Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On January 31 2020 07:11 KwarK wrote: I thought his argument was that Trump subjectively believed it to be in the national interest but if we have some objective truths to introduce to the discussion that would definitely clear things up.
"Erlaubnistatbestandsirrtum"
How do you guys live like this.
Although I am a civil lawyer (torts, contracts and the like) and usually have more fun with messy problems I have a great admiration for the incredibly tidy structure of German criminal law. In its precision it is quite singular and Erlaubnistatbestandsirrtum might not be a beautiful word but it is beautifully clear in its meaning
I can see why that's useful yeah. Of course I'm 75% joking and 25% not sure german is a human language x)
I like the idea of a language where you can just ram as many words together as possible to make a new word.
I take it you’re not from the native German tract of Switzerland? Shame as you miss out on the language of romance
Its quite a wonderful ability. What other language knows gems as Zeitgeist (i guess you english do.. ): time and ghost; Augenweide: eyes and pasture (for sth beautiful); Gedankenwelt: thoughts and world; or the classic Herzschmerz: heart and sorrow. One of the upsides of the German language (that imo also shaped the way we think) : being able to give specific ideas/feelings/structures their "proper" name.
That's an interesting basis for comparison; it appears to me that German builds words to fit or match up with their subject matter, whereas English steals words to do the same. The contrast between the two may explain why philosophers like Heidegger are so difficult to translate into English, but I understand that much of what is difficult to parse in English is also difficult to parse in German, only for different reasons and from different angles.
Anyways, it appears that Trump's impeachment will go away one way or another, and then Bernie will simply have to win. That's my future and I'm sticking to it.
On January 31 2020 08:50 farvacola wrote: That's an interesting basis for comparison; it appears to me that German builds words to fit or match up with their subject matter, whereas English steals words to do the same. The contrast between the two may explain why philosophers like Heidegger are so difficult to translate into English, but I understand that much of what is difficult to parse in English is also difficult to parse in German, only for different reasons and from different angles.
Anyways, it appears that Trump's impeachment will go away one way or another, and then Bernie will simply have to win. That's my future and I'm sticking to it.
To ChristianS point, the issue is that with the argument from Trump's defense, rigging the election so Bernie can't win is legally within his power and if they don't remove him after that argument (or definitively destroy it) it is implicitly accepted as true.
EDIT: Frankly at this point I think Democrats are better off with this ending without witnesses because if there are witnesses it'll be harder to sell the idea that it wasn't a legitimate trial/acquittal (even though no witnesses would technically still be legitimate anyway).
On January 31 2020 07:11 KwarK wrote: I thought his argument was that Trump subjectively believed it to be in the national interest but if we have some objective truths to introduce to the discussion that would definitely clear things up.
"Erlaubnistatbestandsirrtum"
How do you guys live like this.
Although I am a civil lawyer (torts, contracts and the like) and usually have more fun with messy problems I have a great admiration for the incredibly tidy structure of German criminal law. In its precision it is quite singular and Erlaubnistatbestandsirrtum might not be a beautiful word but it is beautifully clear in its meaning
I can see why that's useful yeah. Of course I'm 75% joking and 25% not sure german is a human language x)
I like the idea of a language where you can just ram as many words together as possible to make a new word.
I take it you’re not from the native German tract of Switzerland? Shame as you miss out on the language of romance
Its quite a wonderful ability. What other language knows gems as Zeitgeist (i guess you english do.. ): time and ghost; Augenweide: eyes and pasture (for sth beautiful); Gedankenwelt: thoughts and world; or the classic Herzschmerz: heart and sorrow. One of the upsides of the German language (that imo also shaped the way we think) : being able to give specific ideas/feelings/structures their "proper" name.
The current cultural zeitgeist precludes me knowing what it means, us Brits are BRITS and hate foreign influence nowadays after all...
On January 31 2020 08:50 farvacola wrote: That's an interesting basis for comparison; it appears to me that German builds words to fit or match up with their subject matter, whereas English steals words to do the same. The contrast between the two may explain why philosophers like Heidegger are so difficult to translate into English, but I understand that much of what is difficult to parse in English is also difficult to parse in German, only for different reasons and from different angles.
Anyways, it appears that Trump's impeachment will go away one way or another, and then Bernie will simply have to win. That's my future and I'm sticking to it.
To ChristianS point, the issue is that with the argument from Trump's defense, rigging the election so Bernie can't win is legally within his power and if they don't remove him after that argument (or definitively destroy it) it is implicitly accepted as true.
EDIT: Frankly at this point I think Democrats are better off with this ending without witnesses because if there are witnesses it'll be harder to sell the idea that it wasn't a legitimate trial/acquittal (even though no witnesses would technically still be legitimate anyway).
I don’t have enough intuition for what influences public opinion to know what would be “better” for Democrats. Is it worse for the campaigns of vulnerable GOP senators to have another week or two of wall-to-wall headlines highlighting the ridiculousness of their eventual vote to acquit? Or to resort to legal absurdities to end the thing early, whatever the cost? Would it be better for Democrats to campaign on defending rule of law and the Constitution from an impeached (and illegitimately acquitted) autocrat? Or to focus on policy issues?
My weak intuition is that Republicans are cynically correct to use whatever legal absurdity necessary to get this out of the headlines, and that Democrats will do best in November if they focus on issues and don’t shout about impeachment too too much. That said, for me personally this is far more indefensible than the Republican position on healthcare or taxes or immigration or w/e; I don’t know why I assume most people will care less about this than I do.
On January 31 2020 08:50 farvacola wrote: That's an interesting basis for comparison; it appears to me that German builds words to fit or match up with their subject matter, whereas English steals words to do the same. The contrast between the two may explain why philosophers like Heidegger are so difficult to translate into English, but I understand that much of what is difficult to parse in English is also difficult to parse in German, only for different reasons and from different angles.
Anyways, it appears that Trump's impeachment will go away one way or another, and then Bernie will simply have to win. That's my future and I'm sticking to it.
To ChristianS point, the issue is that with the argument from Trump's defense, rigging the election so Bernie can't win is legally within his power and if they don't remove him after that argument (or definitively destroy it) it is implicitly accepted as true.
EDIT: Frankly at this point I think Democrats are better off with this ending without witnesses because if there are witnesses it'll be harder to sell the idea that it wasn't a legitimate trial/acquittal (even though no witnesses would technically still be legitimate anyway).
I don’t have enough intuition for what influences public opinion to know what would be “better” for Democrats. Is it worse for the campaigns of vulnerable GOP senators to have another week or two of wall-to-wall headlines highlighting the ridiculousness of their eventual vote to acquit? Or to resort to legal absurdities to end the thing early, whatever the cost? Would it be better for Democrats to campaign on defending rule of law and the Constitution from an impeached (and illegitimately acquitted) autocrat? Or to focus on policy issues?
My weak intuition is that Republicans are cynically correct to use whatever legal absurdity necessary to get this out of the headlines, and that Democrats will do best in November if they focus on issues and don’t shout about impeachment too too much. That said, for me personally this is far more indefensible than the Republican position on healthcare or taxes or immigration or w/e; I don’t know why I assume most people will care less about this than I do.
He can't be illegitimately acquitted is the problem. Any acquittal is, by definition, legitimate. As it will conform to the rules of the trial, even if it is by way of a clearly absurd 'oversight'/assumption by the people that designed it.
On January 31 2020 08:50 farvacola wrote: That's an interesting basis for comparison; it appears to me that German builds words to fit or match up with their subject matter, whereas English steals words to do the same. The contrast between the two may explain why philosophers like Heidegger are so difficult to translate into English, but I understand that much of what is difficult to parse in English is also difficult to parse in German, only for different reasons and from different angles.
Anyways, it appears that Trump's impeachment will go away one way or another, and then Bernie will simply have to win. That's my future and I'm sticking to it.
To ChristianS point, the issue is that with the argument from Trump's defense, rigging the election so Bernie can't win is legally within his power and if they don't remove him after that argument (or definitively destroy it) it is implicitly accepted as true.
EDIT: Frankly at this point I think Democrats are better off with this ending without witnesses because if there are witnesses it'll be harder to sell the idea that it wasn't a legitimate trial/acquittal (even though no witnesses would technically still be legitimate anyway).
I don’t have enough intuition for what influences public opinion to know what would be “better” for Democrats. Is it worse for the campaigns of vulnerable GOP senators to have another week or two of wall-to-wall headlines highlighting the ridiculousness of their eventual vote to acquit? Or to resort to legal absurdities to end the thing early, whatever the cost? Would it be better for Democrats to campaign on defending rule of law and the Constitution from an impeached (and illegitimately acquitted) autocrat? Or to focus on policy issues?
My weak intuition is that Republicans are cynically correct to use whatever legal absurdity necessary to get this out of the headlines, and that Democrats will do best in November if they focus on issues and don’t shout about impeachment too too much. That said, for me personally this is far more indefensible than the Republican position on healthcare or taxes or immigration or w/e; I don’t know why I assume most people will care less about this than I do.
He can't be illegitimately acquitted is the problem. Any acquittal is, by definition, legitimate. As it will conform to the rules of the trial, even if it is by way of a clearly absurd 'oversight'/assumption by the people that designed it.
I’m not sure I follow the distinction you’re trying to make? Legitimacy is a bit of an ethereal thing. If people feel that a proceeding was right and fair and proper, and its outcome ought to be respected, it is considered “legitimate;” if not, not. Imagine the public is so unanimously incensed by this trial that they demand each and every Republican in Congress (and whatever Democrats break ranks) be impeached for dereliction of Constitutional duty, and they vote in sufficient majorities to do so; would that not be the public deeming this trial “illegitimate”?
But I think this might be a mostly semantic distinction anyway. Clearly the public is capable of thinking an acquittal was wrong; just look at how people talk about OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony. What I don’t know is whether that perception, even if widespread, will be much of a motivator/opinion changer in November.
On January 31 2020 08:50 farvacola wrote: That's an interesting basis for comparison; it appears to me that German builds words to fit or match up with their subject matter, whereas English steals words to do the same. The contrast between the two may explain why philosophers like Heidegger are so difficult to translate into English, but I understand that much of what is difficult to parse in English is also difficult to parse in German, only for different reasons and from different angles.
Anyways, it appears that Trump's impeachment will go away one way or another, and then Bernie will simply have to win. That's my future and I'm sticking to it.
To ChristianS point, the issue is that with the argument from Trump's defense, rigging the election so Bernie can't win is legally within his power and if they don't remove him after that argument (or definitively destroy it) it is implicitly accepted as true.
EDIT: Frankly at this point I think Democrats are better off with this ending without witnesses because if there are witnesses it'll be harder to sell the idea that it wasn't a legitimate trial/acquittal (even though no witnesses would technically still be legitimate anyway).
I don’t have enough intuition for what influences public opinion to know what would be “better” for Democrats. Is it worse for the campaigns of vulnerable GOP senators to have another week or two of wall-to-wall headlines highlighting the ridiculousness of their eventual vote to acquit? Or to resort to legal absurdities to end the thing early, whatever the cost? Would it be better for Democrats to campaign on defending rule of law and the Constitution from an impeached (and illegitimately acquitted) autocrat? Or to focus on policy issues?
My weak intuition is that Republicans are cynically correct to use whatever legal absurdity necessary to get this out of the headlines, and that Democrats will do best in November if they focus on issues and don’t shout about impeachment too too much. That said, for me personally this is far more indefensible than the Republican position on healthcare or taxes or immigration or w/e; I don’t know why I assume most people will care less about this than I do.
He can't be illegitimately acquitted is the problem. Any acquittal is, by definition, legitimate. As it will conform to the rules of the trial, even if it is by way of a clearly absurd 'oversight'/assumption by the people that designed it.
I’m not sure I follow the distinction you’re trying to make? Legitimacy is a bit of an ethereal thing. If people feel that a proceeding was right and fair and proper, and it’s outcome ought to be respected, it is considered “legitimate;” if not, not. Imagine the public is so unanimously incensed by this trial that they demand each and every Republican in Congress (and whatever Democrats break ranks) be impeached for dereliction of Constitutional duty, and they vote in sufficient majorities to do so; would that not be the public deeming this trial “illegitimate”?
But I think this might be a mostly semantic distinction anyway. Clearly the public is capable of thinking an acquittal was wrong; just look at how people talk about OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony. What I don’t know is whether that perception, even if widespread, will be much of a motivator/opinion changer in November.
Considering the fact that it’s mainly democrats who think trump should be removed from office, I don’t think it will be much of a game changer in November. Most independents and Republicans don’t think he should be removed
On January 31 2020 08:50 farvacola wrote: That's an interesting basis for comparison; it appears to me that German builds words to fit or match up with their subject matter, whereas English steals words to do the same. The contrast between the two may explain why philosophers like Heidegger are so difficult to translate into English, but I understand that much of what is difficult to parse in English is also difficult to parse in German, only for different reasons and from different angles.
Anyways, it appears that Trump's impeachment will go away one way or another, and then Bernie will simply have to win. That's my future and I'm sticking to it.
To ChristianS point, the issue is that with the argument from Trump's defense, rigging the election so Bernie can't win is legally within his power and if they don't remove him after that argument (or definitively destroy it) it is implicitly accepted as true.
EDIT: Frankly at this point I think Democrats are better off with this ending without witnesses because if there are witnesses it'll be harder to sell the idea that it wasn't a legitimate trial/acquittal (even though no witnesses would technically still be legitimate anyway).
I don’t have enough intuition for what influences public opinion to know what would be “better” for Democrats. Is it worse for the campaigns of vulnerable GOP senators to have another week or two of wall-to-wall headlines highlighting the ridiculousness of their eventual vote to acquit? Or to resort to legal absurdities to end the thing early, whatever the cost? Would it be better for Democrats to campaign on defending rule of law and the Constitution from an impeached (and illegitimately acquitted) autocrat? Or to focus on policy issues?
My weak intuition is that Republicans are cynically correct to use whatever legal absurdity necessary to get this out of the headlines, and that Democrats will do best in November if they focus on issues and don’t shout about impeachment too too much. That said, for me personally this is far more indefensible than the Republican position on healthcare or taxes or immigration or w/e; I don’t know why I assume most people will care less about this than I do.
He can't be illegitimately acquitted is the problem. Any acquittal is, by definition, legitimate. As it will conform to the rules of the trial, even if it is by way of a clearly absurd 'oversight'/assumption by the people that designed it.
I’m not sure I follow the distinction you’re trying to make? Legitimacy is a bit of an ethereal thing. If people feel that a proceeding was right and fair and proper, and it’s outcome ought to be respected, it is considered “legitimate;” if not, not. Imagine the public is so unanimously incensed by this trial that they demand each and every Republican in Congress (and whatever Democrats break ranks) be impeached for dereliction of Constitutional duty, and they vote in sufficient majorities to do so; would that not be the public deeming this trial “illegitimate”?
But I think this might be a mostly semantic distinction anyway. Clearly the public is capable of thinking an acquittal was wrong; just look at how people talk about OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony. What I don’t know is whether that perception, even if widespread, will be much of a motivator/opinion changer in November.
It is a bit of semantics but also true. Legitimate means legal. People can disagree about whether the legal outcome equals justice but the legitimacy stands outside of that.
That is to say Trump is the one that would be arguing for the rule of law and Democrats arguing against it (because it doesn't equate to justice).
As to its effectiveness as a campaign argument, Trump's near his peak (sans inauguration bump) in approval/favorability after 3 years of this stuff, highly unlikely that changes. A few Senators are at a bit more risk but virtually no one thinks Democrats will take the senate no matter how they campaign.
It’s going to make no difference because the overall opinion with regards to impeachment has been crazy stable no matter what stage the process is at.
I don’t think there’s a single person who hasn’t made up their mind about Trump at this point. He’s a known quantity now, not some nebulous “Greatest Christian of All Time” and “Friend of the LGBTI community” candidate like he was in 2016. Opinion polling on Trump has been pretty consistent too with his approval hovering up and down the low 40s and disapproval hovering around the low 50s if we’re following the 538 tracker.
On January 31 2020 08:50 farvacola wrote: Anyways, it appears that Trump's impeachment will go away one way or another, and then Bernie will simply have to win. That's my future and I'm sticking to it.
Yeah it seems the inevitable is approaching. Pisses me off the practical outcomes of all this: John fucking Bolton gets publicity for his book, Sanders and Warren kept locked away during Iowa caucus, Trump supporters galvanized by another "victory". Kind of hope they don't proceed with witnesses and drag it out any longer.
Apparently Bloomberg has spent 90 million on ads just attacking Trump so far.275 million for all his ad spending. He's got a one minute ad in the Superbowl, that'd be 10 million alone.
Billionaires spending up, great news for Trump's economy.
On January 31 2020 06:58 IgnE wrote: my point is that dershowitz is not saying “the president’s intention was X and unless he admits Y you cannot impeach him”. his argument is that what he did was in the nations interest, objectively, and that regardless of other intentions it was within his power. congress either has to say that his proffered objective intention is not in fact in the national interest or they have to basically set a precedent that quantifies what ratio of public/private interest counts as abuse of power. both are not as clear cut as people here seem to think
I brought this up back when they released the text of the articles. It was obvious then that Democrats argument hinged on the idea that Hunter Biden's situation wasn't corruption or that investigating it wasn't in the national interest and apparently they never fixed that hole.
It's not obvious that article 1 is hinged on the idea that Hunter biden situation wasn't corruption.
Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.
President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:
(1) President Trump—acting both directly and through his agents Within and Outside the United States Government—corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into—
(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and
(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.
(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump—acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government–conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested—
(A) the release of $391 million of United 5 States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended; and
(B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.
(3) Faced with the public revelation of his actions, President Trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.
These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections.
In all this, President Trump abused the powers of the Presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. He has also betrayed the Nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.
Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self- governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
It hinges on the idea that Trump is doing this for personal interest not national interest thus corruption.
Now Trump's legal counsel has tried to pivot this into Trump did do this out of national interests and they have tried to lash the idea that it's in the national interest to commit that investigation.
That would be all well in good except for Trump's conditional of a public announcement by Ukraine into opening an investigation into Biden's son. That it itself can be see as unnecessary outside of political interests, given it would only be a start of an investigation and have no conclusions.
That coupled with Trump's going through back channels with non-government officials and with-holding of wartime aid with an ally which has been determined to be of national interest which is why it was appropriated. Doing this all in secret and immediately releasing the aid and dropping the demand for an announcement when found out.
His desire for an announcement, using unofficial channels and him withholding aid to get it has nothing to do with if Biden is actually corrupt or not. It does however have a lot to do with if Trump actually did this for our national interest.
The Democrats do not rely on if Biden is guilty of anything or not, It is however how Trump's legal console has framed their whole defense of article I around, they of course have no answers to if the investigation is actually warranted they've often just flipped the question we don't know because there is no investigation. Which is a terrible argument you can justify any investigation if that is the bar for opening an investigation. They've completely failed to actually justify the need for an investigation only saying rumors are enough for one, which ofc is the total oppose for if you're investigating trump. You need more than rumors apparently to investigate trump's investigation.
On January 31 2020 10:38 Womwomwom wrote: It’s going to make no difference because the overall opinion with regards to impeachment has been crazy stable no matter what stage the process is at.
I don’t think there’s a single person who hasn’t made up their mind about Trump at this point. He’s a known quantity now, not some nebulous “Greatest Christian of All Time” and “Friend of the LGBTI community” candidate like he was in 2016. Opinion polling on Trump has been pretty consistent too with his approval hovering up and down the low 40s and disapproval hovering around the low 50s if we’re following the 538 tracker.
There is no judge actually reigning things in. The two sides are just saying w.e they want and mostly ignoring the other so of course this is changing no one's mind because there isn't even an establishment of the underlying facts.
It's comically on brand for a partisan congress to draft rules that allow them to continue to be partisan.
I'm not going to argue that it's not tenuous and all that, just point out it's nothing compared to the kind of sprawling investigations authorities do all the time using completely unrelated cases to justify questioning and harassing people with far less justification.
Which brings me to the point I was making. I don't care much about the process stuff because I'm confident it's all bogus, the court that matters at this point for Trump is the court of public opinion. People can point at the rules and process and call Republicans names for their theatrics, rhetoric, and hypocrisy, my point is that it's basically masturbatory.
Additionally, the type of responses it generates from liberals feeds Trump's base. The more it's hyped up as a real investigation/trial rather than the theater it is, the more vindicated Trump will be when he isn't removed from office.
I'd add that the VP's kid getting paid $500,000 for a no-show job he isn't qualified for is suspicious enough for most people.
On January 31 2020 08:50 farvacola wrote: That's an interesting basis for comparison; it appears to me that German builds words to fit or match up with their subject matter, whereas English steals words to do the same. The contrast between the two may explain why philosophers like Heidegger are so difficult to translate into English, but I understand that much of what is difficult to parse in English is also difficult to parse in German, only for different reasons and from different angles.
Anyways, it appears that Trump's impeachment will go away one way or another, and then Bernie will simply have to win. That's my future and I'm sticking to it.
To ChristianS point, the issue is that with the argument from Trump's defense, rigging the election so Bernie can't win is legally within his power and if they don't remove him after that argument (or definitively destroy it) it is implicitly accepted as true.
EDIT: Frankly at this point I think Democrats are better off with this ending without witnesses because if there are witnesses it'll be harder to sell the idea that it wasn't a legitimate trial/acquittal (even though no witnesses would technically still be legitimate anyway).
I don’t have enough intuition for what influences public opinion to know what would be “better” for Democrats. Is it worse for the campaigns of vulnerable GOP senators to have another week or two of wall-to-wall headlines highlighting the ridiculousness of their eventual vote to acquit? Or to resort to legal absurdities to end the thing early, whatever the cost? Would it be better for Democrats to campaign on defending rule of law and the Constitution from an impeached (and illegitimately acquitted) autocrat? Or to focus on policy issues?
My weak intuition is that Republicans are cynically correct to use whatever legal absurdity necessary to get this out of the headlines, and that Democrats will do best in November if they focus on issues and don’t shout about impeachment too too much. That said, for me personally this is far more indefensible than the Republican position on healthcare or taxes or immigration or w/e; I don’t know why I assume most people will care less about this than I do.
He can't be illegitimately acquitted is the problem. Any acquittal is, by definition, legitimate. As it will conform to the rules of the trial, even if it is by way of a clearly absurd 'oversight'/assumption by the people that designed it.
It's entirely possible that i'm missing something here, but this isn't correct. Not entirely, anyway.
There absolutely is a possibility to be "illegitimately acquitted", and it has happened before in the US - see the Harry Aleman trial. In general, if the defendant was never in real jeopardy, the acquittal isn't valid.
If someone can argue that Trumps re-election should be considered "in the national interest", you can also argue that he never was in jeopardy due to partisanship, meaning that the acquittal isn't valid.
There's a possibility that i misunderstand something and "normal rules" don't apply to this farce, then i bow out and stand corrected - but legally, the absolutism of "any acquittal" is wrong.
I'm not going to argue that it's not tenuous and all that, just point out it's nothing compared to the kind of sprawling investigations authorities do all the time using completely unrelated cases to justify questioning and harassing people with far less justification.
Which brings me to the point I was making. I don't care much about the process stuff because I'm confident it's all bogus, the court that matters at this point for Trump is the court of public opinion. People can point at the rules and process and call Republicans names for their theatrics, rhetoric, and hypocrisy, my point is that it's basically masturbatory.
Additionally, the type of responses it generates from liberals feeds Trump's base. The more it's hyped up as a real investigation/trial rather than the theater it is, the more vindicated Trump will be when he isn't removed from office.
I'd add that the VP's kid getting paid $500,000 for a no-show job he isn't qualified for is suspicious enough for most people.
When you rig statements like that it's can be quite suspicious to most.
There is no qualifications for board members that's the beauty of pseudo corporate bureaucracy. The thing about qualifications is the same thing i take from OSHA who says you're qualified to do anything by the people who hired you to do a job. If you're not qualified to do the job why did the people hire you.
Of course your question is what is the job in question, ie is his work earnest.
Btw Hunter is a yale law grad, a former senior vice president at a large bank, worked in the dept of commerce in the Clinton admin as the executive director of economy policy coordination, worked for a lobbying firm, and was appointed to the amtrak board of directors in the Bush admin.
Where all of those things due to his dad, no shit but tell me a successful person that is independent of their wealthy parents and they are the exception not the rule in America. AFAIK he's quite qualified to serve on the board to some random company, all of this rings disingenuous when talking about fighting corruption when the Trump administration is filled with this kind of nepotism. That brings in the whole motives is this national interest or personal interest, does trump believe this is wrong and something to pursue or is he just looking to score political points while using the office of the presidency.
On January 26 2020 11:19 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: [quote]
It takes the guy less than a minute to convince Trump to get rid of her, just by saying she's from the Clinton administration and that the ambassador was telling people Trump would be impeached. Trump has a real tone change compared to the rest of the dinner when he says the 'get rid of her, take her out, do it' part. He does sound agitated/serious.
The Ukraine part starts few minutes earlier around 39mins. Trump seems overly surprised to hear Ukraine has oil.
The rest of the vid is kind of interesting if you want to know how a lobbyist dinner with Trump is. Lots of ass kissing and lots of bad takes.
On 8 mins where they shit on South Korea, and Trump shows he has no clue why the US is even there or what the Korea war was about.
11min he talks about the US taking in billions from the tariffs. None of the businessmen affirm him because they know it's bullshit lol
On 16mins Trump says 'WTO is a weapon to hurt the United States. And the European Union the same thing, it's a group of countries that got together to screw the United States, and they are probably worse than China'
33m30s Kanye West will pull the millennials to Trump
He makes a good point about SK. I would trade Trudeau for Trump in an instant.
Care to elaborate what point about SK you like?
I didn't hear anything exceptional. Negotiate trade in favor of U.S.A. Hints that U.S.A. military shouldn't be there. Sadly I don't think he cares about much other than short term GDP and campaign slogans. He's a bad president but the contenders are disastrous imo. Good ones blocked by MSM and the parties.
But I don’t care much about Trudeau. I do, however, care some about South Korea, and listening to that recording all I heard was some grumbling about how South Korea is ruining our steel industry (possibly with *gasp* Chinese steel) and how that’s really very ungrateful of them considering how we’re stopping North Korea from nuking them and all.
Personally I don’t understand what’s to like about that, and I’d be interested to hear what part appeals to you. The protectionism, I guess? The indignation that a state benefiting from our world policing would dare to compete with us commercially? I don’t know specifically what the “shipping Chinese steel on trains” business is about, maybe you do?
I don’t get protectionism’s appeal much honestly. The lazy argument I can make is “look at Trump’s trade war, it’s going bad for us and the stock market freaks out about it sometimes.” And I think it probably has been bad for us, but more broadly the whole premise of protectionism is “we’re going to try to set the rules of international trade to give our businesses a systemic advantage over foreign competition.” Why is that fair? If a foreign business is more efficient than ours but we manage to set the rules such that our business has an unfair advantage and runs them out of business, why is that a good outcome? If we so quickly demonstrate to other countries that we have no interest in fair dealings and will pick their pocket at first opportunity, how can we hope to maintain positive relationships with them, or expect them not to backstab us just as quickly?
Our troop presence in SK adds a twist to this. A lot of people are very critical of our wide military footprint and insistence on policing the world - I don’t like it much myself - but of all our international meddling, putting troops in South Korea to discourage North Korean aggression seems like one of the better causes we’ve taken up. North Korea invading South Korea would be a massive humanitarian catastrophe, and our troop presence meaningfully reduces the likelihood of that happening.
But it’s a bit rich for us to make all this fuss about keeping South Korea “free” and then turn around and say they don’t have the right to compete with us economically. Are they free, or aren’t they? I don’t have a bit of interest in hitting up our allies for protection money, as Trump likes to talk about, but demanding they direct their economy to grow ours rather than their own is even worse to me. Is this not extortion?
In game theory terminology, Trump’s foreign policy generally usually boils down to an “Always Forsake” policy. Shout and threaten our enemies unless they serve our interests; extort our allies out of their lunch money and threaten to sanction them or even refuse to protect them unless they pay up. It’s unabashedly immoral; but even in self-interest terms, it’s probably pretty bad policy. “Always Forsake” makes you an asshole, but also usually means nobody wants to cooperate with you so you’re ultimately worse off, too.
I wish US would stop playing world police and force/allow other countries to grow up. I don't have a problem with Trump asking for more money to cover the cost, if SK wants the US to continue as their bodyguard -- besides wishing they weren't there at all. It's reasonable to ask if it's still worth it to be there.
It's reasonable to ask sure, but you shouldn't need to. A stronger Korea and Japan keeps China's power in check. Do you think it is in US interest to maintain status as the global super power? The notion that everything comes down to money and extorting our allies because we can is misguided foreign policy. We didn't install ourselves into Korea and Japan to be their bodyguard. We installed ourselves there to exert power and influence in Asia.
In my opinion help Korea and Japan become strong enough to stand on their own as good allies, along with other nearby nations scared of China enough to do the same. I'd rather not have US or anyone as a global super power but independent nations in alliance. Doubt US will give up influence and leave, and also doubt SK wants them to.
I'm actually learning Japanese as a hobby, but it made me think that Japanese and Korean culture has always been very strongly tied to China. We had a look in my language class at some typical Japanese cultural traditions such as flower arrangements, tea ceremonies, various Buddhist rituals and schools, and it can all be directly traced from contact with China. Same for language, there are many words of Chinese origin in Japanese, and obviously they use Chinese symbols for writing. So on that level, which is a bit naive obviously, wouldn't it make much more sense for Japan and Korea to be allied with China? The USA wouldn't like it one bit if Mexico was an ally of China and had all sorts of naval bases there and so on. In Europe we wouldn't like it if, idk, Italy was a Russian client state. It would create incredible tension. I haven't been convinced that US presence in that region is not a destabilizing factor and that it is preferable to a more natural Chinese regional hegemony.
Same with Iran honestly. Isn't it more natural for Iran to be the regional power when it comes to the Middle East's shiite population instead of the USA?
Learning the language isn't knowing the history or the culture.
Back in the formative years of both nations China was the cultural and political superpower. It's not unfair to compare it to the British Empire, but even more locally influential. Japan was a client state giving tribute to China for a long period. But like a lot of island-states, both grew out of it and eventually asserted their independence and individual cultures.
China is - and has always been - strongly about one-culture. You can totally see echoes of that in Japan and Korea, but their visions of that one-culture are divergent. China would never be willing to see either of them as equal partners and they would never deign to be seen as less than that. It's fine to accept the US as a more powerful ally because the US is outside of the cultural history, but Japan's got a solid history of kicking China's face in and inflicting war crimes on them.
Likewise, Japan attacked and brutalised Korea. The Koreans don't trust the Japanese or Chinese, and the Japanese don't trust the Chinese and see the Koreans as inferior. There's really zero chance of those three nations ever really allying with each other. A united Korea would be as stridently independent of larger Asia as South Korea tries to be now.
So yes, you would end up with an arms race in Asia if you left them to their own devices. The Japanese/Chinese are going to expect an invasion from the other, and Korea will be expecting an aggressive knock from one or both at some point, because that's what's happened throughout their history.
But both Japan and South Korea aren't exactly happy with the US presence there either. I checked out the wiki page on this (link) and you can see feelings being mixed. And e.g. in South Korea they don't necessarily appreciate Trump's bluster w.r.t. North Korea. There seems to me a lot of room for demilitarization in the region. The USA military is almost, maybe not quite fully, but almost occupying Japan and South Korea and we can predict that they're not going to leave even if asked politely by the Japanese and South Korean governments. And while China is expansionist this extends mainly to Tibet and Taiwan, historical regions of the empire. I don't support their efforts there, and maybe the world would benefit from China being broken up in a couple of nations, but their "inward expansionism" doesn't lead to them setting their sights on Korea & Japan.
EPT
): time and ghost; Augenweide: eyes and pasture (for sth beautiful); Gedankenwelt: thoughts and world; or the classic Herzschmerz: heart and sorrow. One of the upsides of the German language (that imo also shaped the way we think) : being able to give specific ideas/feelings/structures their "proper" name. 
