Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Coronavirus Outbreak...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedmprig View Post
    The constitution explicitly does not require "illegal." This is all over the FFs discussions about this issue. Their concern was not just illegal, but also a corrupt person using the presidency to further corruption, or entangling themselves with foreign influences, or anything else that Congress believed was potentially harmful to the nation. That is why the phrase "High crimes and misdemeanors" was inserted. Its historical roots are well described here. There are many things a president could do that would be harmful to the nation while not explicitly illegal.

    Consider the following scenarios: A president could decide that every single office in the military is inept, demote them all to private and promote every private to the vacated officer positions. There is nothing about this action that is explicitly illegal - the president is the commander-in-chief and has the authority to do this. They also have the power of pardon which has little limit on it, and they could decide that every convicted person in the U.S. should be pardoned because the justice system is corrupt! Again, not illegal. But both actions are almost certainly harmful to the nation. Congress would have the duty to remove such a president for these actions.

    The language around impeachment was specifically chosen to make it possible for Congress to remove someone from any civil office if they acted in a way - legal or illegal - that was harmful to the people they serve.

    Now - take what Trump did, and put it in Obama's administration. Congress discovers that Obama has been approaching government leaders and making their financial support and/or presidential audiences dependent on their willingness to open investigations into their political rivals. What if it was shown that Obama had been asking the leaders of any country that had a Trump property to publicly open an investigation into Trump during the fall of 2015 through the summer of 2016. Close your eyes and imagine it actually happening. What is your reaction now?
    First of all, the standard for an impeachable offense is much, mich higher than what liberals argue for. The Constitution says, "Treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors". In other words, it is remedy for something at least as serious as treason, or accepting a bribe. You're essentially making an argument for "maladministration", which was explicitly rejected by our Founding Fathers.

    Secondly, President Trump did not condition financial aid on Ukraine's willingness to conduct investigations. It's a false narrative that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever and has been so throughly debunked that you would have to be almost deliberately uninformed to continue believing it.

    Third, President Trump did not arbitrarily say, "Let's investigate all things Biden." On the contrary, he was asking Ukraine to take a closer look at something very specific that Biden was caught on camera publicly confessing to.

    Yes, I would have a problem if Obama or any other president did what you describe in your hypothetical scenario, but that is not what President Trump did.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
      One out of how many?



      Than the jury said there wasn’t enough. Case closed. Stop wit the sour grapes because your side didn’t win a near impossibility.
      One still makes it the only bipartisan vote for removal of a president.

      Oh I’m not sour, it’s just a polite reminder that the house did their job in proving their case but the senate didn’t think it deserved removal. Case closed.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
        One still makes it the only bipartisan vote for removal of a president.

        Oh I’m not sour, it’s just a polite reminder that the house did their job in proving their case but the senate didn’t think it deserved removal. Case closed.
        Yeah it is sour grapes because the threshold of 2/3rds was not made.
        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          First of all, the standard for an impeachable offense is much, mich higher than what liberals argue for. The Constitution says, "Treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors". In other words, it is remedy for something at least as serious as treason, or accepting a bribe. You're essentially making an argument for "maladministration", which was explicitly rejected by our Founding Fathers.
          This statement is historically inaccurate. I suggest you read the linked article. Here it is again. It captures the history accurately and can be confirmed from multiple sources.

          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Secondly, President Trump did not condition financial aid on Ukraine's willingness to conduct investigations. It's a false narrative that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever and has been so throughly debunked that you would have to be almost deliberately uninformed to continue believing it.
          Several witnesses attested to this being exactly the case, so how you can make this claim is beyond me.

          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Third, President Trump did not arbitrarily say, "Let's investigate all things Biden." On the contrary, he was asking Ukraine to take a closer look at something very specific that Biden was caught on camera publicly confessing to.
          Biden didn't "confess" to anything because Biden never did anything wrong. What he did was brag about an accomplishment in the Ukraine. The only thing he is guilty of is getting himself in a situation with poor optics that his political opponents could leverage. There is not one iota of evidence that Biden did a single illegal or immoral thing. The evidence says he acted, in concert with the international community, to target a corrupt prosecutor. At most, the situation with Hunter is concerning because it was politically unwise.

          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Yes, I would have a problem if Obama or any other president did what you describe in your hypothetical scenario, but that is not what President Trump did.
          It is exactly what Trump did. We have his written record of the conversation which he made public. And then he publicly suggested China do the same thing. He publicly did the same thing with Russia during the campaign. Doing something wrong publicly does not make it any less wrong.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            This statement is historically inaccurate. I suggest you read the linked article. Here it is again. It captures the history accurately and can be confirmed from multiple sources.



            Several witnesses attested to this being exactly the case, so how you can make this claim is beyond me.



            Biden didn't "confess" to anything because Biden never did anything wrong. What he did was brag about an accomplishment in the Ukraine. The only thing he is guilty of is getting himself in a situation with poor optics that his political opponents could leverage. There is not one iota of evidence that Biden did a single illegal or immoral thing. The evidence says he acted, in concert with the international community, to target a corrupt prosecutor. At most, the situation with Hunter is concerning because it was politically unwise.



            It is exactly what Trump did. We have his written record of the conversation which he made public. And then he publicly suggested China do the same thing. He publicly did the same thing with Russia during the campaign. Doing something wrong publicly does not make it any less wrong.
            More sour grapes. Have you tried pitching a fit like a three year old? That always works.
            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedmprig View Post
              This statement is historically inaccurate. I suggest you read the linked article. Here it is again. It captures the history accurately and can be confirmed from multiple sources.



              Several witnesses attested to this being exactly the case, so how you can make this claim is beyond me.



              Biden didn't "confess" to anything because Biden never did anything wrong. What he did was brag about an accomplishment in the Ukraine. The only thing he is guilty of is getting himself in a situation with poor optics that his political opponents could leverage. There is not one iota of evidence that Biden did a single illegal or immoral thing. The evidence says he acted, in concert with the international community, to target a corrupt prosecutor. At most, the situation with Hunter is concerning because it was politically unwise.



              It is exactly what Trump did. We have his written record of the conversation which he made public. And then he publicly suggested China do the same thing. He publicly did the same thing with Russia during the campaign. Doing something wrong publicly does not make it any less wrong.
              "High crimes and misdemeanors" is not nearly as vague as some people like to think. In fact, our Founding Fathers avoided all confusion by giving two very explicit examples of the kind of conduct that would meet their criteria, specifically, "treason and bribery". Anything short of crimes at least that serious are not impeachable per the Constitution.

              Several witnesses attested to presumptions and office gossip that was not supported by evidence, and Ukraine officials, including President Zelensky, repeatedly said that they were never under the belief that military aid was tied to their willingness to conduct investigations. Didn't you watch any of impeachment circus?

              Yes, Biden did confess. There's no reasonable way to deny it. We know that Burisma was leveraging their relationship with Hunter Biden to gain favors from the Obama administration, and we know that Joe's conduct bothered the Ukraine government enough that they made repeated overtures to the US to take some sort of action.

              https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-u...merica-to-see/

              But enough of this. We're spinning the thread wildly off-topic. Feel free to dig up one of the existing impeachment hoax threads if you want to discuss it further. If you have anything new to say then maybe I'll respond.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                "High crimes and misdemeanors" is not nearly as vague as some people like to think. In fact, our Founding Fathers avoided all confusion by giving two very explicit examples of the kind of conduct that would meet their criteria, specifically, "treason and bribery". Anything short of crimes at least that serious are not impeachable per the Constitution.
                Again, you are ignoring the historical evidence as well as the meaning of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" at the time it was inserted into the Constitution. Given that you have advocated originalism, that is a pretty odd position for you to take. The founders were explicitly concerned with too narrowly defining the things an elected official could be impeached for, knowing they could not foresee all exigencies. The surrounding discussions clearly indicate that they wanted Congress to be able to address any action that was ultimately deemed harmful to the nation and its citizens. Ignoring the history so you can hold to your pro-Trump position is not particularly intellectually honest.

                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                Several witnesses attested to presumptions and office gossip that was not supported by evidence, and Ukraine officials, including President Zelensky, repeatedly said that they were never under the belief that military aid was tied to their willingness to conduct investigations. Didn't you watch any of impeachment circus?
                Most of it, yes. What I didn't see I followed in the news. As with any proceeding, not all witnesses were 100% aligned. The preponderance of the evidence that the House WAS able to secure and present indicated a pretty simple scenario that fits perfectly with the previously observed behavior of this man, not only in the office he holds but throughout his campaign and even career. Trump explicitly requested an investigation into his political rival and used military aid as the inducement to get what he wanted. He clearly obstructed Congress in getting to witnesses and documentation related to the accusation, and in intimidating witnesses. Frankly, the House failed to address the pile of evidence that Trump also obstructed the Mueller investigation, but I understand their decision not to tackle too much at one time.

                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                Yes, Biden did confess. There's no reasonable way to deny it. We know that Burisma was leveraging their relationship with Hunter Biden to gain favors from the Obama administration, and we know that Joe's conduct bothered the Ukraine government enough that they made repeated overtures to the US to take some sort of action.

                https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-u...merica-to-see/
                We know that Hunter Biden most probably got his appointment on the board on the strength of his last name. Big deal. A $600K per year position doing something that board members arpound the world have been doing for decades: finding big names that will give their board some cachet in the market. There is ZERO evidence that this relationship was leveraged to get favors from the U.S. government, except in the minds of the conspiracy driven far-right. And your linked list of events that have been carefully selected to leave the impression of wrongdoing without actually showing that any wrongdoing occurred is not going to cut it. I could create an equally "ominous" looking list about the Trump campaign and the Russians and you would immediately dismiss it as "not evidence." As I said, guilty of political stupidity is about as far as anyone can take it. Frankly, I hope Trump and his ilk keep pounding this drum right through the election. It will remind everyone of what Trump did with every ad, and further anger the left and many moderates. And, frankly, it will provide continued opportunities to underscore all of the ways that the Trump family has leveraged Mr. Trump's office to enrich themselves.

                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                But enough of this. We're spinning the thread wildly off-topic. Feel free to dig up one of the existing impeachment hoax threads if you want to discuss it further. If you have anything new to say then maybe I'll respond.
                Not worth the time, MM. Your position is clearly fixed and reality has little/no bearing on it, so there is no point in going around yet again. If you can even dismiss clear historical evidence to hold a position you want to hold, data does not seem to be part of the equation.
                Last edited by carpedm9587; 04-08-2020, 11:08 AM.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                  Yeah it is sour grapes because the threshold of 2/3rds was not made.
                  I don’t have a problem with that. Only an argument could be made on whether something warrants impeachment and removal from office. Whether that’s true is up to the house and the senate and they said it was impeachable but not removable. That’s the final answer for this so it’s been resolved.

                  The problem I have is with the attempts to distort history with a false narrative that removes anything negative to trump and exaggerates and fabricates negative things for his opponents and this isn’t just isolated to the impeachment trial, it’s something Trump seemingly has a history of doing only now he has supporters helping him spread his propaganda.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                    I don’t have a problem with that. Only an argument could be made on whether something warrants impeachment and removal from office. Whether that’s true is up to the house and the senate and they said it was impeachable but not removable. That’s the final answer for this so it’s been resolved.

                    The problem I have is with the attempts to distort history with a false narrative that removes anything negative to trump and exaggerates and fabricates negative things for his opponents and this isn’t just isolated to the impeachment trial, it’s something Trump seemingly has a history of doing only now he has supporters helping him spread his propaganda.
                    Exactly...
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Although the news is bad about the coronavirus, some of us can take a bit of comfort in the fact that Trump's "rally-around-the-president" bump appears to be over. What has surprised me throughout all of this is Rasmussen Reports. For the past 5+ years, they have been consistently 4-7 points to the right of the mean for all of the polls included in the aggregation. For the past four weeks, however, they have been right on the mean or slightly to the left of it. I am baffled as to why this change has suddenly occurred, and will be watching to see if it maintains or reverts to norm.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                        I don’t have a problem with that. Only an argument could be made on whether something warrants impeachment and removal from office. Whether that’s true is up to the house and the senate and they said it was impeachable but not removable. That’s the final answer for this so it’s been resolved.

                        The problem I have is with the attempts to distort history with a false narrative that removes anything negative to trump and exaggerates and fabricates negative things for his opponents and this isn’t just isolated to the impeachment trial, it’s something Trump seemingly has a history of doing only now he has supporters helping him spread his propaganda.
                        You seem to be under the false impression that anyone that disagrees with you is presenting a ‘false narrative’ and that simply isn’t true. There was nothing illegal about anything said or done, just more sour grapes over the fact their preference didn’t win the 2016 election. The impeachment was a face saving move and nothing more.
                        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                          You seem to be under the false impression that anyone that disagrees with you is presenting a ‘false narrative’ and that simply isn’t true. There was nothing illegal about anything said or done, just more sour grapes over the fact their preference didn’t win the 2016 election. The impeachment was a face saving move and nothing more.
                          I was hoping Trump would win. I put money on him at great odds.

                          So you honestly believe the impeachment was a face saving move because they were sour over losing the last election? It seems pretty weird that multiple republican senators would publicly state that was inappropriate or that trump did the wrong thing but it’s wasnt enough for removal.

                          I’m guessing they all have TDS? But then why wouldn’t someone with TDS have voted to remove? I’m guessing a... milder form of TDS?

                          I don’t care if you disagree with my opinions. If you don’t think trump conditioned aid for personal benefit then good for you. That’s not a false narrative. When you say things like ‘impeachment was nothing more than a face saving move’ and ‘there was absolutely no evidence’ that’s trying to distort what actually happened. Why would you need to do that if you really thought trump did nothing wrong?
                          Last edited by Watermelon; 04-08-2020, 10:43 PM. Reason: Not finished

                          Comment


                          • New Polls

                            Much was made of the polls, a couple weeks ago, that showed a majority of Americans happy with the federal response to Covid-19. However, those numbers have now reversed. Again, the numbers suggest the usual: the polarized Trump base is happy, the polarized Trump opposition is unhappy, and it is the middle of the pack that appears to be shifting perspective. Of course, that middle is critical to Trump because he cannot win on 11/3 without it.

                            I think (hope?) that middle is beginning to become fatigued with Trump's incessant polarizing, self-aggrandizement, and steady stream of misinformation.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                              I was hoping Trump would win. I put money on him at great odds.
                              So why are you defending this?

                              So you honestly believe the impeachment was a face saving move because they were sour over losing the last election? It seems pretty weird that multiple republican senators would publicly state that was inappropriate or that trump did the wrong thing but it’s wasnt enough for removal.
                              Inappropriate/illegal/impeachable are different things. Committing adultery is inappropriate, but it isn’t illegal or impeachable. There’s lots of things that can fit into one category, two, or all. The question is not if something is ‘inappropriate’, but if something is illegal and if so, is impeachable. Every presidency has at least two of these things, Very few meet the impeachment threshold. What Trump did was not illegal and not impeachable. Inappropriate? Perhaps, but it was up to the voters to decide if it was enough not to earn a second term.

                              I’m guessing they all have TDS? But then why wouldn’t someone with TDS have voted to remove? I’m guessing a... milder form of TDS?
                              As I pointed out above, inappropriate/illegal/impeachable are different things. Something being inappropriate doesn’t make it illegal or impeachable.

                              I don’t care if you disagree with my opinions. If you don’t think trump conditioned aid for personal benefit then good for you. That’s not a false narrative. When you say things like ‘impeachment was nothing more than a face saving move’ and ‘there was absolutely no evidence’ that’s trying to distort what actually happened. Why would you need to do that if you really thought trump did nothing wrong?
                              Do I think Trump personally benefited? No, I see lots of maybe and water cooler talk, but very little in direct evidence to support such an assertion. This case likely would had never made it to trial, in a civil or criminal case because it had so little in the way of hard evidence. Can we say maybe something inappropriate happened? Maybe, but nothing illegal and nothing impeachable happened.
                              "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                              GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                              Comment


                              • BoJo oot o ITU. The Lord be praised.
                                “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                                “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                                “not all there” - you know who you are

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 05:11 PM
                                1 response
                                22 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:25 AM
                                32 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 01:48 PM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 03-17-2024, 11:56 AM
                                52 responses
                                313 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-16-2024, 07:40 AM
                                77 responses
                                388 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X