Possibly the Democratic half plus the Romney type Republicans. I miss conservatives I could have reasonable disagreement with instead of the populist drivel we have to contend with nowadays.

Seriously? You think you need to support the vastly superior democracy that is Finland because "shock horror" your elected parties compromise? Since when is compromise a fault? For fuck's sake man, don't let the right wing hijack common meaning of words!

Yet I didn't just now so why bring it up? Oh wait, lawyers can't be trusted so what I say can't be trusted. Whatever man.

I'm not wasting time with a bad faith actor like you. Trump is corrupt because he obstructed justice where it concerned the Russian meddling in the 2016 election multiple times as Mueller reported and he unlawfully and inappropriately pressured Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. That the Republican majority considers power more important than doing their constitutional job means Trump is in similar company. That you're such a partisan hack that you don't see it is testimony to the pathetic state of political discourse in the USA.

Was that an attempt at a joke? The best joke here is your maintaining Trump isn't corrupt. As I said before, I don't read US media so I know exactly what's going on in the US. It's a banana Republic.

Considering his reply it's worse.

As I said before Trump and his bootlickers are corrupt. You don't need to discuss the merits of that position with NOS4A2 as he's an imbecile or paid off.

Exactly true when you mean Trump.

In other examples, for the most common use, people say "Nobody's perfect" when they defend a wrongdoer. In essence, what they are saying is, "It's ok that they did something wrong, because we all do wrong things. Therefore, he doesn't need to take responsibility for what he has done." — chatterbears

That actually might be a cultural thing. Where I'm from (the Netherlands) we use it mostly when someone is being too hard on themselves. So here it's most often used to say "stop complaining and cheer up". Or even more common is when the person complaining recognises it in themselves and tells themselves "nobody's perfect" to accept failure and move on.

In your example it's unhelpful. If you'd drop my favourite mug and I reply with "well, nobody's perfect" I trust it helps you to understand I value you more than my mug.

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.

So single market is out. That means a bespoke agreement on trade tariffs. That's not going to happen in the remaining 11 months. That automatically means that it's in both parties best interest to identify what industries have the highest priorities for them and see whether some agreement can be reached. And there we might stumble on another piece of national politics in the UK. It's pretty clear the financial services industry is the most important sector in the UK. But Johnson opens himself up to a lot of criticism if that is the first thing he's going to negotiate. — Benkei

Financial services it is then: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/11/barnier-tells-uk-dont-kid-yourself-about-financial-services-deal

They've correctly identified the most important sector and the sector that has the most to lose. UK companies can still sell goods into the EU even without a deal but at increased costs that are relatively straight-forward. UK financial companies simply won't be allowed to operate in the EU after the transition period without an agreement to the contrary. That will require staffed subsidiaries, two regulatory regimes to adhere to setting up parallel risk management systems, etc. etc.

I like the idea but then I'm biased as a practising lawyer. I'm not convinced though that we can find "Rules" for philosophical discussions. Plus, while precedent is recognised in courts, it is in reality a fallacy to base an argument on authority.

In fact, I was recently involved in a court case where the court asked for a calculation of damages due to a house not being the size as advertised (in the Netherlands, if the seller says a house is 120 m2 and it's only 100 m2 then as a buyer you do not need to ascertain the size). The damages would be the difference between what was paid and the market value at the time. So that requires a valuation but that valuation has an error margin.

The court therefore also asked for a bandwidth. The valuation agent then based his bandwidth on standard valuation research which, according to the valuation expert, concluded that a bandwidth of 10% up or down was reasonable. As was reaffirmed in previous court cases again and again. I picked up the original research this was based on and the rule was actually as follows:

"Of well performed valuations we can state with 95,5% certainty that they will lie within a range of plus or minus 10% of the median of those valuations. For areas with relatively high-turnover this bandwidth will be smaller. Since the median cannot be calculated based on a single valuation outcome, the best we can say about a single well performed valuation outcome is that it will lie somewhere in that bandwidth."

So in fact, court cases have been accepting single valuation outcomes with bandwidth that are incorrectly position around that single valuation outcome whereas we have no clue where that valuation outcome lies within the bandwidth because we don't know where the median is. That's been going on for about 15 years now. And I can tell you that despite this being rather obvious, it's really bloody hard to get a history of 15 years of court cases overturned.

Lol. The New York Times leans left? What a joke. In the US they don't seem to know what "left" really is. Compared to the Netherlands, Republicans would be far right of any of our main parties. The democrats world be right of centre. Bernies' ideas are centrist here and generally embraced by must right wing parties as well (those aspects to do with the welfare state)

As 180proof described in the other thread on the road to 2020, it's a choice between gonorrhoea or syphilis. Also, I've read the NYT for years and it has been downhill since it stopped being the International Herald Tribune.

Because of your health care system. — ssu

Actually, US healthcare is among the best in the world. It's just unaffordable because their insurance system is insanely expensive. The litigation culture also means insurance premiums for hospitals against liability is through the roof as well.

The poor demented old fogey.

Watered down how?

That happened before already. Bush Jr. goofball act was the prelude.

It's funny to see right wingers play victim, like Trump did again. It's pc in reverse but with the effect of doing what they claim pc did (while in fact pc created the space for the ridiculed and discriminated to find their voice).

Every time someone critises Trump? They're all haters, witch hunters, liars, etc. That's just another way of saying that people who disagree with Trump's policies or deem him unfit for office should shut up : that is exactly what right wimgers' gripe about pc is about. Meanwhile, right wing memes and thoughts in fact get more air time than any other segment of the political compass because they whine "I'm not heard, I'm not heard" and the media actually takes it seriously.

The right's entire whining about pc is just that, an incessant, petulant wail of a child that has been heard but deemed not to offer anything worthwhile. We can all ignore the fascism and populism as serious thought and the discussion for people still in full command of reason should be a strategic one : how to offer a viable alternative that actually creates a better world and get people to vote for it.

I'm not in Trumpworld.

Trump is guilty. I hope he rots in jail after his presidency is up. Whether he'll be prosecuted then remains to be seen but I would consider it a great career move as a prosecutor. After all, id the Bidens should've been investigated based on fantasies according to the resident troll/shill, surely Trump warrants one based on facts.

Like I said, promoting a certain worldview, one that has already been roundly rejected. — NOS4A2

You're the only one uncritically promoting a turd. You forget most of us aren't US citizens and therefore aren't beholden to the "fake news media" Trump decries. It's quite clear what just happened in the US and it's quite clear Trump is a corrupt piece of shit. Your refusal to submit to reason or facts would be funny if it didn't reflect the deep partisanship afflicting the US.

What do they put in the water where you live?

I'm sorry but what the fuck are you replying to? I'm not misrepresenting anything; I'm telling you that the fact his job approval rating isn't as abysmally low as before is nothing to celebrate. The fact that you are, is sad. Dressing up a turd, doesn't make it anything other than a turd.

Who was complaining? You're such an underachiever that you celebrate a president for the worst job approval rating in recent history. It's sad really.

I look forward to seeing the Democrats lose to Trump again despite winning the popular vote by an even larger margin.

that he’s getting his best job approval rating, not to say he had the best job approval rating of all time. — NOS4A2

His best job approval rating means jack shit.

I couldn't be fucked to get these facts because anything to do with nos4a2 is a waste of time. But yeah, relevant for other readers I suppose.

Must be wonderful living in spin world.

it's rooted entirely in political disagreement. — Relativist

What disagreement? I mean, when's the last time there was any policy discussion where you could have meaningful disagreement?

People need to think about what exactly the win-win answer is to this situation. The UK needs to decide what it means to take back sovereignty. Every treaty ends up being a limitation to it as you agree to something and you're expected to keep your word out you'll soon find yourselves without any agreement.

The EU is not going to offer an a la carte option for the UK. Access to the single market means meeting each and every rule associated with it and ensuring UK imports meet EU standards or any company in the world could circumvent EU rules by exporting to the EU via the UK. Obviously, the final arbiter on whether EU laws are met cannot be a non-EU court. Simple and logical.

So single market is out. That means a bespoke agreement on trade tariffs. That's not going to happen in the remaining 11 months. That automatically means that it's in both parties best interest to identify what industries have the highest priorities for them and see whether some agreement can be reached. And there we might stumble on another piece of national politics in the UK. It's pretty clear the financial services industry is the most important sector in the UK. But Johnson opens himself up to a lot of criticism if that is the first thing he's going to negotiate.

The other political issue is of course border control in Northern Ireland. That needs to be resolved before the end of the year as well but no obvious solution presents itself.

Meanwhile, indyref2 remains a continuing threat to the UK, which probably won't materialise this year but even so. Sturgeon will remind everyone regularly.

an oath is not enforceable — Relativist

Why not? Malfeasance of office comes to mind.

Tl;Dr :lol:

Goodbye. :cry:

He wasn't charged with obstructing the Mueller investigation. — Hanover

I know.

If the US doesn't lead in anything, then why all the academic interest in the goings on in Washington? — Hanover

One does well to take note of the elephant rampaging in the porcelain shop.

Looks like they're not going to call any witnesses. Partisan crap fest obviously. I'm wondering whether things would've been different if Clinton had been impeached, which was another partisan crap fest. Perjury was a crime. So is Trump's blocking of subpoenas and obstruction of justice with the Mueller investigation.

One wonders what the US is the leader of today. It isn't the West because that implies a respect for the rule of law.

Give money to a whore and...

Unless you're unemployed I very well might be. :naughty: The wonders of the internet.

Try to condense your frustration in a single post instead of 5 one-liners.

The so-called 'defense' of Trump is preposterous in the extreme. It all comes down to, well if Trump does it, then it can't be criminal! It can't be an abuse of power, but the legit exercise of political power. They're now openly saying - even if he did it (and of course he did it, the evidence is undeniable), it can't be considered wrong. In effect they're just blatantly putting Trump above the law, above any kind of accountability. — Wayfarer

As I've argued in the other thread, this is the only legal argument that can really succeed. Trump, as an elected official, is supposed to know what the boundaries of his power are. His intent in the matter is irrelevant as I would suspect negligence or even strict liability to apply. Whether the Ukrainians took it seriously or whether it was successful are irrelevant too, because an unsuccessful threat was still a threat.

So what's left is that it was within his powers to do what he did but that begs the question what "high crimes and misdemeanors" mean and can radically shift the balance of power towards the office of the president as he basically becomes untouchable.

The fact party politics trump these considerations once again reflects the deep division in US society between cola and cola light, since there is currently no substantive difference between the two parties.

Yeah, that isn't going anywhere obviously.

Who's going to fire him? — NOS4A2

Impeachment?

"Use of the word “other” to link “high crimes and misdemeanors” with “treason” and “bribery” is arguably indicative of the types and seriousness of conduct encompassed by “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Similarly, the word “high” apparently carried with it a restrictive meaning." — NOS4A2

The word "high" refers to the fact these are crimes only elected officials can commit or that can only be committed against elected officials instead by or against the common man. Misdemeanours are by definition lesser crimes than felonies. So no, you cannot argue that because of the word "other", misdemeanor now means felony because bribery and treason are felonies.

The lawyer from cornell coming up with that argument is clearly a retard.