Sounds like you could have done a better job than Schiff et al, I thought they were unstructured and disorganized in their work in the House, weak and illogical in the 2 charges brought, poor in the wording, and impossibly weak in the defense of the charges in the Senate. Yeah, I have little good to say about the majority of any of them on either side especially today. They are almost all useless, worthless, self serving unethical scum bags who put self interest above country and the constitution. I"m a tad negative about it all today. They have one last chance to at least put a bandaid on it but I don't think they will. Given they never dreamed or seriously considered they'd get 2/3 in the senate, it's then useful to ask what the real motivations were. What were they actually trying to accomplish? I think a motive that has to be considered is that they are actually quite confused, and do not have clear motives. But taking the alternative, if their Schiff show in total had the effect of keeping hard core voters convinced "Orange Man Bad," then that could be a motive. All in all, I'm not comprehending what the witnesses were intended to accomplish and for what goal. They weren't going to somehow create the 2/3. So were they just to be a gambit to keep the whole show going for a couple months? Essentially more repetition of the theme "orange man bad?" |
|
|
|
....
No one is saying Congress can't enforce its subpoenas in court. The subpoenas HAVE TO be sent through the courts in order to be enforced. The president is exercising executive privilege. Until it goes through the court, The President has every constitutional right to exercise executive privilege. Since he has every right to do this, simply exercising his constitutional authority is in no way able to be construed as obstruction. That is why the subpoenas must be decided in court. To do otherwise would be to strip the executive branch of its power, giving all authority to The Congress, which is a co-equal branch. You cry about congress supposedly being stripped of oversight in the very same breath that you try to strip the executive of its authority. The office of the president was not meant to be a parliamentary system serving at the pleasure of the Congress. The Congress can not issue a subpeona, then unilaterally decide upon the validity of the subpoena they just issued. That is asinine.
That is a clear and simple explanation of why the "Obstruction" charge on Trump is totally ridiculous. Come to think of it, I'm going to be guilty of some obstruction too. I'm going to send money to the opponents of some of those obtuse retrograde subhuman, knuckle dragging perverts of Authoritarian Statists during the November elections. Let's have us some whole lot of Obstructioning in November. |
|
|
|
Note that I deleted my post shortly after you scraped it. The reasons have to do with details of the subject and the writers and criticizers, and my personal knowledge of it. No problem, it is only one of many. Discussion of that article and its issues may or may not be relevant to the subject. but relevance cannot be proven.
Neither of us KNOW why the thread was closed. No problem.
I didn't 'scrape' it. You deleted it while I was responding. Then, when I saw you deleted it, I went back and merged it with my previous post. The post broke a bunch of rules, it should've been locked and it was. Maybe, maybe not. You don't know. I don't know. No reason to assert or speculate. And as I mentioned, I'm not arguing or discussing that particular issue. It goes into some very deep orbital mechanics and solar physics. Nothing against your response at all. But you're skirting the issue. Here's a way to understand it. Solar scientists do show hard science showing the effects of the sun on climate. They're not wackos, and they are not climate deniers. Reddit can and will censor these scientists and their work, because it is not on the simpleton's level of the promulgated climate change dogma. EG, they categorize such work "Deniers!" That's idiotic. Further, they give free reign to climate alarmists, who are often as not totally insane. |
|
|
|
Sounds like you could have done a better job than Schiff et al, I thought they were unstructured and disorganized in their work in the House, weak and illogical in the 2 charges brought, poor in the wording, and impossibly weak in the defense of the charges in the Senate. |
|
|
|
The OP in this thread couldn't be more wrong. The trend-line for arctic ice is steeply downwards to the point where we'll be seeing ice-free arctics (as defined for data-collection methods) by 2030.
Thread title is also wrong. They didn't ban climate change deniers, they just started enforcing a rule that posts have to related to publications in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Really? REALLY? What reddit thread are you looking at? Because your post indicates no awareness of the actual subject. r/science it's a sub that contains millions of threads and 20 million + subscribers. In which discussion of this article - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3#Sec6in this thread - https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/cehgy2/journal_criticised_for_study_claiming_sun_is/Was shut down. Now why would anyone want to shut down discussion about an article in Nature that discusses ...... I'd recommend reading all of the submission and headline rules before jumping to any conclusion about why something was locked. Note that I deleted my post shortly after you scraped it. The reasons have to do with details of the subject and the writers and criticizers, and my personal knowledge of it. No problem, it is only one of many. Discussion of that article and its issues may or may not be relevant to the subject. but relevance cannot be proven. Neither of us KNOW why the thread was closed. No problem. From the rules - 4. Comments dismissing established science must provide evidence Comments that dispute well-established scientific concepts (e.g. gravity, vaccination, anthropogenic climate change, etc.) must be supported with appropriate peer-reviewed evidence. Links to personal blogs or 'skeptic' websites are not valid forms of evidence. Comments that are overtly fringe and/or unsubstantiated will be removed. By the above criteria, a comment showing a serious math error in a climate change article would be banned, as it is not supported with "peer reviewed evidence." "Climate Deniers" are explicitly called out in the paragraph, and were thus banned. |
|
|
|
The OP in this thread couldn't be more wrong. The trend-line for arctic ice is steeply downwards to the point where we'll be seeing ice-free arctics (as defined for data-collection methods) by 2030.
Thread title is also wrong. They didn't ban climate change deniers, they just started enforcing a rule that posts have to related to publications in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Really? REALLY? What reddit thread are you looking at? Because your post indicates no awareness of the actual subject. |
|
|
|
|
Twitch persists in his attempt to shape the universe.
Deleted Post
« Sent to: Spendulus on: January 29, 2020, 10:36:03 PM »
Reply with quoteReply with quote Remove this messageDelete
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.
You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.
Quote
Quote from: JollyGood on January 27, 2020, 03:28:52 PM
....to me it seems to look like the beginning of the end for the Trump presidency.
The beginning of the end?
It is indeed the beginning of the end, but you may misunderstand what the beginning is of, and what the end is to be.
What if, and just consider this as a wild conjecture... What if those who have repeatedly attacked Trump with weak or totally false premises are incubating the beginning of the end of the normal Trump, and his transformation into the Super Trump?
You ain't seen nothing yet.
|
|
|
|
The OP in this thread couldn't be more wrong. The trend-line for arctic ice is steeply downwards to the point where we'll be seeing ice-free arctics (as defined for data-collection methods) by 2030. Here's the actual data:  You can find the data here: http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/I totally agree with any serious climate discussion forum either banning or ignoring climate change denialists. And also both of the terms Global Warming and Climate Change are accurate. On average the earth is warming, globally and the climate is changing (to the extent that it's an issue). The gotcha-ism on the term Global Warming is just embarrassingly retarded. I totally agree with any serious climate discussion forum either banning or ignoring climate change alarmists. |
|
|
|
[...] I saw this one quite a while ago, its probably my favorite of the bunch.  LOL. Exactly I favorite that too! Wait a minute... in big country countries like America etc. Is it will be fine to Laugh at or make a president as a joke? Because in my country this is it considered "insult". The president's sympathizers will report you for it, because it is considered harassment of the state symbol. .... Absolutely yes we can laugh at these guys. There is a long tradition in our history of this. One and two hundred years ago it was cartoons in newspapers, fifty years ago (and still going today) it was Saturday Night live, and so forth. Such talk is literally protected by the First Amendment. |
|
|
|
The ability of Congress to dictate what is "abuse of power" and then bring impeachment charges, or using the threat of impeachment on such trivia effectively makes the POTUS subordinate to Congress, if and when the Senate might be aligned with them.
This is a very different situation than requiring criminal activity as grounds to impeachment, and changes the balance of power entirely. Were it to be allowed.
Yeah, that was Alan Dershowitz' argument. It seems like most experts disagree with this opinion and the general consensus is that a 'high crime' refers to something that isn't technically a crime and could only be committed by someone impeachable (President, Cabinet Members, Judges). In other words, an abuse of power. Even Dershowitz is on the record from during Clintons trial: “It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime.” It's easy to find a quick quote that someone's prepared for you to churn up, because the prepared a response for you to churn up. Duh... But is that the whole story, or is it just fabricated mis information you've been given. Looks like it's just mis information. A off the cuff remark on the David Letterman show. Not any part of the court proceedings related to Clinton. And to be specific, the assertion is directly "lying by omission." https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/live-blog/trump-impeachment-trial-live-coverage-president-s-defense-begins-day-n1123371/ncrd1124401#liveBlogHeaderDershowitz argued in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment that a president doesn't have to commit a "technical crime," such as abuse of power, in order for it rise to an impeachable offense. However, he has said in Trump's defense that the framers intended for impeachable conduct to mean "criminal-like conduct."
He said in 1998: "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."
"During the Clinton impeachment, I stated in an interview that I did not think that a technical crime was required, but that I did think that abusing trust could be considered — I said that," he said. "At that time, I had not done the extensive research on that issue because it was irrelevant to the Clinton case, and I was not fully aware of the compelling counterarguments. So I simply accepted the academic consensus on an issue that was not on the front burner at the time."
Dershowitz, who has been a frequent defender of the president on cable news, claimed that the framers of the Constitution would not have considered the charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress impeachable because they are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, as treason and bribery are.
"For Congress to ignore the specific words of the Constitution itself and substitute its own judgment would be for Congress to do what it is accusing the president of doing," he said.
He said that he argued in favor of the rights of presidents in past impeachments, such as Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and said he would have argued in favor of the rights of Hillary Clinton if she were president and impeached by a Republican Congress.
"I stand against the application and misapplication of the constitutional criteria in every case and against any president without regard to whether I support his or her policies," he said.
However you seemed to have missed the essence of what I said, by following a rabbit trail laid down for you by fools that led in a direction of smear X, argue "the consensus", blah blah blah. And this isn't just "Dershowitz's argument." It's a hard reality that can't be ignored. This is a very different situation than requiring criminal activity as grounds to impeachment, and changes the balance of power entirely. Were it to be allowed. |
|
|
|
This impeachment and trial at times confuses me.. When you go and look at history, in terms of the meaning of words back at the time of the founding, or who has been impeached for what over the years, or you read the federalist papers, so many of the arguments against impeachment and removal for example (there are some for as well), just don't make any sense to me and I don't see how any person could buy it. But then I remember that this is a political process and is being sold to the public for sound bites. It doesn't have to be accurate or right, just needs to sway opinion of the masses.
The hypocrisy on both sides is just staggering though. No one in there seems to have any ethics what so ever. I loved the Dems playing the Lindsey video of old. And then the WH team doing the same to Schumer. It's just a beautiful thing to watch. They all need to go. Every single one of them.
The ability of Congress to dictate what is "abuse of power" and then bring impeachment charges, or using the threat of impeachment on such trivia effectively makes the POTUS subordinate to Congress, if and when the Senate might be aligned with them. This is a very different situation than requiring criminal activity as grounds to impeachment, and changes the balance of power entirely. Were it to be allowed. All of the Senate, Congress and POTUS should be strictly subordinate to the will of the people of the US, through the elections. |
|
|
|
...
Who would have thought when Trump brought Bolton out from retirement that he would one day effectively call Trump a liar in his soon to be published book? This is a massive setback for Trump and his all-start legal defence team because Bolton will be called as a witness. The prosecutors would be guilty of dereliction of duty if they did not to subpoena him because he was part of the inner circle at the time.
It is all ifs and buts at the moment at least until the real drama in Court commences and to me it seems to look like the beginning of the end for the Trump presidency.
See WHO??? "Bolton's book manuscript clears Trump of all impeachment allegations by demonstrating that the President believed Ukraine interfered in US elections. Given that belief, right or wrong, pressuring Zelensky was completely within the job description of the presidency. " https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1221799382896394245 |
|
|
|
and I'm gonna say they probably discovered multiple other illegal things he did before taking office and are just sitting on them.
No doubt. He had illegal dealings with Cuba but the statute of limitations ran out on that one but I have no doubt there's many more such things. Don't know much about the Cuba stuff. but If they discover evidence of a crime thats statute of limitations would pass while he could still be in office (most financial crimes, including tax related are 6 to 10 years I think), the sealed indictment freezes it. Just gotta convince a grand jury. There would be consequences to your political zealots keeping going on this. Might want to think about that. So far your team has made a number of very wrong decisions, both politically, economically, and from the point of view of practicality. Wise up. Best to wise up fast, in my opinion. It's not Trump you are going to anger, it's the American people. those polls are telling. it seems that anyone who can be swayed has been swayed to wanting trump removed immediately. maybe 1 or 2% wiggle room at most. the 42-44% that have approved of him since day one will remain loyal no matter what.
have the day off so I have a chance to watch a bunch of the trial live. it just started.
right off the bat they are saying since ukraine said there was no pressure that somehow proves there was no pressure to investigate bidens and dnc. i dont think thats very strong. Ukraine is in a tough spot and needs help. if there was pressure, it would be in best interest of Ukrain to deny....
Actually it is very strong. To trump such testimony you would need actual physical evidence, such as a series of emails proving the contrary. The reason for this is suppose you have an opposing witness that says Ukraine was pressured. Then you've got a "he said-she said" situation. In the Senate, each Senator votes their own conscious, but the suggestion from the past is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard. http://congressionalresearch.com/98-990/document.php |
|
|
|
Here in NYC there's an initiative of planting one million trees. And I'm all for planting more trees, but not just for the sake of it, and for the celebrity behind it to feel good about herself. If a home owner plants a tree there's a lot of planning involved. They analyze the perfect spot, how it matches the surrounding, if it's needed, etc. But in this situation it just plant one million trees for the heck of it. Cut a square, throw a bunch of dirt, the spot doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it's in front of a stoop creating multiple bottlenecks in a busy block. The dirt gets all over, and half of the trees die anyway. It really shows that human nature of not really thinking about your surrounding. In this case instead of causing pollution it's trees. Random example, though not the best because if not a busy sidewalk. https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6757113,-73.9857819,3a,75y,242.04h,83.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suHVYMwoyioFEW5PQqyvkfw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192A million trees would be about 16 square miles at 20' intervals. However, if we planted the seeds at 1" intervals, it would only take 1/6 of one acre or an area about 70 x 100'. So, this is starting to look interesting. One person with an average size piece of dirt could plant the million trees. Are those NY political hacks paying for this or giving tax discounts? Because if the sole requirement is the "planting", there's one heck of a deal here. Plus, think about all the delicious tiny shoots that the rats, squirrels and rabbits can eat. |
|
|
|
At first I ridiculed the whole conspiracy after I heard it for the first time. Then I saw Mark Zuckerberg...  Indeed. And the Hitlery. The documentary film "They Live" is a great factual reference on this subject. |
|
|
|
Hehe, then we are 3 so far  It's a good start. Let's hope that in time the number will increase. There are still 4 years and 10 months left. I'm glad that two people think it is a good initiative Count me in. |
|
|
|
Which has a higher rate of success? Craig Wright and having the keys to the 1.1 million + bitcoins or Donald Trump getting impeached?
Trump has already been impeached. If you mean removed from office, I'd say there's a slightly higher chance of that happening than Craig Wright proving he's satoshi. There is a 100% certainty that Trump will be removed from office. At the end of his 2nd term. There's a slightly higher probability than the Craig Wright claim that at that time, the Democrats will have an improved clown show. |
|
|
|
it is time to get the corrupt americans out of eastern europe
What? I thought we could just send them all over there. |
|
|
|
For now, though, you think the minions have it under control?
No. We agree on something. As if we had a whole barnyard of chickens running around with their heads chopped off. It's okay, though. Because one prediction is true: The direction they are all going is down. |
|
|
|
....
It may come as a surprise to you, but bigger pictures and bigger lettering doesn't make your words and ideas bigger in true.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
