|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 14 2021 23:18 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 19:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 14 2021 19:04 oBlade wrote:On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote:
Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors, not political vendettas. The constitution does not specifically proscribe the use of "he took my parking spot" as an impeachable offense but it's not done out of respect for the institution. They make the determination but if you allow partisan charges then the cat is out of the bag and you should expect partisan resistance. Though there is an openness to where the Senate can sentence someone for mistakes or misconduct that don't otherwise fall under a criminal statute due to the nature of public office, if the serious charge of inciting a riot and insurrection and attempting to upend democracy were not criminal, then anyone could do it as a private citizen with impunity because you can't impeach private citizens. What you're saying falls apart from both ends. As a side note in 150 years no Democratic senator has ever dissented in a presidential impeachment vote. Just interesting. That's as meaningless a trivia as it gets. All you are saying is that no democratic senator voted for Clinton to be removed from office for lying about a blowjob, and then your next data point is from1868 because of a slavery issue at the end of the civil war. I mean, what is that about exactly? Trivia tend to be trivial. It is an interesting fact, I think it shows plainly how partisan impeachment is. Or Democrats are just always right?  As far as I know Andrew Johnson's impeachment had nothing to do with slavery. Lost on you, the fact also means no Democrats voted to acquit Trump either. I thought it was interesting so I pointed it out, I hope your general reaction to encountering new facts isn't "what is this thing." We should check the votes for other officers who were impeached too, might be an interesting contrast. I saw this lying about a blowjob shtick like one page ago. Quickly becoming a tired line. The charge was perjury. With perjury it doesn't matter what you lie about if you're under oath. I hope for the sake of cognitive dissonance that it's not in your worldview to call Trump a sleaze, anyway. Iirc Clinton was disbarred and fined. You can say it's not a high crime and not subject to impeachment. For sure. I think I've made it clear I don't care for time wasting obstructionist impeachments. But you should elevate your discourse from the pejorative "lied about a blowjob" thing unless you want to equally embrace the fact that the 45th President of the United States was impeached for tweeting. It's interesting you see 230 some odd years of history without presidential incident, and only 1-2 frivolous impeachments in all that time but a sudden acceleration in the last 2 years. Either a) the American people suddenly elected Satan after 200 years of relaxing or b) something else is eating democracy and causing this impeachmentdemic.
Yes, Clinton's impeachment was about perjury... About lying. Could you imagine if Congress actually cared about President Trump lying? He would have been impeached thousands of times. It's an insane double standard.
|
|
|
On February 15 2021 01:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 23:18 oBlade wrote:On February 14 2021 19:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 14 2021 19:04 oBlade wrote:On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote:
Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors, not political vendettas. The constitution does not specifically proscribe the use of "he took my parking spot" as an impeachable offense but it's not done out of respect for the institution. They make the determination but if you allow partisan charges then the cat is out of the bag and you should expect partisan resistance. Though there is an openness to where the Senate can sentence someone for mistakes or misconduct that don't otherwise fall under a criminal statute due to the nature of public office, if the serious charge of inciting a riot and insurrection and attempting to upend democracy were not criminal, then anyone could do it as a private citizen with impunity because you can't impeach private citizens. What you're saying falls apart from both ends. As a side note in 150 years no Democratic senator has ever dissented in a presidential impeachment vote. Just interesting. That's as meaningless a trivia as it gets. All you are saying is that no democratic senator voted for Clinton to be removed from office for lying about a blowjob, and then your next data point is from1868 because of a slavery issue at the end of the civil war. I mean, what is that about exactly? Trivia tend to be trivial. It is an interesting fact, I think it shows plainly how partisan impeachment is. Or Democrats are just always right? As far as I know Andrew Johnson's impeachment had nothing to do with slavery. Lost on you, the fact also means no Democrats voted to acquit Trump either. I thought it was interesting so I pointed it out, I hope your general reaction to encountering new facts isn't "what is this thing." We should check the votes for other officers who were impeached too, might be an interesting contrast. I saw this lying about a blowjob shtick like one page ago. Quickly becoming a tired line. The charge was perjury. With perjury it doesn't matter what you lie about if you're under oath. I hope for the sake of cognitive dissonance that it's not in your worldview to call Trump a sleaze, anyway. Iirc Clinton was disbarred and fined. You can say it's not a high crime and not subject to impeachment. For sure. I think I've made it clear I don't care for time wasting obstructionist impeachments. But you should elevate your discourse from the pejorative "lied about a blowjob" thing unless you want to equally embrace the fact that the 45th President of the United States was impeached for tweeting. It's interesting you see 230 some odd years of history without presidential incident, and only 1-2 frivolous impeachments in all that time but a sudden acceleration in the last 2 years. Either a) the American people suddenly elected Satan after 200 years of relaxing or b) something else is eating democracy and causing this impeachmentdemic. Yes, Clinton's impeachment was about perjury... About lying. Could you imagine if Congress actually cared about President Trump lying? He would have been impeached thousands of times. It's an insane double standard.
Clinton was stupid enough to lie under oath. That's actually quite serious.
Then again. It was about a fucking blowjob. I don't think that warrants getting removed from office. It's not like he used the military and diplomatic might of the United States to pressure a country to sink a political opponent, or like he started a insurrection that stormed the fucking capitol.
|
Clinton didn't even actually lie under oath. He lawyered under oath. He asked them to define sexual relations, and the definition they gave excluded oral sex.
|
On February 15 2021 01:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 23:18 oBlade wrote:On February 14 2021 19:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 14 2021 19:04 oBlade wrote:On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote:
Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors, not political vendettas. The constitution does not specifically proscribe the use of "he took my parking spot" as an impeachable offense but it's not done out of respect for the institution. They make the determination but if you allow partisan charges then the cat is out of the bag and you should expect partisan resistance. Though there is an openness to where the Senate can sentence someone for mistakes or misconduct that don't otherwise fall under a criminal statute due to the nature of public office, if the serious charge of inciting a riot and insurrection and attempting to upend democracy were not criminal, then anyone could do it as a private citizen with impunity because you can't impeach private citizens. What you're saying falls apart from both ends. As a side note in 150 years no Democratic senator has ever dissented in a presidential impeachment vote. Just interesting. That's as meaningless a trivia as it gets. All you are saying is that no democratic senator voted for Clinton to be removed from office for lying about a blowjob, and then your next data point is from1868 because of a slavery issue at the end of the civil war. I mean, what is that about exactly? Trivia tend to be trivial. It is an interesting fact, I think it shows plainly how partisan impeachment is. Or Democrats are just always right? As far as I know Andrew Johnson's impeachment had nothing to do with slavery. Lost on you, the fact also means no Democrats voted to acquit Trump either. I thought it was interesting so I pointed it out, I hope your general reaction to encountering new facts isn't "what is this thing." We should check the votes for other officers who were impeached too, might be an interesting contrast. I saw this lying about a blowjob shtick like one page ago. Quickly becoming a tired line. The charge was perjury. With perjury it doesn't matter what you lie about if you're under oath. I hope for the sake of cognitive dissonance that it's not in your worldview to call Trump a sleaze, anyway. Iirc Clinton was disbarred and fined. You can say it's not a high crime and not subject to impeachment. For sure. I think I've made it clear I don't care for time wasting obstructionist impeachments. But you should elevate your discourse from the pejorative "lied about a blowjob" thing unless you want to equally embrace the fact that the 45th President of the United States was impeached for tweeting. It's interesting you see 230 some odd years of history without presidential incident, and only 1-2 frivolous impeachments in all that time but a sudden acceleration in the last 2 years. Either a) the American people suddenly elected Satan after 200 years of relaxing or b) something else is eating democracy and causing this impeachmentdemic. Yes, Clinton's impeachment was about perjury... About lying. Could you imagine if Congress actually cared about President Trump lying? He would have been impeached thousands of times. It's an insane double standard.
1) Perjury is lying under oath, don't equivocate.
2) A large part of what the president says is just things people disagree with, don't reclassify those as lying ("They're ripping us off" for example, opposite opinion? or lie -> fact check -> control speech?)
3) That was 20+ years ago, turnover of various members in both houses. If Newt Gingrich were Speaker, you could criticize the hypocrisy of him not impeaching Trump very easily sure.
4) Yes, double standards are bad. The answer is not a a thousand revenge impeachments, it's to stop.
On February 15 2021 00:01 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 23:18 oBlade wrote:On February 14 2021 19:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 14 2021 19:04 oBlade wrote:On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote:
Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors, not political vendettas. The constitution does not specifically proscribe the use of "he took my parking spot" as an impeachable offense but it's not done out of respect for the institution. They make the determination but if you allow partisan charges then the cat is out of the bag and you should expect partisan resistance. Though there is an openness to where the Senate can sentence someone for mistakes or misconduct that don't otherwise fall under a criminal statute due to the nature of public office, if the serious charge of inciting a riot and insurrection and attempting to upend democracy were not criminal, then anyone could do it as a private citizen with impunity because you can't impeach private citizens. What you're saying falls apart from both ends. As a side note in 150 years no Democratic senator has ever dissented in a presidential impeachment vote. Just interesting. That's as meaningless a trivia as it gets. All you are saying is that no democratic senator voted for Clinton to be removed from office for lying about a blowjob, and then your next data point is from1868 because of a slavery issue at the end of the civil war. I mean, what is that about exactly? Trivia tend to be trivial. It is an interesting fact, I think it shows plainly how partisan impeachment is. Or Democrats are just always right? As far as I know Andrew Johnson's impeachment had nothing to do with slavery. Lost on you, the fact also means no Democrats voted to acquit Trump either. I thought it was interesting so I pointed it out, I hope your general reaction to encountering new facts isn't "what is this thing." We should check the votes for other officers who were impeached too, might be an interesting contrast. I saw this lying about a blowjob shtick like one page ago. Quickly becoming a tired line. The charge was perjury. With perjury it doesn't matter what you lie about if you're under oath. I hope for the sake of cognitive dissonance that it's not in your worldview to call Trump a sleaze, anyway. Iirc Clinton was disbarred and fined. You can say it's not a high crime and not subject to impeachment. For sure. I think I've made it clear I don't care for time wasting obstructionist impeachments. But you should elevate your discourse from the pejorative "lied about a blowjob" thing unless you want to equally embrace the fact that the 45th President of the United States was impeached for tweeting. It's interesting you see 230 some odd years of history without presidential incident, and only 1-2 frivolous impeachments in all that time but a sudden acceleration in the last 2 years. Either a) the American people suddenly elected Satan after 200 years of relaxing or b) something else is eating democracy and causing this impeachmentdemic. They elected someone who openly had no respect for the rules, openly broke norms and has a history of criminality and his entire family history on weath building is grifting.
It's okay to break norms, that's how you make new norms. Broken norms thing is an argument from fear. (Note: Not an argument from danger. Fear.) We all break some norms and that's how things evolve. For example, he recognized the capital of Israel, and now Biden continued. Look, every rich politician has skeletons, it's basically every prominent one. How is Nancy Pelosi so rich? Scumbag businessman is one thing, enriching themselves through office another.
On February 15 2021 00:01 JimmiC wrote:
Only one to not release taxes, which is looking like due to illegality. (Funny side note this is another of the 1000 things he promised to do and did not, and might be even too much mental gymnastics for him to blame the dems.)
The IRS is pretty good, if there's anything illegal they will have found it without needing the help of sleuths poring over how much Trump has exaggerated his wealth.
On February 15 2021 00:01 JimmiC wrote:
He also is the first who had they done the standard back ground check to even join the FBI, CIA or anything with clearance, and would have failed.
Traditionally we haven't wanted to be ruled by the FBI and CIA. Democracy is designed to let you elect everyone, bartender to billionaire. I don't know how you know this, actually, as Clinton and Obama both admitted to drug use. I think that's disqualifying for the armed forces, but I couldn't say for the alphabets.
On February 15 2021 00:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 23:18 oBlade wrote:On February 14 2021 19:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 14 2021 19:04 oBlade wrote:On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote:
Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors, not political vendettas. The constitution does not specifically proscribe the use of "he took my parking spot" as an impeachable offense but it's not done out of respect for the institution. They make the determination but if you allow partisan charges then the cat is out of the bag and you should expect partisan resistance. Though there is an openness to where the Senate can sentence someone for mistakes or misconduct that don't otherwise fall under a criminal statute due to the nature of public office, if the serious charge of inciting a riot and insurrection and attempting to upend democracy were not criminal, then anyone could do it as a private citizen with impunity because you can't impeach private citizens. What you're saying falls apart from both ends. As a side note in 150 years no Democratic senator has ever dissented in a presidential impeachment vote. Just interesting. That's as meaningless a trivia as it gets. All you are saying is that no democratic senator voted for Clinton to be removed from office for lying about a blowjob, and then your next data point is from1868 because of a slavery issue at the end of the civil war. I mean, what is that about exactly? Trivia tend to be trivial. It is an interesting fact, I think it shows plainly how partisan impeachment is. Or Democrats are just always right? As far as I know Andrew Johnson's impeachment had nothing to do with slavery. Lost on you, the fact also means no Democrats voted to acquit Trump either. I thought it was interesting so I pointed it out, I hope your general reaction to encountering new facts isn't "what is this thing." We should check the votes for other officers who were impeached too, might be an interesting contrast. I saw this lying about a blowjob shtick like one page ago. Quickly becoming a tired line. The charge was perjury. With perjury it doesn't matter what you lie about if you're under oath. I hope for the sake of cognitive dissonance that it's not in your worldview to call Trump a sleaze, anyway. Iirc Clinton was disbarred and fined. You can say it's not a high crime and not subject to impeachment. For sure. I think I've made it clear I don't care for time wasting obstructionist impeachments. But you should elevate your discourse from the pejorative "lied about a blowjob" thing unless you want to equally embrace the fact that the 45th President of the United States was impeached for tweeting. It's interesting you see 230 some odd years of history without presidential incident, and only 1-2 frivolous impeachments in all that time but a sudden acceleration in the last 2 years. Either a) the American people suddenly elected Satan after 200 years of relaxing or b) something else is eating democracy and causing this impeachmentdemic. Here is another interesting trivia: did you know that between the foundation of the United States and 2020, no Republican senator voted to impeach a republican president? See it's stupid, just as stupid as your trivia.
Romney flipped in 2019, but your point is weird anyway as you know that no Republican presidents were impeached in that time. I feel like you thought this was cute, but my time span of 150 years is accurate because it is the timespan of our whole dataset here. Going "from the time of the Pyramids to 2020 no US president tweeted that an election was stolen" for example would not be a constructive analogy. This fact is really getting under your skin for some reason when it was just an aside.
On February 15 2021 00:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
If you want to talk about Clinton, talk about Clinton.
I don't want to talk about Clinton, I just said he shouldn't have been impeached. That was the only point. What made you think I wanted to get into that more? What issue about Clinton, salient to this discussion, remains unresolved here? I mean, what point have we missed? Otherwise, rehashing a 20 year old drama isn't going to do anything constructive for our finite lives.
On February 15 2021 00:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
And yes, no president has even come remotely close to Trump when it comes to shitting on every rule, norm and principle the american Republic is based on. It's not that he is Satan, but that he shouldn't have even been considered, ever, by anyone, to hold public responsibility. He was utterly unfit for office. That republicans voted for that speaks absolute volume about them.
This is either a bar opinion, or a doctoral thesis. Without evidence we want to lean towards the former and suggest you familiarize yourself in detail with any criticisms of Andrew Jackson, FDR, Nixon, Bush...
Notice the signature hyperbolic invective. It's too tempting to avoid. Why just say he was your least favorite president from the maybe 4 of your adult life. No no, he shat on EVERY rule, EVERY norm, EVERY principle. Unenumerated as they yet are. Not one thing right, not even by accident. He should have just been President George Costanza and done the exact opposite of everything. Manifest destiny? He shat on that. Peace through strength - Pax Americana? Shat. (Russia and the DPRK attacked our allies while Trump was president right!) Freedom of speech? Shat. Freedom of the press? Shat. (The balls it took for Trump to shut down the NYT after what they wrote about him!) Freedom of religion? Shat. (What color states specifically restrict churches opening in corona?) Protectionism? Shat. Limited government? Shat. (Trump notoriously expanded the executive branch, not leaving hundreds of positions vacant) Congress has the power to make treaties? Shat. Congress declares war? Shat. (Thanks for invading all those countries Drumpf.) The alphabets need a warrant to see all your stuff? Shat. (Thanks Bush, Obama) Rule of law? SHAT.
|
Just want to point out as someone who loves technicalities you might want to reread Biff's post-it isn't that Trump shat on every rule/norm/principle, it's that no president came remotely as close as he did to shitting on every rule/norm/principle, which translates to "he disregarded the largest number by a large margin."
Which seems pretty reasonable to me; even if you want to do a charitable reading of Trump, he simply did not know or care about dozens if not hundreds of norms, rules, and principles inherent to the office, resulting in casual disregard for them (like, for example, not directly asking foreign governments to investigate his political opponents in recorded phone calls, tweeting new policies without consulting his agencies in any fashion, lying about clearly falsifiable things to the American people purely for ego reasons, directly endorsing products, etc.).
Or, you know, telling his supporters he won a popular vote with 0 evidence in 2016 and an election in 2020 when that is not in the fact the case based on any objective measure of reality and encouraging a fantasy that the Vice President has the authority to throw out certified electoral votes from states.
|
|
|
On February 15 2021 02:01 oBlade wrote:
Romney flipped in 2019, but your point is weird anyway as you know that no Republican presidents were impeached in that time. I feel like you thought this was cute, but my time span of 150 years is accurate because it is the timespan of our whole dataset here. Going "from the time of the Pyramids to 2020 no US president tweeted that an election was stolen" for example would not be a constructive analogy. This fact is really getting under your skin for some reason when it was just an aside.
It's not getting under my skin, I just point out that it's at the very best extremely disingenuous.
There has been no impeachment between Johnson and Clinton, and Johnson's Democratic party (and the whole context) had literally nothing in common with today's democratic party save the name.
Saying "in a 160 years, the democratic senators never dissented" when there are two points of data that have absolutely nothing in common is a bit insultingly dumb, sorry. And I suspect you know it very well. It's technically true, but so is my statement, that was my point. It doesn't make it clever. Or interesting.
|
On February 15 2021 02:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2021 02:01 oBlade wrote:
Romney flipped in 2019, but your point is weird anyway as you know that no Republican presidents were impeached in that time. I feel like you thought this was cute, but my time span of 150 years is accurate because it is the timespan of our whole dataset here. Going "from the time of the Pyramids to 2020 no US president tweeted that an election was stolen" for example would not be a constructive analogy. This fact is really getting under your skin for some reason when it was just an aside. It's not getting under my skin, I just point out that it's at the very best extremely disingenuous. There has been no impeachment between Johnson and Clinton, and Johnson's Democratic party (and the whole context) had literally nothing in common with today's democratic party save the name. Saying "in a 160 years, the democratic senators never dissented" when there are two points of data that have absolutely nothing in common is a bit insultingly dumb, sorry. And I suspect you know it very well. It's technically true, but so is my statement, that was my point. It doesn't make it clever. Or interesting.
How is a fact stupid or disingenuous? What argument are you reading between the lines here? You think I'm taking some kind of pot shot or what's the problem? You didn't know it, I shared it offhand and now what are you doing?
+ Show Spoiler +
If you had a population of politicians, put them into groups A and B, subdivided into 4 groups and had them vote yes/no (accounting for two of the votes aren't independent, voting patterns in the 3rd and 4th votes quite linked and many of the same people in 2nd 3rd and 4th votes), how often would you expect such uniformity in one group with the other so commonly breaking off from itself? DeepEmBlues could wizard up a model maybe but I can't. It was just a passing statement.
Your statement was trivially true. I tried to show you why it's different than the fact in question with an analogy. Since you didn't get the Pyramids one, I will show you another way, okay? Unicorns aren't purple.There's no import here as there's no unicorns to begin with. This would be a "stupid" fact as you point out. All the stars in the solar system are yellow. This looks basic and obvious, but it's a concise fact. Does it appear simple? It's not my fault there's only one star. On the other hand, if I said there are less than 50,000 yellow stars, that absurd range wouldn't lend any insight to the fact, it would decrease from it actually. That's different. That would be disingenuous.
That's you arbitrarily extending the range beyond the limits of the actual data points for effect. I specifically used the shortest possible time from the first impeachment until now. I didn't write history or decide how many impeachments there were. Not widening or exaggerating anything. This is the opposite of disingenuous.
There are 4 data points (impeachments) - technically more if you go by individual charges. Rather than the first two having nothing in common, what you're trying to articulate is that Johnson is the outlier. The correct way to frame it is to notice that impeachment historically strikes as randomly and about as often as a dangerous meteor with a modern trend towards a huge spike which you better hope doesn't continue.
Why were there no impeachments brought between Johnson and Clinton? (Indeed, why were there none from the founding until Johnson? As cutthroat as they were back then.) Firstly, because Nixon resigned before he could get destroyed. You can speculate on votes there, I don't think any Democratic senators would have hypothetically voted to acquit though. Secondly, the Johnson impeachment was a precedent inasmuch as people realized wait, that didn't work. We can't just impeach the opposing party whenever they do something we don't like, impeachment isn't a backup plan in case of general election failure.
On February 15 2021 02:34 JimmiC wrote:
We can get back to this when NY state files. But he is currently being investigated for mortgage fraud, tax evasion and so on. His exaggeration is not the problem, it is his criminality. The other big investigation is in Georgia which is a slam dunk unless he gets a partisan judge since he is on tape.
Okay, if he is under investigation for doing illegal things, I wouldn't expect him to release them? Like you say, who cares about the tax returns, he's not president, even if he was, what president's tax returns have you looked at? Let the investigations run their course.
On February 15 2021 02:34 JimmiC wrote:
Bartenders could pass the requirements it has nothing to do with the government becoming the FBI, it has to do with safety of information and free of influence. Trump can't because of his massive debts and who it is held by. He would be considered way to much of a risk to be turned by a foreign government and to easily influenced. He is going to be the first president to lose his security clearance after losing the presidency and even the Republicans are not upset about this.
It was a reference to AOC, not a slight against bartenders. The point is to put little stock in an alphabet background check as a standard for public office. I think some of our politicians are already systemically corrupt and beholden to foreign interests and nothing has stopped them. The people should decide who has oversight to the surveillance state.
On February 15 2021 02:34 JimmiC wrote:
Also, if you think no on in the military has ever used pot LOL!!!!!!!!! You really think Army recruiters do not accept people who have admitted to smoking weed you are living in a dream world. (you can't be high on duty, but some people even have marijuana waivers).
Not what I said LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL! As far as I know it used to a rule on paper which is what we're talking about. The armed services have been selective since going all-volunteer. On the other hand, they've gradually become more progressive about gays serving, transgenders serving, and a less stringent drug history thing makes sense in that vein.[/QUOTE]
|
A quick refresher, we're talking about the guy who in the span of less than two weeks:
- pressured the VP to cancel the election
- pressured the Georgia SoS on tape to change the election result in the state
- asked his goons live on air to storm the capitol during certification
Don't feed the troll about frivolous impeachments, he knows all this.
|
|
|
The complaints about impeachment is entirely in bad faith. Dont feed the troll.
If someone commits a murder after they got off on a previous murder charge, you charge them again.
Stop committing murders and you wont be charged multiple times FFS.
|
Right right, "yes" or "no" was a bad phrasing. Rather they're voting, in one frame, for party or against party, and in another frame, correctly or incorrectly (problem is that's an open question). Democrats were always correct so they didn't have to wrestle with voting against the party? Republicans have a more natural tendency to vote however they want? Rare coincidence?
Honestly there are a lot of cases of bet hedging, taking like Romney for example, he can flip vote for his own self-interest to send a message without getting blamed for a bad result that he caused, because the result was guaranteed otherwise. Similarly no Democrat would need to break rants on principle if they thought the Russian impeachment was nonsense, because the result was guaranteed anyway and they would only hurt their own self-interest with their base.
On February 15 2021 04:01 Sadist wrote:
The complaints about impeachment is entirely in bad faith. Dont feed the troll.
If someone commits a murder after they got off on a previous murder charge, you charge them again.
Stop committing murders and you wont be charged multiple times FFS.
Are you talking about me?
|
On February 15 2021 04:01 Sadist wrote:
The complaints about impeachment is entirely in bad faith. Dont feed the troll.
If someone commits a murder after they got off on a previous murder charge, you charge them again.
Stop committing murders and you wont be charged multiple times FFS.
Allow me to add a little to this.
If you go to have your tonsils removed and the surgeon repeatedly and deliberately tries to cut your nutsack off only to be stopped by other staff with each attempt he has to be barred from practicing medicine. It's irrelevant that your nuts are still there, it's irrelevant that he went on a sabbatical next week, it's irrelevant whether he was planning to return to practice or not, it's irrelevant whether or not you press charges.
|
|
|
On February 15 2021 03:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2021 02:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 15 2021 02:01 oBlade wrote:
Romney flipped in 2019, but your point is weird anyway as you know that no Republican presidents were impeached in that time. I feel like you thought this was cute, but my time span of 150 years is accurate because it is the timespan of our whole dataset here. Going "from the time of the Pyramids to 2020 no US president tweeted that an election was stolen" for example would not be a constructive analogy. This fact is really getting under your skin for some reason when it was just an aside. It's not getting under my skin, I just point out that it's at the very best extremely disingenuous. There has been no impeachment between Johnson and Clinton, and Johnson's Democratic party (and the whole context) had literally nothing in common with today's democratic party save the name. Saying "in a 160 years, the democratic senators never dissented" when there are two points of data that have absolutely nothing in common is a bit insultingly dumb, sorry. And I suspect you know it very well. It's technically true, but so is my statement, that was my point. It doesn't make it clever. Or interesting. How is a fact stupid or disingenuous? What argument are you reading between the lines here? You think I'm taking some kind of pot shot or what's the problem? You didn't know it, I shared it offhand and now what are you doing? + Show Spoiler +
If you had a population of politicians, put them into groups A and B, subdivided into 4 groups and had them vote yes/no (accounting for two of the votes aren't independent, voting patterns in the 3rd and 4th votes quite linked and many of the same people in 2nd 3rd and 4th votes), how often would you expect such uniformity in one group with the other so commonly breaking off from itself? DeepEmBlues could wizard up a model maybe but I can't. It was just a passing statement.
Your statement was trivially true. I tried to show you why it's different than the fact in question with an analogy. Since you didn't get the Pyramids one, I will show you another way, okay? Unicorns aren't purple.There's no import here as there's no unicorns to begin with. This would be a "stupid" fact as you point out. All the stars in the solar system are yellow. This looks basic and obvious, but it's a concise fact. Does it appear simple? It's not my fault there's only one star. On the other hand, if I said there are less than 50,000 yellow stars, that absurd range wouldn't lend any insight to the fact, it would decrease from it actually. That's different. That would be disingenuous.
That's you arbitrarily extending the range beyond the limits of the actual data points for effect. I specifically used the shortest possible time from the first impeachment until now. I didn't write history or decide how many impeachments there were. Not widening or exaggerating anything. This is the opposite of disingenuous.
There are 4 data points (impeachments) - technically more if you go by individual charges. Rather than the first two having nothing in common, what you're trying to articulate is that Johnson is the outlier. The correct way to frame it is to notice that impeachment historically strikes as randomly and about as often as a dangerous meteor with a modern trend towards a huge spike which you better hope doesn't continue. Why were there no impeachments brought between Johnson and Clinton? (Indeed, why were there none from the founding until Johnson? As cutthroat as they were back then.) Firstly, because Nixon resigned before he could get destroyed. You can speculate on votes there, I don't think any Democratic senators would have hypothetically voted to acquit though. Secondly, the Johnson impeachment was a precedent inasmuch as people realized wait, that didn't work. We can't just impeach the opposing party whenever they do something we don't like, impeachment isn't a backup plan in case of general election failure. Show nested quote +On February 15 2021 02:34 JimmiC wrote:
We can get back to this when NY state files. But he is currently being investigated for mortgage fraud, tax evasion and so on. His exaggeration is not the problem, it is his criminality. The other big investigation is in Georgia which is a slam dunk unless he gets a partisan judge since he is on tape. Okay, if he is under investigation for doing illegal things, I wouldn't expect him to release them? Like you say, who cares about the tax returns, he's not president, even if he was, what president's tax returns have you looked at? Let the investigations run their course. Show nested quote +On February 15 2021 02:34 JimmiC wrote:
Bartenders could pass the requirements it has nothing to do with the government becoming the FBI, it has to do with safety of information and free of influence. Trump can't because of his massive debts and who it is held by. He would be considered way to much of a risk to be turned by a foreign government and to easily influenced. He is going to be the first president to lose his security clearance after losing the presidency and even the Republicans are not upset about this. It was a reference to AOC, not a slight against bartenders. The point is to put little stock in an alphabet background check as a standard for public office. I think some of our politicians are already systemically corrupt and beholden to foreign interests and nothing has stopped them. The people should decide who has oversight to the surveillance state. Show nested quote +On February 15 2021 02:34 JimmiC wrote:
Also, if you think no on in the military has ever used pot LOL!!!!!!!!! You really think Army recruiters do not accept people who have admitted to smoking weed you are living in a dream world. (you can't be high on duty, but some people even have marijuana waivers). Not what I said LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL! As far as I know it used to a rule on paper which is what we're talking about. The armed services have been selective since going all-volunteer. On the other hand, they've gradually become more progressive about gays serving, transgenders serving, and a less stringent drug history thing makes sense in that vein.
It's a fact no Republican has voted to impeach a Republican president from the foundation of the US to the first Trump empeachement. It's a super dumb observation and it has no relevance to anything.
So is your "trivia". That's all I'm saying. We can go on for ever, but there is nothing else to say. Don't say dumb shit like that even if they are technically true. If you want to complain about no democratic senator voting to remove Clinton and voting unanimously against Trump, say so. Leave Johnson and the "since 1868" out of it. The democrats were basically the right wing at that time.
|
On February 15 2021 00:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 23:18 oBlade wrote:On February 14 2021 19:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 14 2021 19:04 oBlade wrote:On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote:
Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors, not political vendettas. The constitution does not specifically proscribe the use of "he took my parking spot" as an impeachable offense but it's not done out of respect for the institution. They make the determination but if you allow partisan charges then the cat is out of the bag and you should expect partisan resistance. Though there is an openness to where the Senate can sentence someone for mistakes or misconduct that don't otherwise fall under a criminal statute due to the nature of public office, if the serious charge of inciting a riot and insurrection and attempting to upend democracy were not criminal, then anyone could do it as a private citizen with impunity because you can't impeach private citizens. What you're saying falls apart from both ends. As a side note in 150 years no Democratic senator has ever dissented in a presidential impeachment vote. Just interesting. That's as meaningless a trivia as it gets. All you are saying is that no democratic senator voted for Clinton to be removed from office for lying about a blowjob, and then your next data point is from1868 because of a slavery issue at the end of the civil war. I mean, what is that about exactly? Trivia tend to be trivial. It is an interesting fact, I think it shows plainly how partisan impeachment is. Or Democrats are just always right? As far as I know Andrew Johnson's impeachment had nothing to do with slavery. Lost on you, the fact also means no Democrats voted to acquit Trump either. I thought it was interesting so I pointed it out, I hope your general reaction to encountering new facts isn't "what is this thing." We should check the votes for other officers who were impeached too, might be an interesting contrast. I saw this lying about a blowjob shtick like one page ago. Quickly becoming a tired line. The charge was perjury. With perjury it doesn't matter what you lie about if you're under oath. I hope for the sake of cognitive dissonance that it's not in your worldview to call Trump a sleaze, anyway. Iirc Clinton was disbarred and fined. You can say it's not a high crime and not subject to impeachment. For sure. I think I've made it clear I don't care for time wasting obstructionist impeachments. But you should elevate your discourse from the pejorative "lied about a blowjob" thing unless you want to equally embrace the fact that the 45th President of the United States was impeached for tweeting. It's interesting you see 230 some odd years of history without presidential incident, and only 1-2 frivolous impeachments in all that time but a sudden acceleration in the last 2 years. Either a) the American people suddenly elected Satan after 200 years of relaxing or b) something else is eating democracy and causing this impeachmentdemic. Here is another interesting trivia: did you know that between the foundation of the United States and 2020, no Republican senator voted to impeach a republican president? See it's stupid, just as stupid as your trivia. If you want to talk about Clinton, talk about Clinton. And yes, no president has even come remotely close to Trump when it comes to shitting on every rule, norm and principle the american Republic is based on. It's not that he is Satan, but that he shouldn't have even been considered, ever, by anyone, to hold public responsibility. He was utterly unfit for office. That republicans voted for that speaks absolute volume about them.
No, it doesn't.
The fact that you would use that, as an argument, certainly speaks volumes to your lack of familiarity of conservative thinking and rationale.
Remember, the end goal is that electing the president results in less harm or in greater benefit than the other candidate when looking at the totality of the equation. If you understood this, then you would be able to articulate, ideally steelman, the conservative case for why they felt that the net positive of Trump outweighed the negatives of Clinton and...well...Trump being Trump.
Since you didn't do that, I can assume only one of two things:
1) You're arguing in terrible faith by knowingly mischaracterizing the people you disagree with in an easy to bash manner
2) You're honest and in good faith, but so clueless as to conservative thinking, worldview, and lens of perception that you're unable to formulate any decent understanding of why someone would vote Trump.
|
|
|
On February 15 2021 07:20 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2021 07:17 L_Master wrote:On February 15 2021 00:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 14 2021 23:18 oBlade wrote:On February 14 2021 19:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 14 2021 19:04 oBlade wrote:On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote:
Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors, not political vendettas. The constitution does not specifically proscribe the use of "he took my parking spot" as an impeachable offense but it's not done out of respect for the institution. They make the determination but if you allow partisan charges then the cat is out of the bag and you should expect partisan resistance. Though there is an openness to where the Senate can sentence someone for mistakes or misconduct that don't otherwise fall under a criminal statute due to the nature of public office, if the serious charge of inciting a riot and insurrection and attempting to upend democracy were not criminal, then anyone could do it as a private citizen with impunity because you can't impeach private citizens. What you're saying falls apart from both ends. As a side note in 150 years no Democratic senator has ever dissented in a presidential impeachment vote. Just interesting. That's as meaningless a trivia as it gets. All you are saying is that no democratic senator voted for Clinton to be removed from office for lying about a blowjob, and then your next data point is from1868 because of a slavery issue at the end of the civil war. I mean, what is that about exactly? Trivia tend to be trivial. It is an interesting fact, I think it shows plainly how partisan impeachment is. Or Democrats are just always right? As far as I know Andrew Johnson's impeachment had nothing to do with slavery. Lost on you, the fact also means no Democrats voted to acquit Trump either. I thought it was interesting so I pointed it out, I hope your general reaction to encountering new facts isn't "what is this thing." We should check the votes for other officers who were impeached too, might be an interesting contrast. I saw this lying about a blowjob shtick like one page ago. Quickly becoming a tired line. The charge was perjury. With perjury it doesn't matter what you lie about if you're under oath. I hope for the sake of cognitive dissonance that it's not in your worldview to call Trump a sleaze, anyway. Iirc Clinton was disbarred and fined. You can say it's not a high crime and not subject to impeachment. For sure. I think I've made it clear I don't care for time wasting obstructionist impeachments. But you should elevate your discourse from the pejorative "lied about a blowjob" thing unless you want to equally embrace the fact that the 45th President of the United States was impeached for tweeting. It's interesting you see 230 some odd years of history without presidential incident, and only 1-2 frivolous impeachments in all that time but a sudden acceleration in the last 2 years. Either a) the American people suddenly elected Satan after 200 years of relaxing or b) something else is eating democracy and causing this impeachmentdemic. Here is another interesting trivia: did you know that between the foundation of the United States and 2020, no Republican senator voted to impeach a republican president? See it's stupid, just as stupid as your trivia. If you want to talk about Clinton, talk about Clinton. And yes, no president has even come remotely close to Trump when it comes to shitting on every rule, norm and principle the american Republic is based on. It's not that he is Satan, but that he shouldn't have even been considered, ever, by anyone, to hold public responsibility. He was utterly unfit for office. That republicans voted for that speaks absolute volume about them. No, it doesn't. The fact that you would use that, as an argument, certainly speaks volumes to your lack of familiarity of conservative thinking and rationale. Remember, the end goal is that electing the president results in less harm or in greater benefit than the other candidate when looking at the totality of the equation. If you understood this, then you would be able to articulate, ideally steelman, the conservative case for why they felt that the net positive of Trump outweighed the negatives of Clinton and...well...Trump being Trump. Since you didn't do that, I can assume only one of two things: 1) You're arguing in terrible faith by knowingly mischaracterizing the people you disagree with in an easy to bash manner 2) You're honest and in good faith, but so clueless as to conservative thinking, worldview, and lens of perception that you're unable to formulate any decent understanding of why someone would vote Trump. I'm not sure where you are going with this. He is talking about Bill and that impeachment compared to this one. The great specter of the evil Hilary really does not come it to play when it comes to whether or not to impeach Trump. Though I'm sure it was brought up.
Agree strongly Hillary definitely does not matter in the context of impeachment.
There are certainly worldviews in which removing Trump from office results in the nation being worse off, possibly even to the point that even considerations of precedence set are insufficient to change the "net harm" equation.
I was referring to him talking about conservatives voting to elect Trump speaking volumes about that voting bloc. However, this could be applied to the impeachment process as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
