1 I said: "Evidence? And I mean something more than “I’ll bet that-” etc. And: “If you show me reasonably compelling evidence of the things you’re claiming, I’ll give it serious consideration. I in no way rule out the possibility that he’s guilty of the things you say.” And your response is a rant about Trump’s character flaws and no evidence of the “rape accusations (that) weren’t all made up,” and the “stories of him walking through locker rooms of under-age half naked girls?” Those were the things you claimed. Evidence, please.
Then why is Beijing the smog capital of the world?
3 And yet you seem to be assigning responsibility to them for it, as an excuse for Biden not honoring his own post Capitol mobbing call for unity:
4 Then why were you defending his EOs (actions that spoke louder than the word “unity”) on that basis?
5 I also asked you why you draw the line where you do.
And I don’t care what the fetus looks like. The DNA is human from the moment of conception. And again: What about the baby’s choice?
6 I’ve said it time and again: LET THE FREAKIN’ FEDERAL BUREAU of INVESTIGATION and BIDEN’S HANDPICKED ATTOURNEY GENERAL see to accountability.
And you STILL haven’t addressed how this process of a Mach-3 impeachment with NO TIME TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE when it couldn’t realistically get Trump out of office before he was out anyway (go ahead and convince me that the Founding Fathers intended for the impeachment process was intended for “accountability” AFTER the target was OUT OF OFFICE) could possibly be anything OTHER than DEVISIVE. I’m used to more straightforward answers from you than this.
By the way: Not that I’m a fan of conspiracy theories, but what crime did Marjory Taylor Green commit?
7 This is from an earlier post, but: Increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices never showed its ugly head out of any Republican push. I’ll argue to the death that this is a bigger gun.
Because they are going though the same pains we went though as a nation, but we did it in the 1970’s (when CA had huge smog problems), When the population was less than 200 million, where as they have over 1 billion people. As far as BeJing, for reference, take the country of Los Angeles in about the same land area and double it and that’s Bejing. Beijing as more people than the state of New York including the nations largest city, New York City.
But again, you asked why weren’t they using green technologies and I want to point out again…They are.
Why do you say that? I mean, in your head, what does unity look like? If you’re talking about the Impeachment, he has no control over that.
Now maybe you think he should berate the Dems on TV, but again, the trial for his impeachment will make a case for his conviction, or it wont.
Sorry, getting a little lost here… What EO did I defend?
We’re now moving into philosophical/ religious ground and we’re not going to make any headway here. Everything I offer you from this point is based on my subjective observation and yours, though you might try to claim you’re is grounded in objectivity, that being god. Which, you already know my position on god and telling you what I think will probably insult god or your belief in god.
That said, if you want to know my philosophical beliefs from here because you think you can point out how they are flawed without resorting to “god said so” I’m happy to further indulge this conversation, otherwise I can’t see the point.
What does it mean to be human?
Choice? It’s the mother’s choice until the fetus becomes something that we all recognize shares our capacity to experience the world. It is at that point I consider it separate from the mother, not before.
Someday in the distant future, I’d be willing to bet that babies will be gestated outside the human body. I wonder how people will feel about it then?
Trump isn’t being charged with a crime. If the House wants to impeach and hold a trial that is their call. My guess is that they believe they have the evidence they need to convict and will present that evidence at the trial.
If they fire it, which I still highly doubt. Manchin of WV will NEVER, EVER vote for it and they know it. The idea is dead even before it’s written on paper.
Now would the Dems do it if they had a 4 seat majority? That’s a good question and one I won’t speculate on because that’s all it would be.
People have been impeached after leaving office. I’d also argue that the fact that voting on removal is separate from conviction tells us that it was indeed intended to be used after a person left office. Otherwise, all a person would have to do is leave their office the day before the Senate was to take it up.
As far as evidence, you’re still treating this like a crime. Impeachment, as Republicans pointed out so many times during the Russia investigation isn’t a criminal proceeding, it’s a political one. Now they’ve all forgotten what they said 2 years ago.
I think the House managers think they have all the evidence they need.
So, let me start by asking…Does a politician have to commit a crime in your eyes to be removed from their office?
For example, is it against the law for 50 something-year-old married man to be shown having sex with multiple early 20-year-olds if they content?
Now, obviously, I’m not accusing MTG of this, but simply asking, does a person have to commit a crime to be removed from office? Aren’t there outrageous behaviors that could warrant that?
1 Then where’s the evidence that it’s working in Beijing?
2 You’re shifting the question. Why does Biden not have a responsibility to show the unity that he preached after the storming of the Capitol?
3 You de facto defended his EOs on the basis that he doesn’t owe the right unity after he preached it. That was part of my whole argument on the unity issue.
4 Mine is based in science as surely as it is in my religious faith. Human life begins at the moment of conception. The only people I see denying this appear to do so for political reasons. Even people (in large numbers; and in spite of this, Biden doubled down on abortion (in spite of his claimed Catholic faith; ditto Pelosi)) who are generally liberal are starting to realize this is true, and are abandoning support for abortion.
Since you say your position is subjective, let me ask you this: Since you do indeed believe there is a point when a baby in the womb becomes a person and deserves all the moral protections that go with personhood, how, from your admittedly subjective position, do you be sure that you’re on the right side of the division between personhood and not?
To put it another way: If you see an issue that you consider to be a fundamental rights issue (as you do for woman regarding early-pregnancy abortion) and if to support that right you have to take a 2.8% chance (approximately the chance of rolling snake eyes on a pair of dice; 1 in 36) that people will die as a direct result, do you take that chance?
5 In essence, he is. The only valid constitutional reason for impeachment is "high crimes and misdemeanors. 6 In previous posts, you were pretty heavily supporting that “call.” And you still haven’t answered why that call should be made when it couldn’t and can’t accomplish anything that an FBI investigation and (if they successfully obtain the necessary evidence) criminal trial in a court couldn’t accomplish better and a LOT less divisively.
5 That’s what I thought about this last $1.9 trillion “stimulus” package in regard to that same Senator, who was insisting that it needed to be done in a bipartisan way, instead of rammed through by the Dems. Which is what happened. And he voted for it. 6 I’m not sure what you mean by “four seat majority,” when it takes at least five to have a majority at all.
7 I’m curious as to examples, and what happened in regard to them. 8 Leaving office before being impeached is exactly what Nixon did. And no impeachment was felt to be necessary. 9 So were you. You were talking “insurrection;” and again, impeachment of the President is for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” 10 Then why the Mach 3 railroad and nothing but “Trump is guilty!” to the people?
11 So far as I can tell: Yes; they do have to commit a crime (which, by the way, is why Clinton was impeached; not for illicit sex, but for lying under oath about it).
In the example of the adulterous fifty-year-old man, he should resign. Which is exactly what Clinton did not do.
For speaking crackpot beliefs? No. If that were the case, then Alexandria Ocasio Cortez should have been run out of Congress on a rail.
You’re moving the goalpost. Your original question
They are employing it in their own country. More than any other country.
Why isn’t it working?
They are a nation of 1.3 billion people about 4 times as many people as the US. They are at least a generation or more behind the US socially and were as little as 30 years ago widely considered a third world country. The measure of their success will be in 20-40 years compared to the US. Given their advancement as a nation (despite how we feel about their government) they have come farther and faster than any other nation of their size in the modern era.
Can you say you are aware of the entirety of what he has said and done? Do you look for stories of Biden talking about unity?
Why are you only focused on the negative? Hmmmm?
That said, how exactly would you quantify something like this? I mean, in his interviews is he calling members of the Republican party childish names? Is he making baseless allegations of Republicans conspiring with foreign nations to undermine America? Is he telling people that Republicans will destroy America?
Oh, wait, that’s stuff the former President did, but you’re upset because this President isn’t working harder to undo the disgusting rhetoric of the last one? Pretty hard for me to be hard on Biden at this point given the free pass Trump got from people like you, who, I know won’t claim to like him, but looked the other way while he did some of the pretty awful crap that he did.
And that means at the moment the sperm and the egg fertilize if it’s stopped, that’s murder?
I don’t agree. “Life” may begin at conception, but experience begins later and that’s the line I’d draw when considering abortion.
If an intruder broke into the home of a hypothetical person and stabbed a child to death, we’d call that murder and potentially give that person the death penalty.
Now let’s say a person were to intentionally destroy a week after inception against the mother’s wishes (if such a thing were possible).
Should they get the death penalty in your eyes? Is the tiny pea size embryo no different in your eyes a 12-year-old child?
I want to point out that your position is also subjective, despite your claims to the contrary. At least until you can verifiably prove the God of Christianity exists and he makes the claims you say.
As far as the division between personhood or not, those are choices. For that matter, how do we make any of the choices we make?
The decision to accept an edict like “thou shalt not steal”, is a choice. you either accept it or you don’t. If you don’t you’ll find that others around you will either harm you, incarcerate you or remove you from the “group” (whatever the group is).
See, if I understand you, you think that your rights are god-given. I don’t, I think your rights are extended to you by those around you.
Let’s say that you and I belonged to a group that thought stealing was ok.
I would try to convince the group that stealing is bad and I’d list all of the social consequences for stealing and how they are bad for the individual and for the group.
You might agree, but, again if I may, you might cite god and his commandments.
Now, what’s more, compelling a god we can’t see taste touch or feel who will deal consequences, consequences that a person can avoid if they repent, after death. Or the consequences that arise from our everyday experience?
So I make the choice grounded in the real tangible experience of humans. Once a baby begins to experience the world and can perceive suffering, then killing the baby causes real, quantifiable harm. And btw, I think there is also harm that can come to a mother who makes the choice to abort which is why I’d support both before and after counseling for anyone considering or having had an abortion. The twist is that counseling would have to come from a neutral party whose interest was in the mother. I think that some abortions could be avoided as many are based in fear of money and a lack of knowledge of resources available to people who lack the means to care for a child.
Mopving on…Lets say a woman is murdered who is trying to get pregnant, by your description, isn’t the murdered guilty of killing the unborn would-be child? After all, if he hadn’t killed her she would have had children? If killing a collection of cells that will become a human as we recognize it is murder, can’t you go back even further?
How is that different than any other elective surgery? They all come with risks, right?
We can agree to disagree here, but “Crimes and Misdemeanors” does not mean a federal crime.
There was no federal statute under which to prosecute people when that line was written into the Constitution.
And again, I can think of many egregious and distasteful examples you’d have to admit weren’t impeachable because while being awful and disgusting, aren’t crimes. Clearly a morally reprehensible act that isn’t illegal can still be acted on by Congress.
Again, the investigation into what? Most of what we know is public. For the rest, we call people before Congress and swear under the penalty of perjury to answer questions about events that lead up to the event.
Why do you need an investigation for that?
That said, how do we know there aren’t investigations ongoing? Has this question been asked and confirmed? Do you know there aren’t any FBI or other Federal agencies investigating?
There is already a thread on this, FYI. Also, Lindell kept on digging after he hit bottom. He then proceeded to buy air time on OAN to house a “documentary”. It was so incoherent and pathetic, OAN had to put up the following disclaimer:
The link where I initially watched it has since been taken down, but it was a sight to behold. I still don’t know what I saw, Tommy Wiseau would be awestruck. It also stars Trump’s “number one witness” Drunk Karen (forget what her real name is). The only advice I can give is whilst watching this train wreck (if you can find it) is don’t have a sip of beer every time Mark Lindell mentions “they” and doesn’t explain who “they” are or what “they” did unless you’re not going to work the next day. You will definitely need that time to recover.
EDIT: Wow, I’m really embarrassed that I didn’t think of looking for the video this way. Lindell’s masterpiece can be found here
1 No, I’m not. If they have this great technology and they’re employing it, why do we see (literally) evidence to the contrary in their capital city? And the U.S. is the model for industrialized nations (even if it kills us).
2 No; I’m only aware of a small crapload of EOs that demonstrate a blatant disregard for and disinterest in unity. 3 No. I only know he said it in his inauguration speech. Actions speak louder than words, and he’s made a number of critical actions that are the opposite of his words.
4 Is it a person? If so, yes. Obviously, we disagree on that point.
5 It is indeed not different morally in my eyes.
6 No, because the child isn’t conceived. I’m not talking about speculative life; I’m talking about the real thing.
7 Not with risks that deliberately target for destruction what many of us argue is human life.
8 So “high crimes and misdemeanors” means whatever whoever controls Congress says it does?
9 If so, then where’s your beef with just letting it be handled through law enforcement and the courts?
Please give me STRAIGHT ANSWERS to these two questions:
1 Do you believe that this impeachment had a realistic chance of accomplishing anything righteous that the FBI and courts couldn’t? 2 Do you deny that they impeachment is virtually guaranteed to be politically divisive in a huge way?
Because we are two generations ahead of them and they have 4 times more people.
All I can do is ask, what EO’s are you talking about?
And did you feel the same about Trump’s EO’s? I mean, aren’t you being a little hypocritical here? Did you think that Trump was trying to unite the country? Or are you upset because you think Biden is lying about unity by paying lip-service to the idea?
Again, if that’s the case, seems a little hypocritical to get so upset about it given the sheer number of lies and fabrications Trump indulged in.
Now to be clear, I’m not saying Biden lied, I don’t know till you give me a few examples, but it’s obvious you feel that way and I think it’s ironic either way.
Yes, actually it does. The price to pay will be a political one of Congress abuses that power.
Remember, Republicans were calling for the impeachment of Clintion before he lied under oath. The lying part just provided the political cover they needed.
But you skirted one of my questions. Given what you’ve said, do you admit that if a President committed any one of a number of unethical, immoral and vile acts, that he could’t be impeached if those actions weren’t a crime?
I can give hypotheticals if you want.
Because impeachment is POLITICAL not a legal argument. There might be cases where investigations are necessary to uncover the truth, but I think in this case enough happened in public and the Congress has enough resources to do this on their own.
Sure, but are you saying the we should set aside things because they are divisive?
Again, the hypocracy is deafening. Trump literally ran on “LOCK HER UP”. Hard to get any more divisive than that. And even after yeartts of investigations behand the scenes of Clinton and others turned up nothing, that didn’t discourage Trump from playing on those sentiments.
1 You’d think they’d concentrate it in their capital, which got them a lot of bad press for the Olympics in 2008.
2 I don’t know numbers, but he did EOs for ceasing work on the wall, dumping taxpayer dollars into foreign abortion, and demanding bio males be allowed to compete in women’s sports.
3 Why is it hypocritical when I never said word one about Trump’s EOs, and when I made it clear that I never voted for the man? Further, since when (assuming Trump did what you said; and I don’t dismiss that he did) do two wrongs make a right? How do Trump’s wrongs justify Biden’s? That’s deflection.
4 Based on what?
5 Did they actually do the impeachment before that?
6 I skirted nothing; I answered it straight up. I said:
I can clarify a bit by saying that the example of the adulterer is not grounds for impeachment (although again, he should resign). Other than maybe that, I didn’t leave any room for doubt as to my position.
7 I seriously question if the Founders would agree with you. I sure don’t. 8 And they could take a few hours to go over it on the House floor? Don’t you think that would have been appropriate, instead of just saying: “We decided he’s worthy of impeachment because we said so?”
By the way, I’m still not clear on the history of impeachment after a person left office. Did it ever go anywhere? If so, were there constitutional challenges? If so, what were the results?
9 Set aside something that by your definition is political and not legal when there’s a legal process that can deal with anything that needs to be dealt with? Absolutely.
9 First of all, this justifies the impeachment? Second, was he calling for her to be “locked up” on a political basis as opposed to a legal one? I’ll answer that myself: No, he didn’t. He was complaining about the fact that the FBI wasn’t investigating Hillary. Are you going to tell me there wasn’t enough evidence in just the public eye (let alone behind the scenes) to justify doing so?
I should point out that the decision to build the wall was an EO. But Biden should stop it. It’s a terrible waste of resources that won’t accomplish the goal its creators hope to accomplish since most illegals aren’t here because they walked across the border.
And I’m with AS on this one. Guest worker programs and I’ve even go further in partnering with Mexico (over China) to help build Mexico’s economy so that Mexica can be more like Canada.
This would help create a nation where people are less likely to leave and for people in Central America, they can stop in a prosperous Mexico as they already speak the language. If Mexico wants to stop immigration, their border is a lot easier to secure than ours.
The border all is a joke and little more than a monument to Trump’s vanity.
As for the rest of his EO’s,
I can’t find them. Maybe you can’t point to them?
Because you didn’t say one word about Trump’s EO’s, that’s the point.
First, I don’t agree that Biden has done anything wrong. Next, my point isn’t pointed at Biden or Trump, I’m pointing out your reactions to them both.
Well, obviously there’s nothing to point to that will prove either of us right. Legal and Constitutional scholars are literally having this debate as we speak. But I’ll simply point out, again, there was no federal code to violate when impeachment was created.
I know the founders really feared impeachment be used as a political tool, but others recognized that the President could take actions that were harmful to the nation without necessarily violating laws.
You still haven’t addressed the fact that by your standard there is a litany of vial, treacherous and disgusting acts the President could engage in without breaking the law and you’d have to admit that there would be no remedy to remove him except wait for his next election.
What if the President shares military secrets with our enemies? I mean, by law the President can declassify information, thus making what would be a crime for everyone else, not a crime. It’s not treason, because the President would have made the information public knowledge, what then?
So you think that would be ok?
Sure you said that person should resign, but if they don’t, what then?
Each side will have 16 hours to go over it on the Senate floor.
That’s going to be Trump’s defense, or so I’ve heard. But we have precident, and people have been impeached after leaving office.
Again, without the ability to impeach after the fact, all anyone would have to do to avoid it is quit before the Senate gave it’s ruling.
No, Trump’s public actions are grounds for impeachment.
If there is an explanation, then he should present his case, but instead of trying to explain, he’s simply going to argue that he can’t be impeached, which to me is an admission of guilt (of course assuming that’s the route his lawyers take) because he cannot justify his actions, or in some case, inaction.
If there was a crime committed, why didn’t Trump or his AG’s ever charge her with a crime?
Because they knew after years of investigations, at least 14 appearances before the House and the Senate there was no crime to lock her up for. That’s literally the only explanation. So yes, it was 1000% political.
Look, Trump has committed several crimes having to do with, at the very least things like the Emoluments Clause and breaches of the Logan Act, but Biden and his surrogates aren’t chanting “lock him up!!!” in front of a crowd of cheering fans.
Even if you want to make the case there was a crime committed, the place for that is the DOJ, not at a POLITICAL rally. The moment you engage in demagoguery in front of a crowd of adoring fans, yes, that’s purely political and I’m surprised you can’t see that for what it is. You might disagree with me on the details, but if Biden believed that Trump committed crimes and went out campaigning “lock him up”. Yes, even if the accusations are 100% it changes from a legal matter into demagoguery.
First, chanting “lock her up” isn’t a complaint.
He was literally the head of the executive branch. If they were refusing to investigate, I’m sure it’s because what Trump was asking simply wasn’t possible (and it wouldn’t be the first time). If he didn’t like the result he could have fired every person that wouldn’t do what he asked. Do you know why he didn’t? because the appearance of impropriety is in some way, even better than the real thing. Because he knows his supporters will believe almost anything, so he can undermine his own DOJ and reap the political benefits.
And given the long history of corruption and one party rule in Mexico, do you really think that’s possible? It appears that the drug lords have more power in Mexico than the government.
Do you really think you can get this to work? As a supporter of central planning and five year plans, I’m sure you do. All you need is to integrate some of the principles of capitalism to make it work, just like they have in China.
Why not let “El Chapo” out of prison and let him be the point man for your scheme. I believe that he is a great organizer and quite resourceful. There are not many who could be build a large drug empire as he did. He even managed to arrange for the building of a tunnel under a prison and have a motorcycle for him to ride to freedom, all while he was in prison. Perhaps he could work for Disney as an “imagineer.”
Oh, and by the way, given the history of Mexico’s one party system, why are you so determined to establish the same thing here in the United States? Have your studies of history supported the honesty and efficiency of one party rule? They probably have since you are as well indoctrinated as the younger leftists on this board.
Why don’t you stow the “strawman comments? It’s getting old. Is the best you can do? I give you honest opinions, have not let Trump off the hook when I thought that he was wrong.
I went “Johnathan Swift” on you because you are so dishonest about what you really are. You try to pass yourself as a classic liberal when you are really a Bernie Sanders – AOC progressive. If you were a true liberal, you would not be happy with the far-left bent your party has taken. You should be especially concerned about the anti-Semitic bent that Omar and Tlaib have taken. But, no, you can’t say anything negative about their bigotry or the policies of the party that owns you total allegiance.
You are not a professional politician. You don’t have an obligation to be slavishly loyal to the Progressive Democrat Party. And yet you are. So one has to assume that everything they advocate is fine with you.
Why don’t you tell us what’s wrong with Bernie Sanders and AOC, @csbrown28?
I will lead off by tell you what’s wrong with Trump. He is thin skinned, shoots too much from the hip and does not always get his facts straight before he says something. He should have looked at how successful presidents handled a crisis, like Covid and learned something from that. Instead he went off with a lot of half cocked press conferences which did he great harm. He would have been much better off if he had gotten a decent speechwriter who could have provided him with a presidential looking address.
After he lost the election, he had the right to question the results. Unfortunately he kept going for weeks on end which did him nothing but damage.
Since I believe in freedom, free markets and capitalism, we will never agree on policy.
Now it’s your turn. Do you think that Bernie Sanders and AOC should be running the country because it sure looks like it? Where is Biden’s healing message and actions to match it? Do you think that it’s a good idea to have national security forces in this country going after peaceful Trump supporters? Do you agree with John Brennon’s approach?
I won’t be surprised if you ignore all of these questions.