Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol but in banana republic world only Law officers can investigate corruption.
Are you even thinking about the things you write? Your argument is that it is somehow undemocratic for the justice system to be in charge of investigating crimes. That one of the foundational principles of democracy.
f you want to be literal, Trump is the head of Law enforcement so only he can investigate corruption...hehe.
No, trump is the head of the justice department so he can order them to investigate. That would be totally normal and legal. Asking a foreign power to specifically target his political rivals is a crime.
Also, asking for information on corruption is not election interference.
That would depend. Saying "you guys really need to do something about corruption in your country" would be fine. saying "you need to do us a favor" and then asking him to specifically target your rival most certainly is election interference. He wasn't asking them to look into corruption, we was asking them to look into Joe Biden.
doesn't play well with independents, who are already against impeachment for political reasons
Impeachment already has majority support with everyone except republicans. People who aren't incredibly biased can see that Trump committed a crime. It isn't that hard considering he has released the evidence to prove it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, then Impeachment is illegal since Pelosi is doing it instead of officer friendly.
I've lost count of how many times I have had to say this to you. What are you even talking about? The constitution is crystal clear that congress has the power to impeach the president. Since he has committed crimes and pretty clearly confessed to them, there is absolutely no reason why he wouldn't be impeached.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Like I said, only Pelosi is allowed to investigate corruption.
No, only law enforcement agencies and congress are allowed to investigate corruption. Why is it unclear to you? Groups that have legal authority to do a thing, are in charge of that thing. Presidents are not allowed to pressure people to investigate their political opponents.
If trump wanted to act legally, he would have had the justice department investigate. He is in charge of them. he could easily have done that. He didn't. He chose to pressure a foreign leader into doing his dirty work, which is a crime. He has released a memo confirming he committed that crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Whether you think looking into Corruption involving Joe to the tune of billions of dollars is a national interest is up for interpretation.
If trump had pressed him to be tougher on corruption in general, that wouldn't be crime. The moment he pressed him to investigate Biden specifically, someone with a good chance of being the next person to run against him, trump committed a crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
The attorney general is denying any knowledge of this and has denied he ever spoke to the Ukrainians. So, no.so trump specifically asked ukraine to cooperate with the attorney general? isn't that trump's job, to further the agenda of the justice department?
If this was entirely above board and legal, they wouldn't have tried to hide it. It would never have been a secret in the 1st place. If trump had referred the issue to the justice department we wouldn't be having this conversation. He didn't. He used the power of his office to coerce a foriegn power to interfere in an election.
That is quite clearly a crime. He can, and almost certainly will, be impeached for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
the things trump did are not that serious. it's questionable whether what he did was even corrupt, let alone illegal.
No, it really isn't. It is a crime to ask for or receive a thing of value from any foreigner which will help you win an election. The moment trump said he needed the Ukrainian president to do him a favor by digging up dirt on Biden, he committed a crime. And given that the white house has released a partial transcript of the call, there is no doubt that he did that. He has all but confessed to committing the crime of which he is accused.
biden may have did some bad things related to ukraine, so trump asked them to investigate. what's the big deal?'
The big deal is it is a crime.
the usa and ukraine has a treaty where they are suppose to cooperate in investigations if they are willing and able.
And if trump wanted an official investigation he has legal paths to do that. He could ask the justice department to investigate or he could ask congress. Both have the power to investigate such things. What he can't do is ask a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political rival and then attempt to cover up that he asked them to. That's a crime.
trump is the leader so it's not far fetched to ask them to look into it.
It isn't far fetched at all. it is a crime though.
if it doesn't look like a duck or quack like one, why should we say these are legal violations?
It is an extremely clear cut case of a crime. Why would we say anything other than that it is a crime?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.
Of course not. You should wait until you have reasonable grounds to do it. Trump has released a memo confessing to a crime. That is a very good reason to start an impeachment inquiry.
I mean Trump can nuke the planet, right?
Yes he can. And having a man with the emotional maturity of an 6 year old with that ability makes most of the world uncomfortable.
It is absolutely clear the ONLY reason Trump was elected was as a check on a massively corrupt, inept, and anti-American Congress.
1) Trump proceeded to fill his cabinet with a bunch of corrupt people. if he was elected to do something, then immediately made it clear he wasn't going to do it, why would that be relevant?
2) the blue wave in 2018 were elected to counter the growing tyranny of trump. You are attempting to argue the narrow election 3 years ago is more relevant that the clearly one sided election 1 year ago. That is some pretty extreme cherry picking.
3) what he was elected to do is irrelevant. He committed a crime and has released documents confirming he committed that crime. This means he needs to be impeached.
If Congress can simply remove that check because it interferes with the status quo, that is the end of the government's system of checks and balances.
Do you not understand how the government works? The president is not supposed to be able to override congress. The power of impeachment is extremely clear that only congress shall have this power. This is exactly how the system of checks and balances was intended to function. People claiming that trump is above the law and it is a coup to remove him for him crimes are attempting to remove any checks and balances on the power of the president. That would be the end of the US' democratic system.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
I honestly dont get the level of hatred that Ivanka and Melania have received.... Theyre both at least 90% smarter and better as people than Trump
Are they? I've never seen much evidence of that. From melania wearing a jacket saying "I don't care, do you?" while a scandal about children locked in cages was raging to Ivanka's constant defense of Trump's indefensible behavior. Ivanka sometimes gives very limited critiques of some policies, but I have never seen any evidence from her that she is particularly smart, has any morals or even that she isn't a criminal.
There are still unanswered questions about her involvement in potential crimes related to the inauguration committee. She was both managing a property used for a party as well as being on the inauguration committee (a charity). She instructed staff to jack up the price of renting the property while directing the charity to pay it. Thus she potentially criminally used charitable donations to directly profit herself and her family. From where i'm sitting she looks pretty much like Donald with a touch more class.
Created:
-->
@Christen
If they don't want to get locked up, don't come to the border in the first place. Simple as that.
That's the same logic as saying, "if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have dressed like that and gotten drunk". That's stupid. Other people's actions don't give you permission to abuse them.
There's no evidence for this.
This was referring to Russian interference. I'm not even sure how to respond to this. There is literally mountains of evidence.
What dictator did he cozy up to? What ally did he alienate?
He cozied up to Kim Jong Un (said they were in love). He cozied up to Rodrigo Duterte ,a man who says he'd be happy to to murder 3 million drug addicts. Trump considently praises him and the direction he's taking his country. There's also Xi from china, Erdogan from Turkey, Putin from russia etc.
What allies did he alienate? pretty much all of them. He's seriously pissed off mexico. Called Canada a national security threat. He leaked classified info Israel gave the US without asking them. The list is extensive.
How does Trump's tax reform screw over the middle class?
The middle class cuts are temporary. The cuts for the rich are permanent. They removed alot of tax deductions from the middle class. So teachers, truckers etc are all much worse off. And when the tax cuts go away in a few years they will be even more worse off.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The president is a check on the Congress, and you can't impeach a president for being "Orangemanbad" and disagreeing with the way Congress normally governs
What are you even talking about? If the majority of congress and 2/3rd of the senate all agree the president has committed offenses worthy of impeachment you absolutely can, and should be able to, impeach him. A president is not a dictator or a kind. He is 1 of the 3 branches of of government. If you can get that much support to remove him, then removing him is warranted. And if removing him was in some way corrupt or unjust, then the people will judge congress and the senate.
Saying that congress can't impeach the president, and that the president is above the law would make the President closer to a temporary King than an elected official.
And that is only if we were willing to even consider the idea that trump is innocent. He has released a memo (partial transcript) where he has already confessed. There is no question if trump is guilty, because he released a memo showing he is. The moment he asked a foreign government to look up dirt on a political rival he committed a crime and an impeachable offense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
REALLY YOU PICK THAT QUESTION, WHICH ACTUALLY IS SITUATIONAL
All questions are situational. You don't consider whether or not you are willing to allow corruption in your administration to be an important question?Considering that many progressives fear that she is willing to sell out to corruption, that is exactly the kind of question she needs to be crystal clear on.
If you can't tell from her looks that she has some native in her, then whatever.
lol, her DNA test said she might have had a native ancestor 6-10 generations ago. That is virtually nothing. I have more than that and I certainly don't consider myself native.
I don't understand how that's remotely relevant to her overall stances and platform.
She went the large majority of her life pretending that she was native when it wasn't true. She got institutional advantages from doing so. It is a huge weak spot for her. Watching how she reacts when people question her lies, and yes this was a lie, is very telling. She snapped at them and changed the subject.
I watched your clip. I saw 8 minutes of softball questions. forgive me if i missed any but they were:
how do you feel about impeachment?
but there was no quid pro quo?
Isn't the vote dead on arrival in the senate?
What do you think of polls?
What do you see on the ground at your rallies?
Will taxes go up for medicare for all?
Are americans willing to pay more in taxes?
Most of the questions were about trump and her polling/rallies. The only questions in there that could possibly be considered as "not easy" were the last 2. But every single interviewer asks her these exact questions in the exact same way. She has had alot of time to practice the answer. This was a softball interview.
I also re-watched the colbert interview. What about that was no easy picnic? She said her most extreme policy was the wealth tax and he jumps in and points out the US used to have a 90% top tax bracket. He asks her about medicare for all, then suggests an argument for how she could sell it. He spent an much time helping her as he did asking questions. The only question in the Colbert interview that might be considered tough was the Iran vs Saudis question, and she didn't answer it. He asked "what would convince president warren that the iranians did this, and if so what would the response be" Her answer was (i'm paraphrasing) "we don't have enough evidence." and "you have to go to congress to bomb people". That didn't answer either question. So that you to directing me to another topic she dodges on. She is very weak on foreign policy.
As a side note, you complained that bernie kept saying people have rights, but in that clip she says medicare is a basic human right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Are we talking about the same person. Warren is a policy wonk. She is eloquent, in the way a law professor is. But that does not inspire people. She does not make me burn with passion, she makes me concerned that she will be another sellout like Obama. Again, she is a policy wonk. I definitely would call her bland. And her hardline stances are watered down Bernie stances. Are they hard line when she's standing in Bernie's shadow?You don't seem to understand what Warren has over the rest. She justifies why the Right-Wing approach is wrong with logic and facts, sure emotions too but very eloquently expressed ones. She is an actual politicians who makes you burn with passion as you listen to her, whether you love or hate her you cannot call her bland and refusing to take hardline stances.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Warren was asked the other day something along the lines of "if you were president, would the child of your VP be allowed to sit on the board of a foreign energy company". Her answer was "No. I don't, I don't, I, I, don't, know. I mean I would have to go back and look details, on the plan" That is not an answer. That is a complete non answer.
But frankly, the hardest part is getting a media outlet to ask her a tough question. CNN just did a big sit down interview and they didn't ask her about any of any substance. They went on and on about how she proposed to her husband. Not 1 single question that actually mattered in the entire interview. Elizibeth warren doesn't have to dodge hard questions because the media has already decided she is the chosen one and won't ask her.
When asked in an interview in 2012 if she had any photos to support her long standing claim of having native american heritage, she snapped "I have lots of photos, they're not for you".
Warren has lots of issues where she will dodge and evade. It's hard for me to get clips for you because the media stopped asked them.
Do you think bernie is unclear in this interview? He seems pretty clear to me and he is clear that it isn't just a moral issue, it is also an economic one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Bernie is a progressive follower, Warren is a progressive leader.
I'm sorry, what? Bernie has been leading on progressive issues for decades. Warren was full on against progressive ideas 20 years ago. Even today, she hedges on alot of progressive ideas. It is not clear what her healthcare plan is. She co-signed bernie's plan. but now she is staying vague about what exactly she believes. Most of Warren's platform are ideas that bernie has been pushing for for alot longer.
"People just have rights y'know, they need the rich's money because they are sleeping on the street and the rich are so rich and therefore the rich are wrong."
1) where did you get that quote. Taking one quote out of context isn't helpful
2) Are you mad that Bernie want's humans to have rights? Are you arguing that humans shouldn't have rights and should be left to starve?
Warren understands realism, she comprehends how to have fluid pragmatism still match rigid idealism.
I agree she understands realism. And if her realism says that people can't have universal health care because it would be too hard to implement. She wont fight for it. She will give in and get a half measure like Obama did. It will help some people, but the underlying problem is still there festering until we get another Trump.
There is genuinely no American prominent politician other than her who will fully answer all questions you hit her with, straight up
That's funny, because Bernie does answer those questions. Warren remains cagey about many of them. Like medicare for all or her foreign policy for example. She doesn't like giving details on those. Or how she pledged no corporate money in the primary, then rolled millions of dollars in corporate money from a previous campaign. oops, guess that wasn't part of the promise. She doesn't like answer questions about stuff like that either.
I'll stick with the woman who will actually get things done for the poor, the environment and basically every good thing that politics should fight for.
But will she? She says she will. So did Obama. Then he got elected and gave in to the centrists and the republicans. He was a realist too. Her willingness to actually fight for the things she very recently started believing in is a reason for progressives to choose someone who has always been consistent in their beliefs and has always been on the right side.
Warren has, until the last few years, only been a moderate Dem. She has managed to build a platform on the energy that Bernie built in 2016. To claim that she is somehow a leader when she refused to lead (when bernie asked her to) and instead chose to follow Hillary, seems silly to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
i can't believe you need to keep hearing this. Just because a percentage of people believe something, does not make that thing reality. A sizable percentage of people believe alot of stupid things, like that we never landed on the moon or that the earth is flat. Opinion polls do not tell us if those things are true.
opinion polls can tell you that people believe, today, that biden can beat trump. It tells you absolutely nothing about what opinion will be once trump begins tearing Biden to pieces. i attempted to engage in a discussion of the weaknesses of Biden that make him losing to trump likely, you pointed back to polls of what people think today. That is a useless discussion to have because those polls are certainly going to move.
I pointed to real examples of biden being confused, disoriented and just plain nuts in some cases. You pointed to polls where people said they would still vote for him. That doesn't tell you anything about why they would still vote for him. Maybe they didn't watch the debate, maybe they only saw clips on MSNBC that showed Biden make sense, maybe the only thing they know about him is that he was Obama's VP. In all of those cases, the moment they see the issues I attempted to highlight to you, they would be repulsed by Biden. But to you, Biden's deficiencies as a candidate are somehow not relevant. All that matters is that the polling today shows that about 30% of people don't see those deficiencies.
Polling is a useful tool. But to pretend that you can ignore the rest of reality and only look at polling is foolish. I'm sorry you think that looking objectively at the candidates makes people a "dipshit". You can go back to drinking the MSNBC cool aid now. Or are you more of a fox news man?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I never said it wasn't admirable to change. I am going to use an extreme case to highlight my point, i am in no way attempting to argue that anyone in this discussion is this terrible.Her changing from Republican to Democrat is actually an extremely admirable thing. Shows she actually saw for herself the flaws of the right-wing bullshit, despite every pressure from family and friends to keep believing it.
What if she had been a member of the Nazi party? Was fully in favor of politically targeting the jews. Then late in WW2 decided that nazi's weren't the right party for her and she says she likes people of other races. Would you believe her, would you be willing to make her your president?
It is admirable to acknowledge that you were wrong. But to spend the majority of your life being one thing, then suddenly telling everyone you are now the opposite should raise some warning flags. She spent 49 years not believing in progressive principles, and now she is claiming to be one of the most progressive. In a world of politicians who will lie to your face to get elected, why should we trust someone so late to being a progressive when Bernie has been a progressive the whole time. There is no question that bernie will do what he says. Alot of people question whether Warren will do what she says.
I have never once, not even for a single speech, seen Bernie speak eloquently or even in coherent logic regardless of grammar and points
Bernie has written a considerable number of bills that have been passed into law. I don't think there is any question that he is a capable legislator. What you appear to be criticizing is that he doesn't speak like a law professor. This criticism seems to be entirely on style, not substance. And many people prefer that style.
He seems to just state random things as 'rights' and things that don't suit his taste as 'not something I wanna go into, that's just bad bad' kind of childish logic.
This kind of sounds like you have only listened to things he says in sound bytes. Bernie has detailed plans for all sorts of things from banking regulation to agricultural reform. Your opinion of him appears to be the caricature painted by outlets like MSNBC.
Bernie Sanders literally (not metaphorically) believes it's evil to be rich and that you should be punished for it via taxation.
I believe the more accurate interpretation of his views is that income inequality is evil. There is no reason for the vast majority of the wealth of a country to be owned by a few people. Taxation isn't punishment. That is a right wing talking point. The rich can afford to pay more than the poor can. Considering that the top .1% of the population own most of the wealth in the country they can afford to pay alot more. Bernie thinks that taxation can be a useful tool to make sure that all the wealth doesn't end up in the hands of the very top of society, which is exactly what has been happening for decades.
Warren is a realist
In the modern political climate, realist translates as "someone who doesn't want change". Warren wants to make changes in the margins to sand down some of the rough edges of a corrupt system. She wants to treat some of the symptoms of a debilitating disease, but it is unclear if she wants to address the disease.
given that she wants to accept donations from billionaires and corporations, is courting the centrist dems, and has a long history of being a republican before having a short history as a progressive, there is good reason to believe that she will shift right as soon as she gets the nomination. Bottom line is that sanders can be trusted beyond a doubt to stay progressive. There are big question marks around whether Warren can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Presents the closest thing to tangible and factual evidence available showing Biden does well in debates
You showed more polls. That is not evidence he did well. That is evidence that people who watched recaps on the news (which don't show his rambling) interpreted it as well. That is exactly what I am talking about. You refuse to talk about the weaknesses of the candidate and go right back to polls. You only seem to be capable of looking at 1 specific metric. So again, if you want to limit discussions to only 1 kind of information while ignoring everything else, you go right ahead. But that is a useless discussion to have.
you refuse to incorporate reality and evidence into your opinions despite being given multiple opportunities to do so
Taking a page out of trump's book I see. Accuse others of doing the things you are guilty of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Translation: "You seem to be looking only at tangible facts and evidence and ignoring my own personal biased opinion" XD
No translation, you are insisting that we only look at 1 specific piece of information while ignoring other critically important information that you would prefer to ignore. How people feel about a candidate today is an important thing to consider. The characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of a candidate is important to consider when attempting to draw conclusions about how things will proceed.
However you don't seem to want to discuss the candidates at all. You only want to look at polling. And if you want to have a narrow discussion that is not particularly useful, go right ahead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
What are you talking about? Bernie has been pushing harder and longer for pretty much everything in Warren's platform? Bernie made it left wing views mainstream when he ran against hilary, and warren refused many calls for her to run. She also then endorsed hilary over bernie.
Warren has been more progressive than centerist dems for the last 10 years or so. But before that she was a republican who believed in right wing ideas. Bernie has been pushing progressive ideas for decades.
How can you possibly give credit to Warren for these things becoming accepted? She arrived late to the party and her platform is full of watered down versions of plans Bernie came up with.
Created:
-->
@thett3
I'm not just alleging that whites committed more crimes that weren't charged. I'm also alleging that blacks were charged with more crimes than they should have which also inflates the stats.
For example, a black person is doing something a white cop doesn't like, lets say he is loitering, so the cop harasses him and tells him he has to go home. The black guy pushes the cop, the cop charges him with assault. In this example it might not have required a cop to get involved at all. Loitering isn't exactly a high priority crime. Even if it did, the cop being aggressive escalated the issue and made it into a confrontation. The cop then had the choice to charge him or not. In all 3 stages a white person would be treated differently. in this example there was either no crime at all, or the black guy was significantly overcharged for what occurred. This type of behavior inflates crime stats.
Then there are plea bargains. Prosecutors are much more likely to give a good plea bargain to a white person. If you got doing something violent but get plea bargained down to a non violent crime, then that violent crime doesn't show up in the stats. If black people don't get plea bargained down to non violent crimes as often, then their stats look much higher.
There are numerous levels that all influence institutional racism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There is no statute of limitations on corruption.
I didn't claim there was. I said it was investigated already and there was no wrong doing. Why are you not reading the things i write?
To who? The ambassador? We don't use the FBI or Congress to talk to Ambassadors.
What are you even talking about? This is law enforcement. There are mechanisms in place for law enforcement agencies to request information from other law enforcement agencies in other countries. This happens all the time. it does not usually involve the ambassador. A criminal investigation is not a diplomatic issue. Please stop trying to muddy the water.
The left has been using the Alphabet agencies to deliver a soft coup against Trump since he came down the escalator.
I think you are mistaking a coup (a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government) with oversight. One of the constitutional requirements of congress is to provide oversight of the executive branch. They are required by the constitution to make sure that the executive branch are obeying the law. Using powers granted to them by the constitution is not a coup. It is literally their job. And again, you are trying to shift the conversation away from "Trump committed crimes" to "well the dems are bad". This is a deflection. You can't defend trump's actions so you try to point at someone else.
So suggesting the Alphabet agencies should be in charge of foreign relations and foreign requests is just an extension of that soft coup to weaken the presidency
No, it is part of law enforcement. Law enforcement agencies are in charge of law enforcement. They always have been. How is that unclear? Politicians trying to get foreign governments to go after their opponents is Banana Republic territory. At least nixon only hired Americans to commit his crimes. Trump is pulling foreign governments into them as well.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
@thett3
Just to add to what RationalMadman said, Black people are also several times more likely to be charged with a crime than a white person. This isn't a hate crime but is an easy example, the case of Brock Turner. Despite being guilty of multiple counts of rape and sexual assault he only ended up being sentenced to 6 months in prison. He got released 3 months early too. If a black teenager had been the rapist they would have thrown the book at him. I mean people were still calling the central park 5 guilty even after DNA exonerated them.
In that example it was a judge's bias. But police and prosecutors have this bias too. If they catch a white person committing a minor crime they are several times more likely to send them off with a warning or to charge them with a lesser crime. So the stats can be very misleading if you take them out of context.
Those stats will not show you the number of times police decided not to charge a white person of harassing or abusing a black person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Polls taken after literally every debate in 2016 indicated that people believed Hillary won, all of them.
This depends very much on what you consider to be winning. Trump's goal wasn't to look like a brilliant statesman. It was to slander Hillary. He was able to effectively do that. Trump won by firing up his base and depressing democratic turnout. They saw all the dirt he threw at Hillary, and because much of it was at least somewhat based in reality, alot of it stuck. Biden is just as dirty as Hillary, if not more so. He has a long history of terrible record that Trump will beat him over the head with. Trump just has to convince enough people that Biden is dirty so they don't vote for him. He doesn't have to win over any new voters.
It's also worth noting that Hilary was alot more coherent and competent that Biden currently is. There is no reason to think he could do as well as she did.
But I don't see any reason to think this conversation will be any more fruitful. You seem very set on looking only at polling and completely ignoring the reality of the candidate.
Joe Biden is not up to campaigning. He is consistently disoriented and nonsensical. You might be right and people continue ignoring what he is saying and he wins the primary. But people will actually watch the debates against trump. And Joe has no chance of surviving once the mud starts flying.
But in my opinion, Joe's weaknesses will continue to erode his support and he will not be the nominee.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's not a crime when it's also of value to the entire nation.
two things
1) it is not of value to the entire nation. He is asking them to dig into something that has already been investigated. It was determined there was nothing criminal.
2) it absolutely is a crime even if it were of value to the entire nation. If he thought that this was worthy of investigating, he would have sent it to congress or to the FBI. They could request assistance from the Ukrainian government in their investigation. That would be totally legal. He did not do that. He held back their aid money, then called them and asked them to do him a favor. That's a crime.
Trump had legal paths to request an investigation into this. These sorts of requests are not uncommon. And since the secretary of state, attorney general and Trump's personal attorney were involved, he must have known what those paths were. He instead chose to ask the president of the country to force an investigation into a political rival, which is illegal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is clearly and verifiably not true. Russia does NOT allow requests of any kind from the FBI.
Are you actually reading what I write fully? The very next line was "They are not required to comply if they don't want to."
No Russia isn't going to comply with requests from the FBI. But they are one of america's greatest enemies in the world. They aren't going to comply with anything america asks for unless it benefits Putin. Ukraine is relying on american assistance to fight off Russia. Do you really think they would refuse to cooperate with the justice department when america could cut off vital assistance they need? And even if they did, a foreign government refusing to do what you want them to, is not grounds to commit crimes in America.
Trump asking for a favor from a foreign country to help him in an election is a crime. Full stop. Nothing anyone says from this point on can change that. The memo they released confirms he is guilty of that crime.
Now moving on from that irrefutable fact, we can try to establish exactly if and how he misused the power of his office to help him in the commission of that crime. But asking for a thing of value, in this case dirt on a political opponent, is a crime. No matter how much you try to muddy the water to avoid that fact, I will keep reminding you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you even know what the word Jurisdiction means?
Yes, do you? It is the official power to make legal decisions and judgments. It means that inside the borders of Ukraine, they have the power to investigate. Trump is trying to pretend that Joe Biden acted improperly. That would be a crime against america. Ukraine would have no jurisdiction over that. If Hunter had somehow committed a crime and Joe Biden acted perfectly within his bounds, then this would in no way be a scandal for Joe Biden. The truth is Ukraine already investigated and determined no crimes were committed. The most charitable reading I can see is that Trump is just such a vengeful dick that he wanted to try to have Biden's son imprisoned to spite Joe.
They are most certainly not "allowed" to do this by every nation. The only thing they are "allowed" to do is abide by extradition treaties regarding criminals in foreign nations.
That isn't true at all. Law enforcement agencies fairly regularly request documents or additional evidence from foreign law enforcement agencies. They are not required to comply if they don't want to. But in order to conduct an investigation legally in america, you have to go through congress or a law enforcement agency. Coercing a foreign leader into digging up dirt on your opponent is a crime.
Again, this is a matter of diplomacy. You don't conduct diplomacy with alphabet agencies. That's fucking retarded to think that's how diplomacy is done.
No one is talking about diplomacy. We are talking about law enforcement. Law enforcement is done via agencies or congress. It is most certainly not done by pressuring foreign leaders to go after your enemies. And if it were diplomacy they would have sent a diplomat, not personal attorneys to the president with no legal connection to the US government. I mean Trump literally said he wanted the Attorney General of the US to call the President of Ukraine about this. AGs do not engage in diplomacy. That is not diplomacy, that is conspiracy to commit a crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because using espionage over diplomacy isn't smart.
Who said anything about espionage? The FBI is allowed to request documents from other governments for the purposes of an official investigation. A politician is not allowed to go digging for political dirt from foreigners. I'm not sure how this is confusing you.
I don't know why you have this weird idea that the FBI or Congress has jurisdiction in Ukraine to investigate anything. How did you ever get that idea?
Again, who said anything about having jurisdiction over them? if the allegation is that Joe Biden acted inappropriately in his use of his position of VP, then that is a matter for american law enforcement and congress. Law enforcement or congress can request co-operation from Ukraine to assist in their investigation. What you can't do is have a politician abuse their office and try to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on his opponent.
Trump controls the DOJ. He could have asked them to open a formal investigation if he felt it was warranted. But that would open them up to a level of scrutiny they clearly wanted to avoid. They knew that there would be no evidence of wrong doing. So they just tried to coerce Ukraine to suggest there might be evidence, which would be enough to smear Joe Biden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Listen to what info? The Ukrainians didn't come up to him out of the blue and say they had information they wanted to give him. He is the one asking them to look into it. That is a crime. If he wanted it investigated that is a matter for the justice department or congress. It is not a matter for the president of Ukraine. The moment he asked them to look into it instead of the justice department, he committed a crime.Look into what? Doesn't he have to listen to the info first before he can then pass said info onto the DOJ?
And every politician involved in any election will never be able to ask for information that can then be passed along to the DOJ or FBI.
Why would a politician need to ask a foreign government for this info? If they suspect a crime has occurred they would ask law enforcement to investigate. Then the law enforcement agency can perform the investigation. Outside of a congressional investigation, no politician should be asking foreigners for dirt on their opponent.
If you allow foreign governments to interfere in elections in that way, then you are enabling politicians with corrupt contacts with those countries to have an advantage over honest politicians who don't have close contacts with potentially hostile foreign powers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If trump actually wanted this investigated legally, he would have referred it to the justice department. They could have had law enforcement look into this. He could have pushed the senate or congress to look into it. He didn't do either of those things.
What he did do, was potentially illegally order that aid money approved by congress not be given to ukraine. He then got on a call with them and when they brought up getting more defensive weapons, he asked them to do him a favor.
That is not a legitimate investigation. That is an abuse of power. He is using the power and influence of his office to coerce a foreign government into helping him win an election.
They had access to ways to get an investigation legally. Bill Bar, Giuliani and Mike Pompeo were all in on this. They must have told him what the normal or legal methods were. But he still went with the illegal one. This should tell you that he never wanted a real investigation, because it would show there was nothing there and Biden could use that conclusion to defend himself. Trump wanted just enough info to smear Biden, but no investigation to determine there was nothing there.
But ultimately, his motives for choosing the illegal path are irrelevant for the base question. Asking a foreign government to look into dirt on his political opponent is a crime. Why, when, and how he chose to do this could very easily open him up to more crimes, but asking was, all on it's own, a crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If Trump cannot ask anyone, foreign or domestic
The law says you cannot ask for or receive a thing of value from a foreigner to help you in an election. Not domestic. If you want to hire Americans to investigate that is legal.
the obviously dubious behavior of a political rival
What he was asking about wasn't even "dubious". Several western governments wanted that prosecutor gone. The staff on the ground in Ukraine wanted him gone because he wasn't investigating corruption. Biden was the guy tasked with going to Ukraine and getting it done, but it wasn't his idea. It wasn't his policy. And it didn't benefit him. His son was not being investigated by the corrupt official. Once biden had successfully gotten him removed, the next appointee did investigate the company Hunter worked for. If anything Biden pushed to have his son investigated.
his travel to these countries along with his father, the latter acting in his official capacity — all raise significant questions
sort of. I agree that is the sort of scummy thing that all elected politicians end up doing and it is despicable. Which is why we need a real progressive to become president and put a stop to it. It is not however illegal to do this stuff. Most of the members of Trump's government are doing similar things as well. That is not to forgive others for their shitty behavior, but if you are going to point fingers at dems for this behavior, you should be willing to accept the Trump and his team are just as dirty.
the Benghazi and Clinton Foundation investigations undertaken by Congress were illegitimate the day they began because they had political consequences
No. Part of the duties of congress is to provide oversight. They have the power to investigate. If trump had gotten the senate or congress to open an official inquiry into it and they had asked for information, that would be legal. No one has ever questioned congress' right to investigate. Trump asking ukraine to dig up dirt on his rivals is still illegal.
it cannot reasonably be said that Donald Trump’s words, deeds, and associates made that investigation unreasonable from the get-go.
Of course it can. He asked for a thing of value from a foreigner to help him in an election. That is a crime from the get-go. The president is not supposed to be investigating people. That is what law enforcement agencies are for.
Opponents of the president have elevated his person above his position, deciding that the practice of executive power itself is illegitimate because of who has been elected to wield it.
There is no executive investigative power. That is why we have congress and law enforcement. If trump had gone to one of them and asked for an official investigation, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. That would be totally normal. We are having it because trump broke the law and asked a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.
When trump asked them for that "favor" he broke the law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hillary asking GPS fusion to put together a pee tape to smear Trump with the help of foreign assets.
1) She didn't. That was funded by republicans. The Clinton then continued funding it later.
2) Fusion GPS is an american company. They are not, by definition, a foreigner.
That is not a crime. If you believe it is, then please tell me what crime was committed.
Hillary asking Crowdstrike to hide her server from the FBI in Ukraine.
I'm not aware of any evidence that she did this. However her emails were thoroughly investigated by the FBI.
Trump asking for the Crowdstrike server.
I haven't heard anyone saying this was a crime. It was stupid, but not a crime as far as I know. He was asking them to look into a conspiracy theory that has been debunked.
Trump asking Zelensky to look into corruption involving Biden.
This is indisputably a crime. Asking a foreigner for any "thing of value" to help you in an election is a crime. The only people pretending like this isn't a crime are people like Sean Hannity. Most republican members of government just keep repeating it isn't worth impeaching over. Most aren't really denying it is wrong or a crime.
And that is just if he did this as a private citizen, it would be a crime. As president it is worse. He is using the power of his office to help him commit what i have already established is a crime. So you are now talking about a president abusing the power of his office to him commit and then cover up a crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
biased opinion or gross over-exaggeration
You keep saying that the things I say are opinion or gross exaggeration, but then you proceed to respond with things that are opinion or gross exaggeration.
That might have helped her if she ran in 2016, but its not going to matter this time around
Disagree. i understand that super delegates are less likely to play an important role. But being the Neo-Lib "center" candidate is all biden has. If even the democratic establishment doesn't want him that is going to hurt him. Both in the media starting to show him for the train wreck he is, in the lack of endorsement from other dems etc.
The gap between Biden with Sanders/Warren ensures that it will though, and the fact that you label Biden as a 'right wing candidate' proves that
No it doesn't. I just explained to you why. If you look at people's 2nd choices, they are rarely anywhere close to the ideology of their 1st choice. The majority of the electorate simply doesn't pay close enough attention to see the differences. You or I might look at the policy positions of the candidates and decide which one is the best choice, but most people don't. They have 1 or 2 issues they care about and that determines their vote. It's the same reason why religious people vote for a man who sexually assaults women and has multiple divorces. They only care about abortion. Well informed voters will vote on the policy and ideology of the candidate. The other 85% of people will not.
Trump can barely speak complete sentences, dont make him out to be some sort of master debater
True. But he is an expert at saying lots of things without saying anything at all. He absolutely crushed the republicans in the primary debates. He crushed hilary too. He is good at spinning things and making innuendo that sounds like it makes sense. If you were to look into it you can see it didn't make sense, but 85% of people won't do that. Biden has a long and very shitty political history. There is alot of very justifiable criticism of his record. The trump team will dig it all up and trump will use it to keep Biden on the defensive. And since much of it is based in fact, the innuendo will hard to fight and it will stick. We've already seen that Biden doesn't do all that well at being on the defensive. Trump will crush him.
you could argue that Palin and Trump have similar debating styles
The difference is that Trump was able to succeed with it and Palin was not. Also, that was over 10 years ago. As i keep reminding you and you fail to acknowledge, Biden is not as sharp as he used to be.
his numbers only slid once before swiftly recovering
When Biden announced he was running, he was polling at like 35-40%. He is now polling at 25-30%. He has had a serious decline in support. Elizabeth warren is now polling as the leader in recent polls. Biden hasn't slid as fast as many believed he would, but he is still sliding.
1/10th as incompetent as you make him out to be, he would have already lost all of his support after the first batch of debates
Clearly not. The media is not showing how incompetent he is. When they play clips on the news they aren't showing his nonsense, they only show the parts where he is coherent. They simultaneously go out of their way to smear people like Yang, Tulsi, Sanders etc. The only way for people to see how bad he is is by watching several hours of debate, which the large majority will not do. But as the media lines up behind warren, hopefully they will be less reticent to point out how bad Biden really is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Since Warren and Sanders are the furthest to the left, the more moderate and centrist faction of the party have ONLY Biden as their option to support
Much of the reporting I have seen says that alot of the powers in the democratic party are now pushing for Warren. you can see this in the news coverage of her as well. They have stopped attacking warren and are only attacking Sanders. Warren is being pushed as the compromise candidate.
only Biden has a chance at winning the nomination, which is why centrists and moderates will gravitate towards him.
You just hit the nail on the head. Alot of Biden's support rests on the idea that he can win. Very few people actually like him. Very few people are energized by the thought of a Biden Presidency. A chunk of the electorate are willing to hold their nose and vote for him because they think he can win. But his poll numbers are falling. Warren is in 1st place in some of them now and that downward trend for him will likely continue. As it becomes more established that he is no longer the front runner, alot of those people who were parking their vote with him because "he can win" will move to another candidate once it is clear he won't win. He's like a tent with only 2 poles holding it up. If one of those polls starts to fall, it is all coming down.
Its very rare for a massive number of people to all at once shift their political beliefs further to the right or left within a primary cycle.
Most voters aren't voting based on where the candidate is on the political spectrum. They are voting based on emotion. You can see this in the 2nd choices for candidates. Biden is a right wing candidate. Biden being your 1st choice and Sanders being your 2nd choice makes no sense if you are voting based on platform. If that actually mattered to them then their 2nd choice would have been one the 1%ers I have already forgotten about. But no one does. Political ideology will not keep people supporting Biden as his supports continues to slide.
The second thing that shields Biden is the fact that he performs better then either Sanders or Warren in head-to-heads against Trump. Voters in this cycle value a candidate's ability to beat Trump more then valuing candidates who advocate policies they agree with.
You are right that this is important, but I disagree with your conclusion. The head to heads show biden with a bit of a lead over sanders. But not a huge one. But as i keep saying, have you actually watched Biden speak? He gets confused about where he is, who he is talking to, what he is supposed to be talking about. Trump would eat him alive on a debate stage and talk circles around him. The current polls show he has a slight edge. The reality of his physical and mental condition says otherwise. You watched a Neo-Liberal (hilary) implode while trying to fight trump. Do you really want to put another Neo-Liberal who is older and less competent up for round 2? He will get eaten alive.
As this gets closer to the actual voting more pressure will be on Biden than ever and i don't think people are going to like what he has to say, assuming they can even understand what he is talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I seriously doubt Congress has the power to prevent Giuliani from going to Ukraine and getting the info from the Crowdstrike server along with anything else that Zelensky wants to offer him.
Asking a foreigner for dirt on a political opponent is a crime. Sending your personal lawyer, who is not a government employee, on a diplomatic mission to further that crime, is also a crime. Giuliani is in danger at this point. He has assisted his client in carrying out a crime. He could be disbarred or charged with a crime himself. Not to mention the potential consequences if he refuses to obey the subpoenas. They might not be able to indict Trump, but they could indict Giuliani.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Thank you for the additional information.
I don't disagree with large chunks of what you said. if the vote were held today there is a good chance Biden would win. The problem for Biden is that the vote isn't today. He has to get through 4 more months of this. Every time he talks, more people lose interest in him. His platform itself is terrible, but that isn't his primary problem. He is just very clearly not up to running a primary campaign, let alone a general election, and god forbid being president.
He seems to only have the energy to go for an hour or 2 before he starts getting increasingly nonsensical. He can't remember the names of who he is talking to. For example he has messed up Barack Obama's name several times. He once stumbled for about for 5 or 6 seconds before just saying "my boss". During the last debate he kept referring to people as "The senator on my left" or "the senator on my right".
When asked about his opinion on a comment he made about reparations, he went on a semi-deranged rant about education, record players, and sending social workers into people's homes.
He is basically running on 2 main planks.
1) He can beat Trump. But as he goes on crazy rants, it becomes obvious this isn't true. As his poll numbers continue to go down, this argument will collapse entirely. As this image of "the guy who can beat trump" falls away, so will a significant chunk of his support.
2) He wants to take the country back to the obama era. But the problem is that the obama era is what brought about trump in the 1st place. Making minor changes to a failing system is not what most people want. They don't all agree on what changes they want, but the vast majority of people know that change is needed.
As more people actually pay attention to the things Biden is saying and not just saying they support him because he was Obama's VP his polls will continue to slide as they have been since pretty much the moment he announced. At the rate he is going, I don't think his current level of support is sustainable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Agreed, both of them are Neo-Libs who were neck deep in the general political corruption of washington. No more or less so than most of the senior leadership of both parties.I was referring to Bill who was impeached for a felony process crime. But yeah the same applies to Hillary.
But Trump has committed real crimes that were actually abusing his power as president. If republicans are willing to accept that the president is above the law and can do whatever he wants, then is it actually a democracy any more?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Can I ask what your personal opinion on this is? Are you a republican or a democrat? Who do you think is the best nominee and why?
Last time I tried to discuss this with you you began a string of ad hominem attacks. So I would like some context if that is possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
In this context, it means to abuse the power of the office of the president. The president is supposed to be someone who can be trusted to use the power they are given in a manner that is good for everyone. Trump has abused that power the entire time he has been president. For the most part it has been really shitty, but not exactly criminal. Things like diverting federal employees, the military etc to stay at his personal properties so that he can make millions off of the government, assigning wildly unqualified family members and friends to important positions. However in this case, the memo he released is an admission of guilt. Asking the president of Ukraine to help him attack Joe biden is a crime. Full stop.Not in my eyes. What does it mean to "betray your country" anyway in an age of peace and prosperity?
Trump has famously said he could shoot a person and his cultists would still vote for him (i'm paraphrasing). If he can release a document confessing to a crime and your response is that you don't care, it would appear that he can commit any crimes he wants and people like you will cheer him on. If the rest of the public is as partisan as you are, then your democracy is doomed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There is a difference between a mildly corrupt politician and one that has betrayed his office and his country. Trump has proven he doesn't care what the law is. He only cares about himself. If he needs to rely on Ukraine or Russia to get what he wants that is fine to him. He would turn on anyone and everyone if he thought it would make him richer or more powerful.That's what elections are for, so the people can pick between the least corrupt person assuming both are corrupt to some degree.
He needs to be removed from office at the earliest possible date.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't recall ever seeing evidence that Hilary committed any crimes. And if you meant Bill, then yeah he likely did, but it was about a personal issue. So it was stupid to impeach over.Not really. I wasn't upset that Clinton committed a felony. It had no impact on my life at all.
This isn't just a felony though. He has abused the power of his office to interfere in an American election. He has betrayed his oath of office. He has colluded with a foreign power. This does affect your life. If he is willing to extort a foreign country to protect himself, what other crimes is he committing and/or will he commit? This absolutely affects you and every other american. If this kind of behavior is not worthy of impeachment, then literally nothing is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Does it not bother you that he is a criminal? Or do you just ignore it and pretend it isn't there?With a Congress willing to codify his agenda into law lasting long after 2024.
Even beyond that, for the 1st two years of his presidency they had the house, senate and presidency. they still couldn't get anything done. It isn't democrats preventing trump from accomplishing things. He is so incredibly incompetent that even with the government totally in republicans hands they couldn't get their agenda into law.
Created:
Posted in:
The problem isn't the number of humans. The problem is the technology we have chosen to use (fossil fuels, meat heavy diets etc). If we cleaned up our act then the population we have now would not be an issue. But there are alot of companies that profit from the way things are now, so trying make the changes needed is being fought every step of the way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
She's right. Donald trump abused the power of his office for his own personal gain. That is exactly the kind of offense impeachment was designed to deal with. Congress can either choose to do the job they were elected to do and impeach him, or they can let him get away with his crimes and set a precedent that presidents are above the law.Pelosi is actually honest.
If the american people want to punish congress for doing it's job, then they deserve having a complete moron as president.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Adam Schiffs quote was thus
Schiff is kind of an idiot. A parady requires it to be for comedy. No one is laughing that the president has betrayed his oath of office.
Why would Zelensky (informally) state many times he was not pressured by Trump?
Because trump is president and will be until 2020. Ukraine is fighting a war right now against russia. It is in his best interest to say whatever he has to in order to keep the aid flowing. He has nothing to gain by saying anything that trump doesn't want him to.
Former members of Zelensky's government have said that it was understood a call with trump wouldn't happen if they were not open to investigating Biden.
It is one thing to say what someone's motive was without evidence. It is quite another to lay out what the chain of events was and find the most logical explanation of it was.
1) trump cuts off aid to Ukraine. He doesn't tell anyone he has done this and has his agencies lie about what caused the aid to be blocked.
2) a few days later trump has a call with ukraine where they say they are ready for more weapons, which trump is currently blocking them from getting.
3) immediately following the ukrainians saying they are ready for more defensive weapons, trump responds with "I would like you to do us a favor though" and then proceeds to ask them to dig up dirt on a political opponent, Joe biden. Incidentally, this was in and of itself a crime
4) Trump sends his personal attorney to Ukraine to push them and dig up dirt. He was not an employee of the US government, he only represented the interests of Trump as his personal lawyer.
5) After the call the trump government "locked down" transcripts of the call keeping them in a computer reserved for classified information which is a breach of procedure.
6) when a whistle blower reported this, it was determined credible. The trump government then instructed the acting DNI to break the law by refusing to turn over the whistle blower complaint to congress as he was required to do.
The chain of events suggest that trump cut off aid to pressure ukraine. As he didn't tell anyone else he was doing this, there is no one else he could have been pressuring. He when asked about more weapons, trump made it clear they needed to do him a favor and he detailed that they had to look into his political rivals.
While we cannot say with certainty yet his motives were to extort Ukraine, the evidence makes that the most likely conclusion. I have yet to hear any other explanation that makes sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Starting up an impeachment with a parody skit is really bad optics
That isn't a parody. The ukrainians said they were ready for more weapons to defend themselves. the very next words out of trump's mouth were "I need you to do me a favor though". People who don't want to see it for what it is wills say, oh that is just how trump talks. Most people will look at that and say the ukrainians were asking about getting more aid, which trump held back just before the call. Trump responds with they have to do him a favor. Schiff was trying to get that across. But i will agree he didn't do it all that well.
As far as the GOP turning their back..it's pure bait to get an actual vote on the floor.
That doesn't really make sense. No one is expecting or needing republicans to support the floor vote. The fact that virtually no republican elected official is defending what trump said, and many of them are agreeing what he did was wrong, is not good for Trump. They aren't willing to go as far as to openly criticize him,but they aren't really defending him either. It's also interesting that some hosts on fox news have admitted that trump has committed a crime as well. If fox turns on him, he is really in trouble.
The house is going to impeach trump. Likely before christmas based on the timeline dems have been saying. If more evidence comes out that makes this continue to get worse for Trump, then Trump's approval rating might slide. If that happens the senate might turn on him. If it doesn't they will continue to play dumb and ignore trump's crimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think he is talking about the actual vote to impeach, not to start an inquiry.
and wow, that guy is really out of touch. The moderate dems starting pushing pelosi to impeach too. That is why she pulled the trigger on it. Of the 223 house democrats, only 12 have not come out publicly supporting impeachment. Only 11 democrats in seats that are considered toss ups do not support impeachment.
He is also underplaying the response of republicans. Virtually no one is saying trump did the right the thing on that call. They all know it's bad. The argument they have tried to make is that it isn't bad enough to warrant impeaching him, or that there isn't a smoking gun. The republicans don't really want to back trump on this. If they think they can get away with turning on him, politically, they will do it in a heart beat.
This guy is basing his opinion on very little.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I think for people like neo-libs and neo-cons, the better label is corporatist. They don't care about right wing or left wing ideology. They care about making the rich richer and helping their corporate donors get away with anything, as long as the campaign donations flow in.
If that means using public money to bail out private companies, using the power of government to protect specific companies that fund them etc. they are all for it.
These people all need to be run out of office.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
no worries. I can get dickish sometimes as well. Could you direct me to a source where they say there needs to be a vote on starting an inquiry? As far as i can tell the inquiry is ongoing right now, so if I am missing something I would like to read up on it.Sorry for coming across as a dick, I was drinking beer yesterday.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I have read numerous articles on the subject. Every one of them says the impeachment inquiry has already begun. There is no reference to a vote being needed to begin the inquiry. If you think that this is incorrect please provide a source.Do you understand that resolutions have to be voted on? This is sad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you even know what the 4 resolutions on the table are right now?
No, that is why I asked you to provide a source like 3 comments ago. If you had provided a source for your assertion we could have avoided this detour where I needed to try to find evidence to prove or disprove your point. You could simply answer me and not be a dick about it. That would make this discussion much easier to have.
Created: