Total posts: 618
-->
@Greyparrot
Only 40% of people gonna inherit anything, and most estates are pretty small. Taxing it as ordinary income would be reasonable IMO, but with higher tax brackets than we got.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Indiana Republican on America's poor: 'Just let them wither and die'
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If we really want to level the playing field then we should tax inheritance a lot more than we do. It's looking like a trillion+ a year of wealth coming from inheritance for the next 30 years or so, probably more. Tax that 40% IMO. That's 400 billion a year. Sounds good to me. I won't inherit anything anyway.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
The senate sucks.the need for a calming Senate
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What we really need to do is abolish the states altogether, and have a single gigantic state. It will be the United State of America. Then the states won't have a "race to the bottom" anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I've seen people lose debates on resolutions they created as truisms thinking they could get an easy win.Sometimes a person's house isn't quite in order as they think it is.
Those are often my favorite ones to accept. I <3 to punish.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
fauxlaw is too chicken shit to accept a debate that is not framed in such a way that he cannot automatically win through semantics alone.
Ah that's not true. I got him 3 times. He got me once.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
IIRC nobody accepted your debate because it was setup as a truism in your favor.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I’ll get you next time, Gadget
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Well, California voted for Biden with a margin of over 5 million votes. What are the odds I would have changed that? lol
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Even when you're in a battleground state, that your vote would change the outcome of the entire election is probably something like winning the lotto in terms of the odds. Thing is, if you win the lotto, you get a lotto jackpot. You change the outcome of the election, there's not that much of an impact on your life really. Maybe a few tax or healthcare things, but that's about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You're overdue for re-education.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Silicon valley companies are populated with very left-leaning workers and such. That's the culture there. Websites like twitter, imgur and reddit are progressive echo chambers. Conservatives are downvoted and users get banned there. Poor whites who complaint about being marginalized by affirmative action politics are regarded as closet white supremacists indulging in dog whistle racism. Trump was a terrible leader for them, and his bullshit has forever damaged their interests. The capitol riot has been seized as a license to censor "undesirable" political viewpoints.
Created:
Biden's going to slip and fall on the way back down from the inauguration podium after he's sworn in. Old people fall down. Everyone knows that.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I see. Right thing, wrong reasons. Get on board.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
What changed your mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That is a factor weighing against a conviction, yes. But lets be honest, it's not "ZERO chance".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There is ZERO chance that senate republicans are going to vote to convict.Based on what?So if all four of these senators ended up voting to convict Trump, 13 others would have to join to have him convicted. [LINK]
It is not "ZERO chance". You're estimating a low probability based on the fact that only a small number of GoP senators are publicly known to be open to it. Mitch McConnell carries a lot of influence and appears to be open to it. The reports are that he "hates" Trump, blames him for the loss of the senate, and believes that Trump committed impeachable offenses. McConnell carries a lot influence, and I really have no information the positions of GoP senators who haven't said anything about it, other than perhaps the guys who objected at the electoral vote certification would probably vote against it. Additionally, senators don't really have to vote to convict him. They can simply be absent during the vote and that will lower the total number of votes required to convict because it requires "two thirds of the Members present." Maybe they'll just step out to go to the bathroom or something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Only if we first accept your fake charge that Trump is guilty. And this is a common liberal trick. Present an argument "that would probably used as a defense in Trump's favor" and validate that Trump needs a defense, thus validating your original bogus charge. It is nonsense Death. All of it is.You are a hypocrite. But I did not list that as the reason why your argument is in error. You aren't wrong because you are a hypocrite. That would be the Tu quoque fallacy. You are wrong about Trump because your case against him is illogical. I show the illogic by forcing you to apply your criteria to other cases.You dodged at first, but when pushed, you had to answer. The question had no satisfactory answer for you because agreeing BLM/Antifa were similar would instantly highlight your inconstancy, but saying that the BLM/Antifa case was different would require you to state that difference. So you again hedged and said you don't know. That my friend is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy isn't what makes you wrong, being wrong is what makes you need to be a hypocrite.BLM has a website. They stated their purpose. They directly called for insurrection and violence. And in many cities, over many months, there was violence and forceful takeovers of governmental institutions. Yet you stand here telling us that you don't know specific cases with BLM/Antifa, implying that there is more "evidence of incitement" for Trump. I call you a hypocrite only because I don't want to call you a liar.
OK boomer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Are the people who organized other protests that ended in burning buildings and broken windows also "culpable"?The answer is "I don't know."We know you don't know Death! We're the ones telling you that you don't know. Yet you have already convicted Trump of inciting an insurrection. You don't know.
Uh, you just make stuff up all day long. I didn't convict Trump of anything. My position was that he probably did it. That is an "I don't know", but believing him to have done it on purpose is more probable than not. That belief is based on evidence. Brutal's hypothetical with the BLM protesters - It doesn't even refer to any specific incident, or protest. There is no evidence presented from which to form any belief.
The reality is that I don't have enough information about their conduct to answer that question. How the hell am I supposed to form an opinion about the guilt or innocence of someone with this limited information.Yet you've done exactly that with Trump! TDS accounts for the difference in your answers for BLM/Antifa and Trump, and your hypocrisy helps you maintain that bias.
It's not the same thing. With Trump, there is evidence from which inference can reasonably be drawn. With BLM/Antifa, no specific incident or evidence was presented. Are there some cases where people incited riots or violence and are guilty under some such code with the BLM/Antifa stuff? I'd say almost certainly simply because there are so many incidents that happened. Some are guilty. Some are not, but without a specific case and specific evidence there can't really be a reasonable situational comparison.
BTW, hypocrisy is totally irrelevant, and there isn't any hypocrisy.
It's rather questionable as to whether or not Trump or Guiliani could even be convicted in court because of the 1st amendment free speech standards. The big thing may have to do with the 2 mile walk from the white house to the capitol and that, under 1st amendment jurisprudence, there is the requirement of "imminent" unlawful violence, or something like that. I haven't read much in to it. This issue's not going to protect him from conviction in the senate, and there's also the whole self pardon stuff.Nonsense.
You do realize I was presenting an argument that would probably used as a defense in Trump's favor - Right?
FYI your argument is fallacious:
Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin Tū quoque, for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior as being inconsistent with the argument's conclusion(s). This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack. It is used frequently, with "whataboutism" being one particularly well known instance of this fallacy. The Oxford English Dictionary cites John Cooke's 1614 stage play The Cittie Gallant as the earliest use of the term in the English language.[1]
Created:
Posted in:
Well, you can't prove that the idiot Trump INTENDED for protesters to break things and hurt people.In the exact same way you can't prove that the BLM and HONG KONG organizers INTENDED for protesters to break things and hurt people.ANY LAW THAT RELIES ON DETECTING "TRUE MOTIVE AND OR INTENT" IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM WITCHCRAFT.
Facts are proven with evidence. There are only degrees of certainty. There is evidence of intent. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Not that I'm aware of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There is ZERO chance that senate republicans are going to vote to convict.
Based on what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You got to work on your fact discipline. Strict and rigid adherence to the facts. Never make anything up. Never represent a fact as true unless you genuinely believe it and you have a reasonable justification for that belief. If you wish to voice your opinions about facts which you think might be true, then qualify those representations.
You were being duplicitous.
This is false. You made this up.
You are assigning motive.
No, I did not assign motive. This was also made up.
You have picked "inserrection" and are pretending your spin is reality.
Brutal argued, implicitly, that what Trump did was not actual crime. Brutal did not seem to understand that inciting an insurrection is an actual crime.
The question required a simple yes or no, your fake "answer" rode in-between the two.
What you don't understand is that I was responding to the statement beneath the question more than the question itself.
You actually dodged 3RU7AL's questions. No surprise there. Hypocrisy abounds.
OK. Here was his question -
Are the people who organized other protests that ended in burning buildings and broken windows also "culpable"?
The answer is "I don't know." The reality is that I don't have enough information about their conduct to answer that question. How the hell am I supposed to form an opinion about the guilt or innocence of someone with this limited information.
It's rather questionable as to whether or not Trump or Guiliani could even be convicted in court because of the 1st amendment free speech standards. The big thing may have to do with the 2 mile walk from the white house to the capitol and that, under 1st amendment jurisprudence, there is the requirement of "imminent" unlawful violence, or something like that. I haven't read much in to it. This issue's not going to protect him from conviction in the senate, and there's also the whole self pardon stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
So, do you think wandering aimlessly through the Capital Building qualifies?
Mere bodily presence isn't sufficient. The person must have actual knowledge that the area is restricted.See the fakery?
I see confirmation bias.
A person who enters a restricted area can have a veriaty of motives.2nd, they were let in by legitimate authority, the capitol police. So how is it "restricted"?
If there is lawful authority to be in a restricted area then it is not a violation just being there. Brutal didn't ask about that. I linked the code.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, do you think wandering aimlessly through the Capital Building qualifies?
Mere bodily presence isn't sufficient. The person must have actual knowledge that the area is restricted.
EDIT: It's 18 USC 1752(a) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This is not relevant to Trump's culpability.Are the people who organized other protests that ended in burning buildings and broken windows also "culpable"?I'm pretty sure only the individuals who actually committed actual crimes are "culpable".
Incitement of insurrection is an actual crime.
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Trump caused an angry mob to attack the capitol.Trump encouraged protesters to march to the Capital Building.
It's more probable than not that Trump knowingly and willfully caused the attack on the capitol.
This is hardly the first time protesters marched to the Capital Building.Capital police let protesters into the building.Do you think anti-Trump protesters would have acted any differently if they had been let into the building?Don't you think that Nixon would have loved to paint the anti-war protesters as an "angry mob" of "domestic terrorists"?
This is not relevant to Trump's culpability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
the liberals can't rationally defend impeachment. the actions of the president dont match up with the charges. all liberals care about is makin trump look bad, and kicking him on his way out the door. facts be damned.
There is a strong probability that impeachment will substantially reduce Trump's influence, and it would prevent him from running in 2024 provided that the senate convicts and passes a post-conviction resolution on eligibility to hold office. Trump has been a divisive politician and his lies have significantly worsened post-truth politics. Reducing his influence in the future is good for the future. As to whether or not he actually is guilty of inciting an insurrection - What do you base your factual position on? It's obvious that Trump was well within the chain of causation that led to the attack on the capitol. His personal lawyer was up there and said "Lets have trial by combat!" I doubt his lawyer would have said that without Trump's approval given how deferent the lawyer has been to Trump in the past.
Created:
Posted in:
Ahh the bakeries. A mountain made out of a mole hill to garner votes by riling up the conservative base by appealing to religion and hate. Don't be fooled. It's a zero-impact issue. You have no reason to go to the ballot box now. Just stay home.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
This position is not supported by the evidence. Everything else you said is off topic.Abject nonsense.
No.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Anyway, I tend to agree with you that using the 25th that way isn't a very honest thing to do. It would still be constitutionally effective to remove Trump from power even with false written declarations. If there existed a greater good that would justify the means, then it may be appropriate in my eyes. I don't really see one, though. Trump seems to be planning a peaceful exit.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
2. Section 4 allows for the VP, plus a majority of the Cabinet, to make such declaration.3. Section 4 also offers Congress to make legislation to appoint a commission to make the same declaration
Yeah, probably just not proofread thoroughly. Not that you should bother expending the time proofreading that closely here. This isn't court or anything.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Section 4 also offers Congress to make legislation to appoint a commission to make the same declaration
My reading of the amendment was that the body Congress can make would avoid the necessity of obtaining the declarations of the cabinet officers, not the VP's declaration.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide
Created:
Posted in:
Trump has far right, authoritarian and nationalist tendencies. Probably more so than all the other big politicians out there. I'm not convinced that how he is rises to the level of being fascist, but it might.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I usually look toward evolutionary psychology when trying to understand the reasons underlying human behavior. Sometimes it's exceedingly obvious (e.g. why does a man get angry if another man is having sex with his girlfriend). And, off the cuff without doing any independent research, I would surmise that it relates to an evolved need for social acceptance as humans were dependent on it for survival, and greater social status led to acquiring more desireable mates (and still does). We're out of our element in a lot of ways. Not living in hunter gatherer tribes anymore, but I think we're "designed" to be that way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Trump has done nothing to be prosecuted for.
This position is not supported by the evidence. Everything else you said is off topic.
Edit: BTW pretty much everything you said is a bunch of whataboutism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism Like, seriously, people have been around the block here. I don't even like BLM. I stated my reasons for that in this debate https://www.debateart.com/debates/2294-black-lives-matter-movement
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
If you understand the relationship between Trump and Giuliani, then you would see that it's doubtful that Giuliani would have said "Lets have trial by combat" without Trump's approval. That statement is attributable to Trump. There is doubt, but not much. Hence "probably" - Which is exactly what I said. Everyone knows who said what and it's easily google-able.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
Giuliani is an agent of Trump. That Trump may deny responsibility for the statement by pointing toward the doubt that the agent may have been acting outside the scope of his agency is a pretty slim doubt given how deferent Giuliani has been. This goes directly to what I said - "Probably" - And in that respect it is appropriate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
My doubts about what he did constituting treason have to do with whether or not causing an angry mob to attack a federal building constitutes an act of war. It doesn't seem to be a very warlike thing to me. If they had lots of bombs and guns and had used them, then maybe it would be.
If you read my prior posts here I made it pretty clear that I don't think arresting and prosecuting Trump is in our national interests because healing and unity is required. Dispassionate factualism is important to that too. People get lost in echo chambers and are dealing with completely different sets of facts. The truth is the common ground, and if we deny ourselves that then we're never going to be agreeing on much. Look at what you're doing. You're focusing on two statements, ignoring the third, and not considering the whole context. Trump knew they were angry. Trump knew they believed the election was stolen. Trump sent them to the capitol. What happened was easily foreseeable and Trump didn't seem to take any steps to prevent it. In fact, according to a report from a GoP senator, Trump was "delighted" by what was happening.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
handful of people being let into the Capitol one day - is treason on Trump
Trump caused an angry mob to attack the capitol. The pre-march rhetoric suggests that it was probably purposeful. (e.g. "trial by combat" "show strength" "be strong") Not sure if that's treason or not, but it's pretty close.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
There was an incident in Oregon where it was a republican lawmaker who opened the door and let the protesters in to the building. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/us/oregon-legislator-entry-protest-december-trnd/index.html
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
President Trump claims the election was stolen. [...] Every election we know features some illegality and irregularity and of course that's unacceptable. [...] nothing before us proves illegality anywhere near the massive scale [...] that would have tipped the entire election, nor can public doubt alone justify a radical break when the doubt itself was incited without any evidence. [...] The voters, the courts, and the states have all spoken.-Mitch McConnell
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Violence - The supreme authority from which all other authority is derived - Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
We must ensure that human civilization, not insect, dominates this galaxy now and always!
When it comes to trusting authority... That a person is in authority doesn’t seem to be a big factor either way. It’s not what I would look toward. I look more toward conflicts of interest, track records and probably signs of loyalty to particular things.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You will lead the charge, Greyparrot the tyrannical. Teach them a lesson they won't forget.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
tank tread lubricant
I was crossing my fingers for the national guard to take out the Trumpers Tiananmen Square style
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, they did have two resignations of the capital police sergeants. Maybe congress already knows about it and the heads have rolled already.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, it’s capitol police right. Hmmm I see your line of thinking but perhaps not the same motive. Like, maybe someone wanted them to succeed in stopping the certification. Maybe they got the door opened from the outside somehow and the cops decided to just let them through.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You seem to have significantly more FAITH in the system than I do.
Nah, I was just typing too fast. I'm really not so sure. More accurately I consider it something to be plausibly or probably answered by the upcoming investigations.
Created: