power article of impeachment right?
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@bmdrocks21
Not the same article but I don't think any of this is new information
Trump voters in general have less cognitive ability, less facts and less reasoning which leaves them susceptible to Trumps rhetoric.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
So you would be ok with expanding the ban that has been shown to be both ineffective and incredibly disruptive? Why?
Created: