Total posts: 150
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Mueller did "find enough". His job is not to bring charges, though. And because of that he was quite selective in his words, unequivocally stating that charges could be brought against Mr. Trump were he not a sitting President. There were some odd 12 instances of events which he outlined as amounting to obstruction of justice carried out by Mr. Trump.
Were you to actually have listened to what Mueller stated, it was Congress' job to engage in a charge and trial/conviction. As such, because the President can't have a 'day in court' as the average Joe would, the concept of bringing charges, guilt, arrest, etc was never brought up. Why each individual instance of Obstruction was not a separate charge is beyond me, but were I to hazard a guess, it revolved around knowing they were never going to get a conviction out of the Senate, so why bother.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Been an interesting series of years.
How things been on your end around here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Predates Christ by quite a bit. Predates a bit of the Old Testament by quite a bit.
Christ just delivered the TL:DR
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It just to me looks like you are trying to avoid saying the obvious: "They all look alike to him...", not because he is a dummy, but because, ya know, he be kinda racist like that.
Or, maybe more to the point that skips races/ethnicities...
He be supporting white supremacy. Or at least doesn't mind being in bed with white supremacists enough to give him a voting bloc.
It would make a lot more sense that way, when ya think about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"The problem with your argument is that this thing that is not your argument exists, and its drawing attention to salient points of your argument in a way that humans typically react to when it comes to major issues".
Or, more to the point:
"The problem with your argument is that its getting attention."
Or even closer to the point:
"I would prefer your argument not get attention".
Which realistically translates from a point of:
"I simply don't care, but know that fixing the problem will effect me, and I fear that effect."
Created:
-->
@ethang5
The closure of the investigation was suspect, as the VP used aid money to impede it.
Unless the official was corrupt, which was the complaint from various allies. In which case, its pretty much SOP. Fire corrupt officials.
If there were no Bidens, why would the United States be interested?
A developing resource for world trade in a country being annex by Russia is a pretty good reason. I don't expect you to accept it, but hey. No accounting for taste.
You want to impeach a president for what seems "obvious" to you.
Hold this thought.
Because what Biden did was illegal.
According to what statute. You are saying its breaking a law. Release that thought, now, and tell me the statute, not what Ethan thinks is 'obvious'.
I did not say any law forbid Trump from asking...
Okay, so, no law forbids it, that means he has the authority to ask. Thank you.
You keep asking,
For a statute. What statute did Biden break. Not what crime Ethan thinks Joe obviously committed, what statute did Joe Biden break.
Ukrainian investigations alone will not fly in an American court.
Ah, good, I was wondering when you were gonna dig up your goal posts.
Is there a statute of limitation on corruption?
The investigation into said corruption started against the CEO of Burisma before Biden arrived, so, you tell me if you want to investigate into some one whom literally wasn't involved at the time the case began.
Withholding funds to have a prosecutor removed is illegal.
Find the statute.
Extortion
Is a crime, but you need a specific statute here, otherwise its just Ethangs Fee-fees.
He said there was no collusion.
Incorrect. He specifically stated that collusion is not a crime, and that his investigation was based around the notion of conspiracy (which is a crime). DJT Jr was let out of Muellers net literally because he didn't think what he was doing was a crime, which is part of the statute regarding criminal conspiracy, the conspirators need to know what they do is illegal. You know, that meeting that DJT, Trump's campaign manager took to get dirt on Hillary from what was billed as a "Crown Prosecutor" in Russia? That meeting that first never happened, then happened according to Juniors twitter fingers?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The problem with this motive is that it can be justified, to some part (whatever part it may be is irrelevant), that it's both in the nation's interest to uncover corruption at the level of the vice-presidency as well as personal gain for Trump.You would be insincere to assume the nation doesn't benefit from cleaning up the institution of the vice-presidency.The criminal case John Durham is currently looking into also is partly a personal benefit for Trump.
Its in the nations best interest, sure, but that was a dead horse. Such an investigation already transpired, and further, Biden flexing on the prosecutor when the various nations of the EU have the same sentiment regarding his corruption, the 'personal' benefit starts to shrink. It wasn't out of the blue. It wasn't reactionary. It was a well established sentiment of our allies.
I know that at the time asked for an investigation into the Bidens, Joe Biden was not the VP, and that 'the institution of the vice-presidency' was not called into question since Pence never came out of his mouth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I can only surmise that the reason why this was not done through the method we have treaty with is that Trump wanted the importance of his "favor" done in such a manner that it circumvented normal routes for such a request. By bringing it to personal party attention, to me, it sounded as though he wanted anything beneficial against the Bidens, and his concern for corruption was a distant second, if present at all. I would also surmise that the mouth piece would be able to more detail the nature of the 'favor'.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
So your confidence that Trump shouldn't have conducted the investigated himself is gone? I prove you wrong and you simply ooze to yet another question?
Goes to motive, Ethan. I contend Trump does it for personal gain. If the company Hunter was part of was under investigation before Hunter arrived, it would stand to reason Trump should have asked more about Burisma than Hunter and Joe, but... well, you aren't going to answer the question. "Why call out the Bidens" given the facts of the matter?
Please tell us the law that gives Trump the authority to ask a foreign country to investigate humanitarian conditions and pollution issues. I can cite you the law requiring Trump to ask about corruption.
Then please do. And please, while you are citing things, cite the law that prevents Trump from asking about humanitarian and pollution issues. I contend he can ask about anything he wants. He cannot use public monies, however, to benefit from something personally, as he has done.
No sir. He withheld the money as prescribed by law....
Then please, demonstrate what laws he feels was being broken in the Ukraine regarding the Bidens. It was already investigated once, then again, surely your opinion on the matter is the straw that breaks the camel's back.
You want the investigation stopped. Before your crooked son is fingered.
Well, it was already idle, so... again, why upset the apple cart? I mean, if it wasn't moving anywhere before Hunter got there, it seems unlikely Hunter's addition would move it forward against Hunter.
An investigation is not a smear campaign.
Baseless ones very much are.
Tangentially. H Biden was never accused of wrong doing, remember?
Because his father was VP at the time. One doesn't need to be accused for an investigation to be proper.
And he wasn't accused of wrong doing when the investigation started, he wasn't there, and he wasn't accused of wrong doing when Joe left office either. There is no 'yet' anymore, Joe isn't in power, and 3 new prosecutors looked into it. Dead horse regarding Hunter, Ethan.
The senate convicts.
... JFC, you keep cutting this crap so its worthless. You started off saying Trump doesn't get a day in court, and looking to various other legal proceedings the accused get in a court of law. The Senate nor the House are courts of law, if he is removed from office, legally, nothing happens. He doesn't go to jail, he is just like any other John Doe whom isn't in office anymore.
Withholding funds to have a prosecutor removed is illegal.
Name the law, bro.
Untrue. He was sacked from the case.
He was sacked from the position, he was sacked because he was ineffectual. Its very much true that the case sat 'idle' under him.
An investigation is not a smear job, though it is interesting you think it is. Biden could have been cleared by an investigation.
First you have to be accused to be cleared. He was never 'cleared' of wrong doing because he was never 'accused' of wrong doing, this being after the case was re-opened and changed hands from various prosecutors.
Would you like me to remind you what you said about Trump Jr. Meeting the Russians before the 2016 elections?
Please remind me of what I said about Trump's campaign manager meeting the Russians, and I will let you know what Mueller thought about it.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Mkee. So, the National Review is a conservative leaning online publication. Here is what their article, specific to Burisma, Hunter, etc outlines as far as a timeline. I did my own corroboration, and minus a few details that you should be able corroborate on your own, this seems to be accurate.
2010-2012 - Burisma's activities are under investigation by the current prosecutor/Attorney General of the Ukraine.
4/2014 - H Biden moves from a position of hired advisor through Seneca to a position on the Board of Burisma holdings. Burisma holdings is currently owned by M. Zlochevsky whom is under investigation.
5/2015 - To corroborate the optics of the position of having a VP's kid some place important, especially one sitting next to some one being investigated for corruption, the NY times writes an editorial piece outlaying how this seems improper, but not illegal.
12/15 -J Biden makes his desire for the current prosecutor, V. Shokin known. Shokin's soft on corruption issue is at this time widely known, criticized in the EU, and Great Brittain has also opened their own investigations into various corruption cases. Shokin has not moved on the corruption case related to Burisma.
5/16 - V. Shokin is removed from his position and is replaced by Y. Sevruk, whom is later replaced Y. Lutsenko. Lutsenko re-opens the Burisma case, which since Shokin's start of tenure -has been idle-. Lutsenko was replaced yet another dude whose name is redogulously difficult to type. All of Shokin's successors have come to the same conclusion regarding Burisma and H Biden, that being he was never under scrutiny or accusation of wrong doing.
Yes, H. Biden's monthly take home was 50K, same source.
Now, why is it NOT a QPQ when Biden makes his demand. At the time, there was nothing against Hunter. Its that simple. Hunter doesn't benefit from a new prosecutor, if anything, that might expose him more. Joe doesn't benefit from a new prosecutor, either. Further re-opens of the case net no further question about the Biden's involvement, at least that the Ukraine and Burisma would be involved in. At the time of the with-holding of funds, general world sentiment was that Shokin was soft on corruption, which again makes it strange that wanting a anticorruption hardliner to be counter-intuitive. I understand your disagreement stems that the new guy was just towing the line, but then strangely, so did the news series of prosecutors even when Biden was not in power anymore.
Why is it QPQ for Trump? There is no evidence to wrong doing on behalf of the Bidens regarding corruption and the Ukraine. Its spurious. Such spurious anecdote followed up by a request into closed investigation, specifically against the Bidens (and not Burisma) as we head into election season are obvious, the President wants dirt. Specifically, as the non-transcript transcript shows, on the Bidens. This would have been a "favor", as the money that was Congressional appointed was held. Trump, by name is calling out political opponents whom have at the time of such a call out not have not been found to have done any wrong doing, and is using public monies to strong arm foreign governments into baseless investigations. If you feel as though this is worthless to Trump, you kid yourself.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Trump asked the Ukrainians to investigate.
Why?
Trump had no authority to ask a foreign country to investigate anything if it did not involve an American or breaking American law
Again, not true. Examples include Humanitarian conditions and pollution issues.
Right, he's a billionaire, and the president because he's stupid.
I wasn't aware either of those circumstances require intelligence. You aren't president, and you aren't a billionaire. Does that mean you aren't smart, Ethan?
The "favor" was for an investigation. How is that a crime?
Because is is with holding money for something that would benefit him, personally. A smear campaign in election season has value. Secondly, if the money is held, there is no reason to think that a second investigation netting the same results as the first would earn them the money.
Of course he did! Biden was a part of the situation,
Tangentially. H Biden was never accused of wrong doing, remember? It was an investigation into the CEO of the company, and his in-roads with the prosecutor that was investigating him. Its quite possible that Hunter found this affiliation, and warned his father, in so much as he was on the board, that would explain why a prosecutor viewed as soft on corruption was replaced, the investigation never found Hunter to be engaging in anything underhanded.
And that is decided in a court where the accused receives due process.
Friendly reminder, an investigation later, and we don't have 'an accused' regarding the Bidens.
His son was on the paroll of the company the Ukrainian investigater his VP father forced the Ukrainians to sack by threatening to withhold money
Indeed. And, by general consensus, said prosecutor should have been sacked, as he was viewed on the world stage as soft on corruption. Seems odd to sack a guy soft on corruption if your son is corrupt. Seems really odd to want a new prosecutor in, one that is harder on corruption, if your son is corrupt.
The fact remains he did not ask to help his election bid.
Dude, he repeated the same line of inquiry with China over the Bidens, and for some reason asked China to look into Elizabeth Warren. His MO is pretty clear if you take the blinders off.
Nonsense. Biden is on video bragging about forcing Ukraine to sack the man investigating his sons company by withholding money. Would you like the link?
No, I am familiar with the video. It wasn't 'his son's' company, he was a member of the board. I am still asking you what the crime was, in so much as the prosecutor in question was widely viewed as soft on corruption. This, again, seems counter intuitive. If your son is not named by a corrupt investigator, and your son is indeed corrupt, why would you want a new prosecutor in? This whole "firing the corrupt guy to get a non-corrupt guy for a billion dollars" seems a bit drawn out. Why not just pay the corrupt investigator off, in so much as he was, ya know, corrupt. Let me cut to the chase for you: if you had ill intentions, the Bidens went about it backwards with more risk. If your intentions are pure, that was exactly how to handle the situation.
The Senate was not hand picked by Trump.
The Senate doesn't bring charges, either. The Attorney General does. The president suffers no consequences from being found guilty and removed from office by the Senate. He would need to be formally charged by the AG after his removal, since, (convieeeeeeeeniently.....) the DoJ's policy is not to indict a sitting president.
Biden withheld funds from Ukraine until that country fired the official investigating the company his son was sucking millions from for a "job" for which he had no experience. Hello?
Biden with held funds to have a corrupt prosecutor whom had not named his son in any malfeasance. So, of course, logically, fire the guy that hasn't named your kid. Makes TOTAL sense, Ethan. Secondly, do you honestly think everyone whom sits on a board of directors at a power company was a line man? You think Chase's CEO was a bank teller? C'mon, man. He was a lawyer and a lobbyist, that was his job with the company. "Hello".
The investigation into the company was in place before Biden arrived. The investigation continued for a year or so after J. Biden made his demand.
With the original investigator sacked.
Negative, the 'old' investigator sat idle on the case for quite a bit of time before he was replaced. So, of course, the investigator that is not finding corruption in the company he is investigating is a prime target for putting in some one else. Brilliant strategy.
Trump did not gain. There was no investigation. And anything good for the country would be good for Trump.
Trump gets a smear job, that is gain. Trump might even get some variety of fabricated evidence, if it means more money would be diverted to Ukraine's way, though that is conspiracy. Anything good for the country would be good for Trump, but not everything good for Trump is good for the country. This is a prime example of such.
Keeping his shyster son out of jail. 50k a month is sweet.
That sounds more like his kid profiting than Joe.
So why did Hunter say if his father won he would accept no money from foreign countries?
Because the Trump-lings are perfect examples of what NOT to do.
I think the millions his son pocketed qualify as personal profit.
What is 50Kx12, Ethan? Secondly, I think your definition of 'personal' is borked. If my kid gets a birthday card with money it it, I'm not profiting.
What is the minimum dollar value where it becomes a crime?This is why we need an investigation, we have no clue what he pocketed, or where that money went.
I am telling you what he pocketed. 600K. That was Hunter's salary, so we know who it went to. And you mean you want another investigation. The first one didn't name Hunter of wrong doing.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
"Fun fact. If 100% of the people worked for the government, they would have to be taxed at 100% to pay for themselves."
Fun fact- you are totally wrong.
I will give you 3 guesses to correct yourself.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Ethan. You're back. What a... well, no, not a surprise. What do you call it when you full expect something, and it happens?
The only reason trump was able to win was because of the poor design of the electoral system.
Like the only way the Washington Nationals were able to win was because of the poor design of the MLB system?
You question was this: "Like the majority of Americans supported Hillery?"
Of those that actually responded to the poll, the majority did support Hillary. The problem is your likening, not the reality that contradicted it.
Anyone who has been paying attention.
I've been paying attention...
Debatable.
It is a crime to ask for a thing of value from a foreigner to help you in an election.
The, " to help you in an election" part is you substituting your assumption for his intention. Trump asked for an investigation. It was his duty to do so.
I am pretty confident the laws of the Ukraine are for the Ukraine to investigate, not Trump. Secondly, 'assumption of intention' was laid out by name. "Look into some corruption regarding XYZ company" would have avoided this whole mess, but no one ever accused Trump of being smart. Just to head your rebuttal off at the pass "... do us a favor..." is not the office of the President's duty to receive.
Trump asked the president of ukraine for dirt on Biden. These facts are publicly available to anyone who cares.
This is simply untrue. The word "dirt" is never uttered by the president. He asked that the issue be investigated.
Again. Considering it already was once, and the specific names mentioned by Trump were never under scrutiny, it lends itself to a "favor" being wanted. Not "justice".
He asked about Biden by name.
Of course he did! Biden was a part of the situation, and Biden and his son were America's only interest in the issue.
Why were they of interest, again?
If it was a general request to look into corruption he wouldn't have named Biden.
Illogical. ...
Bull snot. The President, should he randomly decide corrupt natural gas officials are some how a threat to the US, and their various dropped cases might uncover some malfeasance, he has every right to instruct his attorney General to talk to the appropriate Ukrainian Minister for the specific situation that might lead to criminal activity. Asking for "a favor" isn't in that agreed upon treaty.
The moment he asked for that he committed a crime.
Nonsense. He asked for an investigation, had he wanted dirt on Biden, he would have just asked for dirt. An investigation could have cleared Biden.
Considering Biden was never named, and there was an investigation, that actually started before Hunter was on the board at Burisima (sp?), its probably a safe assumption that whatever Trump is looking for is nothing more than something exemplified in his own house.
Statements can very easily be criminal.
And that is decided in a court where the accused receives due process.
Remind me... who is the accused? Because its not Joe B or Hunter at the moment. Trump's allegation isn't evidence of anything.
A statement asking for dirt from a foreigner to help in an election is also a crime.
He did not ask for dirt, that is your assumption you are trying to artificially elevate into fact.
Well, most people aren't deliberately obtuse, Ethan.
He did not ask to help his election bid...
Its just happy coincidence that election season is right around the corner, and this wasn't brought up 2 years ago.
A person cannot be convicted on crimes you assume.
What were those crimes, again, against the Bidens? Riiiiiiight. Spurious allegation.
Trump has been proven to have committed 1 crime already.
Then why do we need a trial? Hmmm?
Considering we are talking impeachment and not 'trial', this is a non-sequitur. HoR and Senate are not courts of law, they are the board ousting the CEO. Its up to law enforcement to indict, but in much as the person whom would indict was hand picked by Trump, we see a flaw in the system.
You tell me what president has used funds approved by congress to blackmail a foreign government into helping him win an election.
Barrack Hessien Obama through his VP Biden. Would you like me to send you the video link of Biden bragging that he used funds approved by congress to successfully blackmail a foreign government?
You only read half the question. Re-read it, Ethan.
...there is no suggestion Biden ever broke a law.
Biden withheld funds from Ukraine until that country fired the official investigating the company his son was sucking millions from for a "job" for which he had no experience. Hello?
The investigation into the company was in place before Biden arrived. The investigation continued for a year or so after J. Biden made his demand. Hunter Biden was both a lawyer and a lobbyist by trade. If you think a gas company has no need for lawyers or lobbyists, you are deluding yourself. Hunter's salary as reported was about 50K a month. If you consider a board member to be both legal council and lobbyist rolled into one, that's a deal.
Biden gave something and the US got something. That is normal diplomacy.
And Trump gave something and the US got nothing...
But Trump did. THAT is what makes the crime. US didn't gain, Trump does. See the connection?
But Biden didn't do it with any intention of personally profiting.
How do you know this?
Well, how would he have? If what you say is true, its Hunter that profits, not J Biden.
There is also no evidence that he did personally profit.
I think the millions his son pocketed qualify as personal profit.
Whats 12x50K, Ethan?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"Barr and Giuliani have absolutely no business interacting with foreign nations."
-- Barr does. His positioned was named in a treaty between the US and the Ukraine for purposes of helping each other regarding criminal acts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So your point sinks under your own admission: there are no restrictions, and there is nothing preventing some one from defying congressional subpoena. Thanks for playing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I honestly can't find anywhere in the Constitution that says anyone can defy a subpoena if a process is declared "political".
Conjure your way out of that, please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Whatever that means and how its intended to be a defense is of course subject to your imagination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"Like I said, it's purely a political matter. But Congress's failure to vote on the inquiry means the GOP can just say the Dems are making up their own biased partisan inquiry with their own process rules.
Failing to vote on a formal inquiry means the Democrats aren't taking the process seriously.
That doesn't go over very well with independents."
Yes, the GOP can and say a lot of things, none of which need be correct, such as how they can defy a subpoena because it doesn't feel serious.
Its illegal. It doesn't need a punishment, and it only seems your morality is only as strong as a punishment makes a law.
Paragon of virtue, you are.
Created:
Posted in:
"Congress has limited ability to enforce those subpoenas, with potential penalties for noncompliance ranging from holding them in contempt to issuing daily fines." --- I fail to see your defense here. "Its a weak sauce punishment for breaking the law" is your argument?
Paragon of virtue, you are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"Problem is, you're not supposed to do comedy when you are conducting an investigation." --- Well, its called "Stupid Watergate" for a reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"No there is no rule, but not having a vote means the Whitehouse can give them the middle finger." --- that is incorrect. Any committee can subpoena anyone, and refusing it is refusing a Congressional Subpoena, no vote need be required.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You have that backwards.
They have been pointing to the crap on the wall disguised as wall, and asking "Does this amount to high crimes and misdemeanors yet?"
Uncovering what they President doesn't isn't throwing anything, its stepping in something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
The existence or not of what privilege isn't what I was referring to.
Its been noted time and time again that certain minorities when found guilty get sentenced less severely, as well as profiled. Rather than force minorities into something, how about the enforcement majority NOT do something. That seems to be the easier solution.
:The left is unwilling to compromise on abortion, even though most claim they are willing to compromise in general:
Because denying abortion for the various reasons stated is internally inconsistent. The only real reason is "to control women", but no one seems to want to actually say that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
So its just coincidence that I listed three things that conservatives want to limit another's rights through compunction of government? Things that realistically government doesn't have a business being in in the first place?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
And yet in those instances I just mentioned, its exactly "more" government that specifically limits the rights of individuals.
Though, that is a feature, not a but.
Small government doesn't mean "less people", bro. The same amount of power invested in fewer people trends toward authoritarianism, which is the real face behind "conservative" as opposed to "liberal".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Well, lets see here.
All those abortion laws? Conservative.
All those people that want to prevent (IE use government) to keep people from getting married? Conservative.
Most people trying to keep drugs illegal? Conservative.
People advocating Trumps giant over use of EOs? Conservative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Then why do so many right wing people advocate for more government?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
"I'd say Starr was better at doing his job of uncovering possible impeachable offenses..." Since that wasn't specifically Mueller's job, apples and irrelevant oranges.
"Such a list exists nowhere in the Mueller report" --- its almost like that wasn't the goal from start, to find impeachable offenses.
"All we have is a kabuki maze of possible offenses that may or may not be possible impeachable offenses..who can say? " --- Congress.
"Mueller sure did not. What a chickenshit." --- What Mueller said is pretty plain, and the words "innocent" aren't one of them. Instead, we have a list of offenses, what could be construed as criminal, and a man smart enough not to taint a pool by boldly (with no trial) declare them impeachable offenses, but then again, lets be real here: the goal of the Starr report was impeachment, by any means possible.
Now, the shoe is on the other foot, and the impeachable actor actually did do some impeachable crap. (FYI, if you read what BC 'lied' about, he applied the definitions given to him by his interlocutors, Mr. Starr decided to not use the same applied definition.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That doesn't say "Trump for Gays". Trump is representative of a political party, gays are not. "Recognizing" something doesn't mean you don't have intent to dismantle it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The owners of the tanker disagree with the video evidence that points to Iran.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because Mueller is a better special investigator.
Its interesting you are holding Starr as some variety of gold standard, yet offer no reason as to why what Starr did was that much better.
Case in point... "as IT WAS HIS JOB to do so...explicitly...to discover grounds for impeachment...." THAT WAS NOT MUELLER'S JOB.
"...as Congress would not be allowed to accuse a president of an impeachable offense for the exact same reason Mueller stated he could not accuse a president of an impeachable offense." DOJ guidelines apply to Congress? Are you also cuckoo for cocoa puffs?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Honestly examine which aspects of their platform planks are internally inconsistent.
Gays vote.
So do people that get abortions.
Probably should make good faith attempts to appeal to minorities in honestly looking for racial inequality regarding law enforcement.
Re-focus party ideals to things that are actually people, rather than people on paper.
Just spit ballin' though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
"Silent majority"
-=me refers to the last 2 election cycles=-
Nah.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I just want to make sure the guy that says "Nah" in response to an objective current events post is in good faith asking for evidence from other posters, here.
Da fuq bro.
You don't converse in good faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
"If they wanted ultimate equality, they would be socialists, since that would mean everyone gets paid the same."
Okay, so lets add "socialism" to the list of things you have a bias/misunderstanding about.
"Conservatives are slowly accepting gay rights, even Trump supports it."
Good for them? Thank you for conceding the point, I guess.
"Hillary 8 years ago was against homosexuality and Obama was once against it."
... and?
"Liberals accept homosexuality, but only a few years before the conservatives did."
I am still not convinced conservatives have "accepted" it.
"Now there is Linda Sarsour, a liberal calling for shariah law in the US, which doesn't just call gays names, but kills them for their sexuality. Even if conservatives weren't accepting homosexuality any time soon, I'm not a one issue voter and I wouldn't care."
Right, but you can't claim conservatives are "XYZ" when clearly, they use the institution of a 'smaller government' to limit the rights of certain people through laws.
"As for abortion, they ought to be against abortion/pro life because of the scientific proof that confirms that a fetus is a human being."
Incorrect. A fetus is an as-of-yet unformed member of the Homo sapiens specie. 'Human being' is a term of philosophical art, not a scientific phrase.
"Prostitution can be regulated, but not full blown legal."
He boldly asserts.
"Prostitutes must be on 100% effective birth control(99.9999% is also fine, but nothing less). " <--- ah, this must be your 'small government' talking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Liberalism at least American liberalism, is big government with restrictions on a bunch of economic issues. Conservativism is a smaller government with restrictions on a social issues.
I think your understanding of what "big government" is would be somewhat biased. Liberalism, even in "American Liberalism" searches for equality, and the only real apparatus to enforce that is government. Conservatism having 'restrictions' on social issues is laughable, considering the largest obstacle to social issues being 'accepted' are conservatives.
It wasn't liberals or moderates that are against gay rights, abortion, legalization of the sex trade, etc etc etc. But, some how, conservatives are for smaller government while they use government to deny what society should attempt to adopt.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sure.
Just like we can differ on opinion on whether or not breakfast being served is has browns or scramble eggs.
I don't care what you think is a "difference of opinion is". You have clearly noted you don't know what opinion is enough to consider it opinion.
".... causes cancer" is not a matter of opinion. Do you think it is? (answer yes or no, here)
"They say..." is not a matter of opinion. Do you think it is? (answer yes or no, here)
"We are running late because of me..." is not a matter of opinion. Do you think it is? (answer yes or no here)
Again, yes or no questions, so they deserve yes or no answers.
Created:
And you haven't defined what evidence you are willing to accept.
I am not interested in quote citation after citation after citation after citation.
Since our conversation started, Laura Ingrham (sp?) of Fox News literally called Trump's own words and declarations "fake news" and asked the audience to disbelieve what they just heard from the man.
Is that something you are interested in entertaining as evidence, or are you just going to keep stating I need evidence over and over again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
According to....?
It seems to me if you concentrate all possible power of government into fewer people, all you have really done is... well, fascism. The exact opposite of "liberalism" I might add.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
That doesn't actually make a differentiation.
By definition, a limited government would be one party, that is much more limited than by say two or three parties.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
You didn't answer my question. As nice as it is to see clarifying definitions, of course.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because you don't know what an opinion is.
"They say that windmills cause cancer" isn't an opinion. Its referencing clear and objective circumstance.
".... cause cancer". This is an objective statement. Something can, or can't cause cancer. It doesn't matter who or what believes it or has an opinion about it.
"They say..." this to is an objective statement. People have or haven't said something.
What Trump stated wasn't some vague opinion. It was an objectively based (".. cause cancer") circumstance that had no grounding in reality. The first part ("They say...") is no more opinion than the second.
Stop playing the fraud. This is why people call you a troll and move on with their life.
You play semantics, poorly, get owned, routinely, and what salient points you have when applicable are just by products of your attempts at misdirection.
No, would you Kindly shut up.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, I accept your concession, you are no longer offering worthwhile posts, on topic posts, or posts defending anything that is really capable of being defended.
It was a good effort on your part though.
Well, not really.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
And what part of spreading rumors isn't a lie?
If I go around saying "They say..." infant of whatever fool story I can concoct, does that make the statement any less of a fabrication?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It is if you are trying to pawn it off as the truth which is exactly what he was doing.
There was no "I think", "maybe they" or "some research indicates"...
I am still interested in finding out who the "they" is, aren't you, Polly? Because if "They say...." and the AREN'T saying, its an um... what do you call it...
oh, right...
A lie.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
btw
The first half was a lie, too.
Secondly, he is repeating the second half (cancer) as it deals it truth and helps his position, despite the fact there is no evidence. I have not heard of anyone claiming windmills cause cancer. I have not seen any research to that effect. I have not even heard rumor to that effect.
Making crap up on the spot is also a lie, too.
- Cordially yours, the King of the Earth
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Okay, who is "they"?
Have you ever heard anyone aside from Trump state something similar?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Secondly WTF honestly says "Oh, Yeah, went to a Metallica concert, got cancer."
or
"Just got back from the gun range, and yup, doctor said I had melanoma."
or
"Quick, hide from the thunder! Cancer!"
C'mon, man.
Created: