Nos4's replies here say it all. On the basis of his many posts, he is a) playing games, b) is mentally ill, c) is in some way a paid troll. — tim wood
Nos4's replies here say it all. On the basis of his many posts, he is a) playing games, b) is mentally ill, c) is in some way a paid troll. It is therefore an error to engage with him. The real clues are in his language. All of his arguments are fallacious. Not least because of their frequent categorical nature. — tim wood
Tim Wood’s hysteria has polluted his reason, so much so that he see’s enemies in everyone who disagrees with him. His borderline McCarthyism reeks of paranoia and fear, and this while he touts justice from the other side of his mealy mouth. — NOS4A2
Just like the guy who went on a ferry to the UK and started driving his car on the right lane. When the radio said "Emergency bulletin, one car driving on the wrong lane on the Harwich London road" the guy shouted: "One? Jesus Christ with this Fake News: EVERYBODY is driving on the wrong side!!!!"Trump speaks the world goes wild. — NOS4A2
You said this before and I ignored it: that they deluged Trump, but were completely silent about the Uygurs.
It brings into view how meaningless the anti-Trump stuff really is.
Asking for investigation into the Bidens looks wrong on its face, which puts the burden on him to make a case for this being essential. He hasn't. He's thrown gasoline on the flames, by attacking those who criticized him, and stonewalling the collection of evidence. Further he has appealed to partisan loyalties, even "defending" his action based on rationale that seems purely partisan (e.g. Trump's referring to Biden's bragging about getting the prosecutor fired appears pure partisan, given the fact that his ouster was desired by so many).Remember that he only asked Zelensky to look into it if it’s possible—Burisma is a Ukrainian company—“so whatever [Zelenski] can do with the Attorney General would be great”. The attorney General is the head of the DOJ, which is responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice in the United States. — NOS4A2
So what about congressional Democrats pursuing investigations into their political opponent, POTUS, who is the man to beat in the upcoming election?
You're ignoring the fact that this prosecutor was widely regarded as corrupt, by US Intelligence, our allies, and by anti-corruption activists in the Ukraine. Further, he was not actively investigating Burisma.Biden threatened to withhold over a billion dollars if the top prosecutor wasn’t fired. — NOS4A2
I didn't say there was necessarily anything wrong with Ukraine investigating. I said there's something with Trump pushing an investigation of a political opponent.Still I do not understand the argument that a Democratic Party candidate’s son cannot be investigated by Ukraine because he’s running for office. “It looks wrong” does not seem an adequate enough explanation, and in fact it looks like grasping for straws. — NOS4A2
Sure, information (even dirt) is valuable to voters, but that doesn't make it appropriate for a President to use the power of the office to dig for this valuable dirt. Merely looking bad is insufficient justification.This doesn’t look bad? As someone who wants to be an informed voter it is in our best interest to sort out these conflicts of interest. — NOS4A2
So what about congressional Democrats pursuing investigations into their political opponent, POTUS, who is the man to beat in the upcoming election? — NOS4A2
I get that it looks bad for Hunter to have taken the high paying job, but he's hardly the first person to profit from a name and connections (e.g. Giuliani; Trump's kids). You need something more than the mere fact that he worked for Burisma.
I didn't say there was necessarily anything wrong with Ukraine investigating. I said there's something with Trump pushing an investigation of a political opponent.
I apply the same standard to Hunter: it looks wrong on its face, and he shouldn't have taken the job.What about your standard, avoid any action that could potentially be perceived as unethical or illegal? Sounds like it’s not so much a standard anymore, at least when applied to the Bidens. — NOS4A2
There is testimony evidence of pressure, and documentary evidence the aid was held up illegally. If the requested investigation was not for criminal purposes, what else could it be other than simply digging up dirt on an opponent? The fact that Trump's position that his call was "perfect" is troubling, because it suggests we can expect more of the same.I’m glad we can agree it is deserving of scrutiny. Luckily there was no pressure, nor any call for criminal investigations from the president. — NOS4A2
Yes, it would be great to have more facts. Do you agree it would be good to hear Bolton's testimony?I think where we disagree is whether Trump abused the power of his office. Considering that abuse of power is one of the articles of impeachment hopefully more facts will come to light in the upcoming trial. — NOS4A2
There is testimony evidence of pressure, and documentary evidence the aid was held up illegally. If the requested investigation was not for criminal purposes, what else could it be other than simply digging up dirt on an opponent? The fact that Trump's position that his call was "perfect" is troubling, because it suggests we can expect more of the same.
Recall that I'm not convinced his action is necessarily worthy of removal from office, but that it was important to send him the message that it's wrong. My hope is that a fair number of Republicans will send him that message - voting to acquit solely because it doesn't rise to the level of "high crime" but noting that he shouldn't have done that.
In a 46-page trial memorandum, the House impeachment managers asserted that beginning in the spring, Mr. Trump undertook a corrupt campaign to push Ukraine to publicly announce investigations of his political rivals, withholding as leverage nearly $400 million in military aid and a White House meeting. He then sought to conceal those actions from Congress, they said, refusing to cooperate with a House impeachment inquiry and ordering administration officials not to testify or turn over documents requested by investigators.
Mr. Trump’s defense team will denounce the impeachment case brought by House Democrats as illegitimate, driven by malice toward him and lacking a factual or legal basis.
It's said to be likely that the thoroughly corrupted Republican senate will vote to acquit anyway, but one can only hope this is not a foregone conclusion.
Are you referring to Zelensky' statements? That is something, but it is at odds with testimony by the diplomats. It would be risky for Zelensky to say he felt pressured, and to his benefit to convey to Trump that "he loves your ass". On the other hand, the diplomats took a risk by testifying, and they corroborate one another.From the Ukrainian side there is exculpatory evidence that there was no pressure, that hold ups on the American side are routine, and that nothing amounted to any quid pro quo. This is direct evidence considering it involves people on the phone call, the supposed victims. It’s a shame their words were not even considered in the inquiry, but that’s to be expected in such a partisan inquiry. — NOS4A2
What's the point of testimony by Hunter and the whistleblower?I actually would like to hear Bolton’s testimony, and also Hunter Biden’s, Lev Parnas’, and the whistleblower’s. Let the chips fall where they may.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.