You have an awful habit of reminding us you’re a lawyer. What corruption has trump committed?

You made the claim.

I did not.

That’s your white privilege talking.

What makes this true? The media?

What makes it false?

According to the DOJ it had no contact with the White House, and that the decision to change the sentencing recommendation was made before the Trump tweet. So, once again, you’re dealing in conspiracy theory when there are countless other reasons why such a change was made. One valid reason is excessive sentencing for what amounts to process crimes. The DOJ agreed Stone should pay for his crimes, only that such an excessive sentence wasn’t warranted. They rescinded the recommendation and deferred the sentencing to the judge of the case.

So if that position is laughable, what of the position of your conspiracy theory? It’s not me doing the “gas-lighting”.

Both prosecutors who left the case were Obama stooges. Sounds like justice to me.

Either - both - will be resolved as to matters of fact. What am I saying?!?! What do facts matter to liars and their sycophants?

You have been wrong about everything, Tim. And all of what you say is without irony. One day the fever will break and I’ll be one of the first to welcome you back.

The movie did imply that the poor folk were the parasites, but also that they were bad people. Murder, theft, lying, and even reading the girl’s diary. They were depicted as insects, scurrying like cockroaches when the family came home early. Yes, it never made the poor family out to be noble.

I’ve been to South Korea and the culture seems to me generally conservative, so I’m not sure if it is a subversively conservative film.

A very great big smelly stinking red herring. And you offend sense by ignoring sense.

I guess we’ll find out, because if Giuliani’s documented evidence and testimony is true, it will prove your impeachment to be a red-herring, and worse, a cover-up.

And in current context, it's all a great big red herring.

It has the potential to become the biggest corruption and political scandal American history.

Just another distraction. Meanwhile, Pete Butthole is doing too well in the primaries. I suppose it's progress that white privilege now also extends to gay white men.

I hope that’s sarcasm.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if it turned out Hunter Biden was just as corrupt as Giuliani and Trump. And Biden Sr. is an irrelevancy now re the nomination, so who cares I suppose.

Except Giuliani and Trump have never been convicted or even charged with corruption, even after years of investigations. Giuliani brought down the Mafia.

The adjective ᾰ̓́θεος was the creation of sectarian fanatics, used as it was to marginalize, condemn and to murder those who deviated from religious orthodoxy. To me adopting the phrase and attributing to it any importance is to prove the fanatics right.

The ends could justify the means but only if the means are just. If the means are just so are the ends.

The phrase serves to concisely express a widely known and understood truth in order to save time and relate to the audience, not to make excuses for those who do evil.

Interesting developments in the Giuliani saga.

It appears that the DOJ is finally vetting the info he has gathered. Giuliani has claimed that he possesses a smoking gun in regards to the Bidens, and indeed many Democrats, including evidence of bribery and money laundering.

Until now the DOJ and State dept wouldn’t touch it. But, though Barr has stressed that any info from Ukraine cannot be trusted at face value, the DOJ has set up an “intake process” through which the info can be scrutinized. FBI Deputy-Director Bowdich also confirmed he has received the evidence.

It’s either going to be proven to be propaganda and Rudy fell for it, or its going to get really messy for the previous administration. If the documented evidence is true, hopefully we can expect some much-needed justice and perp-walks.

so, the agent would have to be self-aware?

It would at some point have to become self-aware. I think humans exhibit evidence of self-awareness within the first couple years of life.

So, would you say a sense of agency is required? Would you say an 'intention" is required to determine/measure if 'free will' of the 'agent' actually occurred? If we are talking about a non-sentient software program in a robot agent then can it be called 'free will' if all the intentions of the robot were predetermined by its programmer? If the agent is not free to reprogram itself to create and act of its own intentions then it would seem it likewise cannot be said to have any meaningful 'free will'.

Yes, I would say a robot would have to learn free will, which would involve being self-programmed. So it would have to learn the limits of its operation before intending how and in which way to operate.

What a multiparty system does is that it creates the necessity of coalition administrations. This has one extremely important effect: the political parties have to work together.

Or a no-confidence vote, one or the other. The ties that bind the coalition are rarely as solid as multi-party proponents like to pretend.

If "working together" means silencing or otherwise modifying a platform in order to appease the coalition and to achieve consensus, then maintaining the coalition and power becomes the prime motive over implementing party policy. Coalition becomes little more than bargaining between political elites, dressed up as compromise.

Free will, to me, is more a problem with identity. Who or what decides our next action? If one identifies as the entirety of his organism, he decides his next action and therefor has free will. If one identifies as some homunculus, perhaps seated somewhere within (an "I", a "consciousness", a brain), he often finds himself at the mercy of the body who no doubt decides for him.

How convenient you do not remember Vindman reading directly from his performance review giving testimony to the House. You really are fucking vicious and a tool. We have our own KellyAnne Conway here on TPF: nos4! Must give you goosebumps of pride to be such a traitor to truth.

First woman to run a winning election campaign. You’re more of a George Conway.

It has to be a form of hysteria.

Poll: New Hampshire Democrats would prefer an extinction-causing meteor over Trump reelection

In 2017 there was a sharp 21 point rise in Democratic confidence in the media. That’s quite the drastic change, especially after a long period of decline, so the self-aggrandizing of the media’s must have been an effective propaganda tool. I wonder if the new found credulity had anything to do with it’s opposition to Trump?

It is by now routine for mass media defenders, especially the media themselves, to tell us that we dismiss news that exposes things we do not like. That must be projection, because, according to the Knight Foundation, when asked in their own words why they distrust the media “Americans’ responses largely center on matters of accuracy or bias”.

The media in the United States has proven Chomsky's Propaganda Model to be accurate. I think people have noticed this, and unless one prefers to be informed from within this bubble, a vast majority of people aren't buying it.

Americans' Trust in Mass Media Edges Down to 41%

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans remain largely mistrustful of the mass media as 41% currently have "a great deal" or "fair amount" of trust in newspapers, television and radio to report the news "fully, accurately and fairly." This latest reading represents a four-percentage-point dip since last year and marks the end of improvements in back-to-back years after hitting an all-time low.

Although trust in the media has edged down this year, it is well above the record low of 32% in 2016 when Republicans' trust dropped precipitously and drove the overall trust reading down during the divisive presidential campaign. Republicans' trust is still at a very low level and a wide gap in views of the media among partisans persists as 69% of Democrats say they have trust and confidence in it, while 15% of Republicans and 36% of independents agree.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/267047/americans-trust-mass-media-edges-down.aspx

Another witch hunt gone:

Appeals Court Tosses Democrats’ Emoluments Lawsuit Against Trump

WASHINGTON—A federal appeals court threw out a lawsuit by more than 200 Democratic members of Congress that alleged President Trump was improperly profiting from his presidency.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit avoided legal issues related to Mr. Trump’s business holdings, deciding instead that the Democrats didn’t have a proper basis for suing.

Democrats had sought to argue that Mr. Trump was violating the Constitution because his private business empire was profiting from foreign governments that sought to patronize his hotels, resorts and other properties to build positive relationships with the president.

The lawmakers alleged that Mr. Trump couldn’t accept emoluments—things of value—from foreign governments without the consent of Congress.

The D.C. Circuit panel, which included an ideological mix of judges, ruled unanimously that the lawmakers didn’t have standing to proceed with their lawsuit because the group of 186 House members and 29 senators were in the minority in both chambers. That meant they couldn’t represent the institutional interests of either body of Congress, the court said Friday in an unsigned 12-page opinion.

“Our conclusion is straightforward because the members…do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the president’s acceptance of foreign emoluments,” the court wrote.

WSJ


You’re Fired

Explain what is incorrect in stating that this is the first impeachment trial without witnesses?

There was seventeen witnesses.

I wonder why. In the lead up to Trump’s presidency the political class promised us the next Hitler, recessions, race wars, mushroom clouds, Russian tanks rolling down our streets. Anyone who voted opposite to them are racist, know-nothing xenophobes. So where was your “objective criticism” then?

It all turned out to be the live-action roleplaying of globalists and their priggish EU allies, the last-ditch efforts to maintain power as they watch their bloated bureaucratic enterprises sink beneath their own hubris. They would undo democracy itself to live out these fantasies, to continue pretending they are the resistance to some growing evil.

As is predictable “objective criticism” is reserved for the opponent only. Zero praise, zero optimism. zero acknowledgement of anything beneficial will come from you, because it would contradict the world-view so many have bought into and invested in.

Besides, any “objective criticism” is immediately overshadowed by thought policing, political correctness, identity politics and wild conspiracy theories. A lot of euros are like this, it turns out, seemingly emulating their American counterparts.

Labeling the House's inferences "fantasies" demonstrates your pre-judgment. There was much more than one bit of testimony, so you obviously just didn't pay attention. Lack of attention also explains why you didn't pick up on there being an appearance of conflict of interest by Trump on his Zelensky call, and this would call for a closer look at the surrounding facts. Instead of being forthcoming with those facts, he stonewalled the collection of facts. Contrast this with Biden, which I acknowledge has the appearance of conflict, but a closer look at the facts does not support it. And with Trump, it's more than a conflict of interest - he was violating his oath of office and due process by asking for an INDIVIDUAL to be investigated; due process directs investigation of crimes, not fishing expeditions of people. You ignore all this, because you like the spectacle of political dirt digging, and seem to have a quasi-religious faith in Trump's virtues.

I’ve read every testimony except for the one the house hid. And simply repeating the accusations of the House without any reference to the defense does not convince me.

Romney is wrong for the same reason the impeachment brigade is wrong. It’s as simple as that really. It’s hatred and envy.

They are. Having witnesses would have been the right thing. Removing Trump from office would have been the right thing. Informing the public of Trump's wrongdoing would have been the right thing.

There was 17 witnesses. Removing Trump would have been the wrong thing. Making up stories about wrong-doing is the wrong thing.

Yes, because removing Trump would have been the right thing.

Like I said, promoting a certain worldview, one that has already been roundly rejected.

I’m glad there’s an opposing view from the majority but it would be better if it felt like it was coming from someone who was actually invested and not just going through the tedious motions.

If you need my life story, job details and marital status you can inquire in private.

You can praise people for doing the right thing even if they've also done wrong things. Just because they're "the opposition" in most cases doesn't mean we have to spin everything they ever do as bad.

That's what Fox News is for.

My point is they are not being praised for doing the right thing, but for promoting a certain political worldview. At this point it wouldn't matter who voted against Trump, they would be welcomed with open arms.

You identified no errors in reasoning nor false assumptions that I'd made. On the other hand, you didn't understand federal government ethics standards and how Trump's behavior violated them. Your judgment seemed rooted in bias against Biden and in favor of Trump, whatever he might do.

Like I said, your entire argument was premised on the fantasies of the House and the admitted presumptions of one testimony. You didn’t show Trump’s behavior violated “government ethics standards”. You showed how Biden violated them.

Claiming Romney displayed "pious sanctimony" does not sound like giving him the benefit of the doubt. Romney knew his vote would hurt him politically, and yet he cast it - that's an act of courage that you should applaud, even if you disagree with his judgment.

Where was your benefit of the doubt regarding the presumption of innocence? Nowhere to be seen. Double standards are to be expected with someone named “relativist”, but this is hilarious.

I didn’t believe you were Russian troll before but given how long you’ve been doing this and your unwavering consistency I can only conclude that you’re either being paid or are batshit cray cray. You don’t seem crazy though. Your responses feel purposeful and strategic.

You wouldn’t be the first.

Falsely believed?

You should at least pretend to exercise objectivity. I gave you good reasons to support the judgment that Trump did wrong, reasons which you could not refute. Regardless of your personal judgment that Trump did "good" (setting aside your poor defense of that judgment), you should at least try to understand that reasonable people could indeed judge that Trump did wrong, and give Romney the benefit of the doubt that his judgment was sincere. For that matter, there were other Republicans who agreed with Romney that Trump did something wrong, they just didn't consider it a "high crime" sufficient for removal.

It's pretty revealing that you refer to "betraying" the President: loyalty to country OUGHT to come before loyalty to party, and loyalty to a person should come dead last.

I disagree, I do not think you gave good reasons, and in fact gave specious reasons as to why he engaged in wrong-doing. Worse, like the House managers, it was all premised on fantasy and presumption.

I am giving Romney the benefit of the doubt. That does not excuse him or others for justifying and engaging in a sham, unjust political process against a duly elected president.

That's not what Sondland and Taylor said. And speaking of lying, was Dumpertrumper lying again when he said he didn't know Parnus, or was the audio tape fake? LOL

Did Mitt use his conscience in voting for impeachment? Please elaborate if you can...or maybe start a new thread and discuss the merits of consciousnessness/conscience and what that means to people LOL.

Boner question: how do you sleep at night LOL

They were wrong. Giuliani started his investigation in Nov. 2018, months before Biden announced his candidacy. The whole impeachment was a hoax and you fell for it. How do you live that down?

If I was to speculate I would argue Mitt was bitter Trump didn’t let him be Secretary of State.

No boner questions, please.

Yeah you guys welcomed all the nevertrump neoconservatives and neoliberals with open arms. Odd bedfellows.

Yep so would I. Why didn't he go through the Government agencies to investigate and/or hired a personal attorney along with the nefarious bedfellows who where found guilty of campaign violations?

Guiliani was investigating on his own accord in his capacity as a defense attorney, not at the direction of the president.