I think all this stuff is decreasing confidence in the government, which might be a good thing. — frank
I guess what I am trying to say is that "we" are the government so if "it" appears to be changing, it is actually a reflection of the changes happening or not happening in you, me, Hanover and.... the slice of society we are supporting each day. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
I guess what I am trying to say is that "we" are the government so if "it" appears to be changing, it is actually a reflection of the changes happening or not happening in you, me, Hanover and.... the slice of society we are supporting each day. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
An investigation that accurately identifies a serious wrongdoing is not a "witch hunt." The irony is that the wrongdoing consisted of Trump asking Ukraine to conduct a witch-hunt of a political rival.It’s looking more and more like Trump is going to be acquitted by the senate, and another anti-Trump witch-hunt and conspiracy theory revealed to be a waste of time and taxpayer dollars — NOS4A2
It’s looking more and more like Trump is going to be acquitted by the senate, and another anti-Trump witch-hunt and conspiracy theory revealed to be a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So how many times can one be duped by these failures before finding another avenue through which to participate in politics?
During this show trial Trump was able to continue working, for instance killing a top-ranking Iranian terrorist, presenting an ambitious Middle East peace plan, signing into law massive trade deals. The anti-Trumpists, on the other hand, have given us division, a distracted house and senate, and a massive waste of time and money. How much of this failure can the anti-Trump mind withstand before it cracks? — NOS4A2
An investigation that accurately identifies a serious wrongdoing is not a "witch hunt." The irony is that the wrongdoing consisted of Trump asking Ukraine to conduct a witch-hunt of a political rival.
One of the rationale Republicans have claimed for acquitting him was that the American people in the next election, not the Senate, should decide whether or not Trump should stay in office. Clearly, we need as much information as possible to judge him fairly. The impeachment and trial contributed to this body of information, and rational, open-minded person who considers all this information would surely agree that Trump's actions were wrong.
I just don’t understand how his actions can be misconstrued as “wrong-doing”. — NOS4A2
It's not a charade or a false investigation. Trump illegally withheld aid to compel a foreign country to investigate a political rival to help his reelection. That's an abuse of power. And Trump refused to comply with, and ordered others to refuse to comply with, lawful subpoenas. That's obstruction of Congress.
Trump is going to be acquitted because Republicans won't remove a Republican president. That's " hollow[ing] out constitutional processes for their own political ends."
I don’t see how any of that is true and simply repeating the accusation does not suffice for me. The burden of proof still lays at the feet of the accusers and they could not prove it. — NOS4A2
The evidence was presented in the Senate. We even had Dershowitz, Rubio, and Alexander accept that he's guilty. They just tried to rationalize a reason not to convict him for it. And there's more available testimony and evidence from people like Parnas and Bolton and the Republicans know this which is why they voted not to have more witnesses. They're aware that it'll be devastating to Trump's defence so they need to protect him from it.
And I don't know how you can claim that there's no evidence that Trump obstructed Congress. It is a fact that the House subpoenaed testimony and evidence and it's a fact that Trump didn't comply.
It is a fact that the administration was following advice from DOJ legal counsel and that many of the subpoena’s were invalid. Correspondence proves that the Whitehouse was ready to cooperate as soon as the House’s subpoenas were valid. — NOS4A2
Which is bullshit. The best you can argue is that Trump shouldn't be convicted because he acted on bad legal advice.
Then you haven't made an effort to understand what I've told you.Yeah, I just don’t understand how his actions can be misconstrued as “wrong-doing” — NOS4A2
... it leaves only the conclusion that you are a bad man. Or a grossly stupid one. — tim wood
And Hitler was an excellent leader too, getting rid of all those undesirables and moving the German economy in the direction he thought best! Until his laws and his thugs that enforced them started taking and killing you and yours.... It's a lesson older that Aristotle: the bad man does not do good things. And you, nos4, are so wrong-headed on all of this that it leaves only the conclusion that you are a bad man. Or a grossly stupid one.
A political sham. Shameful and very dangerous precedents are being set.
A judge who allows a juror to remain despite that juror's public admission that he cannot execute that sworn duty.
Members of the Senate have all taken a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution and execute the powers and responsibilities bestowed upon them by it. Acting as an impartial jurors during presidential impeachment proceedings is one exclusive responsibility given to only members of the Senate.
What needs to happen next is an exodus of recusals.
It's disgraceful.
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.