jamgiller

Take your time.

I'll create a debate on a resolution like "The 2020 US Presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump" or similar, if you want to be Pro.

I'm not sure why you think I can't learn from history. The attack on the Capitol was unprecedented, not seen before in the history of the US. Sane people have learned from the history of negligible voter fraud in US elections to understand that the last election wasn't stolen. Your level of paranoia about the Democratic party is not preventing the violation of rights. On the other hand, you think Trump should be acquitted on the charge of violating people's rights to vote, which is in the latest indictment. Based on his conspiracy theory that you follow, he tried to disenfranchise millions of people by using fake electors to go against their chosen candidate, and by pressuring officials to overturn the election in his favor. And I don't care about your misinformed opinions about the indictment. As I said, if you know how to show Trump didn't commit any crimes, go defend him in court. He's always looking for legal defense.

How can we know how much paranoia is ideal?

The courtroom trials haven't begun yet. They are set to happen between the primaries and the general election.

For example, it's too much when it leads a group of people to attack the Capitol because they have a conspiracy theory of a stolen election.

WRONG!!! What I was asking for was the law(s) that said he (Trump) could not do X Y and Z. I did not ask for the alleged law(s) he was being charged with allegedly violating. 

There is a distinct difference between laws that explicitly say a president cannot do a thing and laws that say what is wrong and is illegal to perform, which is punishable for all. 

Nevertheless, the difference is still observable in the quote above. One is very specifically prohibited “by law,” specifically criminal law, whereas the other is just merely forbidden. 

Do you do anything except deflect from what others say with whataboutism, or claiming fake news, or pointing out trivial grammatical issues, etc.?

There's also such a thing as being too paranoid for anyone's good.

illegal means contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law, whereas prohibited means forbidden.

There is not a distinct difference between a law that prohibits something and a law that says something is illegal to perform.

I was just pointing out a fact. You were asking people on an Internet forum to cite the crimes that have been alleged, when you could easily read and interpret the indictment documents, especially considering your educational background.

-->

@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. 

Cite the law(s) that clearly articulate that a sitting US President doesn't have authoritative access to presidential records during his tenure. And acquiring them after losing the election, while still being the US President, isn't a legal argument. It's a subjective emotive one. Completely baseless. 

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. 

Again, cite the law(s) that clearly articulate that a former US President has no legal authority to be in temporary possession of presidential records from his tenure in the White House. 

I was just pointing out a fact. You were asking people on an Internet forum to cite the crimes that have been alleged, when you could easily read and interpret the indictment documents, especially considering your educational background.

Tobacco companies hired people with scientific degrees to argue that smoking isn't harmful. Someone who is educated can still be incorrect about a topic related to their education, particularly if they are politically motivated, like you and Ben Shapiro. Trump should get off easy if the law is so clearly cut in his favor. In fact, why don't you offer your legal services to the President, since you know how to defend him?

The deadline needs to be extended because I only recently had the time to start my final debate in the entry stage, and it won't be finished by the 10th. I already had an exchange about this with Sir.Lancelot in this thread.

There is also a high bar to get a conviction of corruption in the US. Essentially one has to get evidence of a politician saying "I will do X for you if you give me money." Just because something doesn't end in a legal judgement of corruption, doesn't mean there's not a problem with Cuomo receiving $1 million in donations from corporate interests, and then later acting to protect them.

No, my accusation was that Cuomo protected corporate healthcare officials from liability related to COVID after having received $1 million in donations from the healthcare industry. Which is true. Just like many politicians in the US, Cuomo acted in the interests of his big money donors.

The event happened a few years ago, so obviously the reporting would be from a few years ago. Also, investigations of politicians tend to involve interviews of their staff. Trump's associates have all been interviewed in the investigations into his wrongdoings. Also, there is no "maybe" in the article I shared; the article references an anonymous source. I'm sure you haven't had an issue with anonymous sources discussing investigations into Trump, right?

I don't know where you got your definition of corruption from.

Apart from public corruption, we also have private corruption between individuals and businesses. 

There are mechanisms to hold elected and career government officials to account. Sure, people in government can still carry out acts of corruption, but no system is perfect. The extent and levels of corruption in government vary across the world and over time, with many improvements due to greater transparency in modern times.

Since capitalists have "absolute power" over their businesses, do you agree that they are absolutely corrupt?

Right, "so much so" that the actual definition you linked is (emphasis mine):

an offensive word used by some people on the extreme right of politics to refer to someone who holds left-wing political beliefs.

As long as the government has such control, there is going to be corruption.

Comparative fact based arguments in rebuttal to a notorious position are perfectly valid arguments. 

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

And really, this thread is all about Republicans, so I don't know why you would be talking about the other party.

I could easily see Biden being a Republican at some point in history because he's pretty conservative. He doesn't really fit into the modern Republican party, in which most politicians are driven by fear of the Trump-obsessed base turning on them, and Biden has shown some opposition to Trump.

So you think it's a negative that I recognize that there are politicians on both sides who are trash?

The fact of the matter is, rather than recognizing the lies of Tommy Tuberville, you and TWS1405_2 both jumped to "what about Biden?" And you dodged my question about whether you are willing to criticize GOP politicians by saying you're not a member of either party. It is clear that you are a conservative even if you aren't a GOP member. And in this case you are using whataboutism to deflect criticism about a GOP politician specifically, even though Joe Biden is also pretty conservative in his own right.

A lot of Democratic politicians are conservative, but they get attacked by people on the right anyway, unless they act to undermine the Democratic party, like Joe Manchin does.

Are you personally willing to criticize GOP politicians or at least not jump to whataboutism every time you see such a criticism?

I'm on the left, and I say that there are pathological liars in both major US parties.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but conservatives also tend to be hypocrites. Raging against people they don't agree with for things people on the conservative side are also guilty on.

Tommy Tuberville is a liar, Biden is a liar, Trump is a liar. Most US politicians are liars. Conservatives only ever seem to care when it is not a GOP politician though, and if someone brings up something negative about a GOP politician, conservatives usually resort to whataboutism.

Why not accept that many elected officials on both sides of the US political system are trash?