ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 8th October 2019, 11:09 PM   #281
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,506
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
It's linked to on the previous page. It is a very minimalist definition:
CORRUPT INTENT

This term applies to doing something with the full knowledge that it is illegal.

If Trump thought it was legal to fire Comey he could not have had "corrupt intent." However, I think the whole conceit of acting as if this is a criminal trial is falling apart. Within a day or two Trump had cited multiple reasons for his firing of Comey, one of which was to block an investigation of Trump's conduct. The remedy for this is a political process, not a criminal trial. The House will have to make a case that this was obstruction of justice and IMO it really won't matter what Black's dictionary says. Impeachable conduct is what the House says it is.

ETA: Ninja'd, of course
I think that is insane. While it would be legal to fire Comey for any number of reasons, it ABSOLUTELY wouldn't be for the reasons that Trump said he did. Whether or not Trump knew that act was legal or illegal would be irrelevant. And I would argue that one can have corrupt intent and not have a clue about legality.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 11:15 PM   #282
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,750
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
And I would argue that one can have corrupt intent and not have a clue about legality.
The trouble is, if you don't know that your actions are illegal, how can your intent be corrupt?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 11:16 PM   #283
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,879
Question

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I think that is insane. While it would be legal to fire Comey for any number of reasons, it ABSOLUTELY wouldn't be for the reasons that Trump said he did. Whether or not Trump knew that act was legal or illegal would be irrelevant. And I would argue that one can have corrupt intent and not have a clue about legality.
Unfortunately, there is an insane and at the same time very viable defense for Trump: he has done his business with corrupt intent all his life. Arguably, just staying close enough to the line of legality (but on the wrong side) so that it's not worth for prosecutors to seriously go after him has always been his Modus Operandi.
So in this case, you would have to prove that Trump is operating with significantly more corrupt intent than is normal for him ...
... At least in any actual criminal trial.

For impeachment, it's perfectly enough to show the American People that he is a scumbag.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 11:17 PM   #284
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,021
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You don't need to sell it to a jury, though. You can just make the best case you can, here in this thread, and let other readers accept it or not as they see fit.




I disagree, but it's a fine distinction.

In the case of an insanity plea, the defendant stipulates that a nominally criminal act was committed, but they should not suffer criminal consequences due to their mental condition.

In the case of a "no corrupt intent" defense, the defense stipulates that no criminal act was committed. Instead, they stipulate that an act was committed, but without criminal intent it was not a criminal act.

Sorry I missed this, but your "fine distinction" is nonsense. In claiming that there was "no corrupt intent" in firing Comey, there is stipulation that Trump indeed fired Comey, thereby obstructing justice, but shouldn't suffer criminal consequences because of his state of mind. Your "fine distinction" seems to be that Trump didn't really obstruct justice because he didn't think he was, which is nonsense. It's not up to him to decide that.

Last edited by WilliamSeger; 8th October 2019 at 11:26 PM.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 11:29 PM   #285
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,997
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I think that is insane. While it would be legal to fire Comey for any number of reasons, it ABSOLUTELY wouldn't be for the reasons that Trump said he did. Whether or not Trump knew that act was legal or illegal would be irrelevant. And I would argue that one can have corrupt intent and not have a clue about legality.
The "ignorance of the law actually IS an excuse sometimes" argument only applies to the acceptance and solicitation of oppo research from foreign nationals: initially at Trump Tower (he got off scott free on that one because of the ignorance possibility) and now Ukrainegate. He's NOT going to be able to claim ignorance of the law there.

The "corrupt intent" arguments as they pertain to obstruction hinge on if anyone buys Barr's "not guilty by reason of narcissistic dictator disorder" version of "non-corrupt intent".

So far, only Barr seems to think that's a great legal argument.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 8th October 2019 at 11:37 PM.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 11:36 PM   #286
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,907
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I think that is insane. While it would be legal to fire Comey for any number of reasons, it ABSOLUTELY wouldn't be for the reasons that Trump said he did. Whether or not Trump knew that act was legal or illegal would be irrelevant. And I would argue that one can have corrupt intent and not have a clue about legality.
And IMO you'd be correct. Someone arguing a criminal case could try to use this definition to influence a jury, but this isn't a criminal case.

Firing Comey to stop an investigation into Trump's own conduct is so corrupt on the face of it that it boggles the mind that it needs explaining. But maybe it does. On the other hand, no matter what, Trump is going to call anyone involved traitors, so maybe Dems shouldn't be worried about presenting impeccable arguments.
Minoosh is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 11:37 PM   #287
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,997
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Your "fine distinction" seems to be that Trump didn't really obstruct justice because he didn't think he was, which is nonsense. It's not up to him to decide that.
Barr basically claimed Trump saying "It was obstruction of a witch hunt, not justice!!!!" somehow makes it not obstruction of justice.

Nobody in this thread seems to even really buy that. Meadmaker just seems to think "a jury" or "congress" would maybe buy it.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 11:48 PM   #288
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,907
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
The "ignorance of the law actually IS an excuse sometimes" argument only applies to the acceptance and solicitation of oppo research from foreign nationals: initially at Trump Tower (he got off scott free on that one because of the ignorance possibility) and now Ukrainegate. He's NOT going to be able to claim ignorance of the law there.
Didn't Barr already say that asking Ukraine to trash Biden wasn't a campaign finance violation because no specific monetary value could be established? I'm not sure if that's a parody or his actual argument. But it's cute that Barr thinks Trump's biggest problem will be alleged* campaign finance violations.

Last edited by Minoosh; 8th October 2019 at 11:50 PM.
Minoosh is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 11:48 PM   #289
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,997
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
And IMO you'd be correct. Someone arguing a criminal case could try to use this definition to influence a jury, but this isn't a criminal case.

Firing Comey to stop an investigation into Trump's own conduct is so corrupt on the face of it that it boggles the mind that it needs explaining. But maybe it does. On the other hand, no matter what, Trump is going to call anyone involved traitors, so maybe Dems shouldn't be worried about presenting impeccable arguments.
Trump and Rosenstein did a moderately okay job of covering their ***** when they fired Comey. They claimed it had nothing to do with investigating Trump, but rather had to do with the Clinton emails, and:
https://www.newsweek.com/why-james-c...i-606372?amp=1
Quote:
Rosenstein cites several attorneys general and other authorities who decried Comey's actions as a "departure from the department's widely respected, nonpartisan traditions." Rosenstein writes that "we should reject the departure and return to the traditions."
Of course it's BS, it's the sort of BS that makes it not strong enough to be included in impeachment.

It's not needed. The Mueller obstruction was much more documented, and now there's Ukraine.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 11:49 PM   #290
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,997
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Didn't Barr already say that asking Ukraine to trash Biden wasn't a campaign finance violation because no specific monetary value could be established? I'm not sure if that's a parody or his actual argument. But it's cute that Barr thinks Trump's biggest problem will be campaign finance violations.
If he has, I haven't stumbled across it yet.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 11:53 PM   #291
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,879
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
If he has, I haven't stumbled across it yet.
it was the reason the acting-DNI got on why he shouldn't forward the Complaint to the House.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 11:57 PM   #292
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,750
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
it was the reason the acting-DNI got on why he shouldn't forward the Complaint to the House.
cite?

I thought that the main reason was that the complaint wasn't about a member of the Intel Community and thus wasn't covered under the Legislation, which is a dodge in itself as the legislation only requires that the Whistle-blower be a member of the Intelligence Community.

ETA: I would note that in his hearing he did also note Executive Privilege as a reason as well.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 8th October 2019 at 11:59 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 12:03 AM   #293
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,506
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
And IMO you'd be correct. Someone arguing a criminal case could try to use this definition to influence a jury, but this isn't a criminal case.

Firing Comey to stop an investigation into Trump's own conduct is so corrupt on the face of it that it boggles the mind that it needs explaining. But maybe it does. On the other hand, no matter what, Trump is going to call anyone involved traitors, so maybe Dems shouldn't be worried about presenting impeccable arguments.
Frankly I DON'T care about criminality. Let me rephrase that. I do care, but that is a minor concern. I care about government and how it functions. That checks and balances are in tact. The act of impeding a criminal or a Congressional inquiry is a subversion of the checks and balances written into the Constitution.

Even if we disagreed about the Trump Tower meeting or even Comey's firing there are a mountain of other actions by Trump that are obvious abuses of power. From my perspective as obvious as Trump's attempted EXTORTION of the Ukraine to be a high crime today's actions is an even greater crime. Ordering government officials not to comply with Congress definitely constitutes Obstruction and an abuse of power. That anyone can say they are patriotic and condone the President of the United States not only acting above the law but as a scofflaw is embarrassing.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 12:09 AM   #294
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,317
I guess it's too late to put this here but maybe someone might find a use for it.

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...investigation/

Hope this hasn't been posted already.
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 12:47 AM   #295
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,879
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
cite?
.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/polit...int/index.html

Campaign Fiance was the initial figleaf, but by the time the DNI testified, they had shifted to Executive Privilege.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 01:58 AM   #296
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,021
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/polit...int/index.html

Campaign Fiance was the initial figleaf, but by the time the DNI testified, they had shifted to Executive Privilege.

Yeah, that would have been a tough row to hoe since there was a specific value involved in exchange for starting a Biden investigation: the withheld military aid. That excuse was from when they were denying any such thing because it wasn't mentioned in that one call. But Trump had already withheld the aid four days earlier, so it's possible he thought Zelensky already knew that. If he didn't, it didn't matter because he soon would, with no official reason given. If Zelensky was still too dumb to get the message, Trump volunteered to send his private lawyer to explain it.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 03:40 AM   #297
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,750
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/polit...int/index.html

Campaign Fiance was the initial figleaf, but by the time the DNI testified, they had shifted to Executive Privilege.
Can you show which part of the article says that Barr stated that "asking Ukraine to trash Biden wasn't a campaign finance violation because no specific monetary value could be established."
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 03:49 AM   #298
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,879
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Can you show which part of the article says that Barr stated that "asking Ukraine to trash Biden wasn't a campaign finance violation because no specific monetary value could be established."
Quote:
It would be more than a week before the inspector general for the intelligence community officially referred the matter to the Justice Department, following up on the formal whistleblower complaint.
From there, the Justice Department looked at the accusations narrowly -- focusing almost entirely on whether the President broke a campaign finance law barring foreign contributions in American elections.
more detail, if you need:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/25/p...ral/index.html

Quote:
Two more weeks went by, with career public integrity prosecutors looking at the matter, according to the officials. Then sometime last week, the Justice Department made its final determination: no reason for a full-blown criminal investigation. What the President asked of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky couldn't amount to a quantifiable "thing of value" under campaign finance law, top administration officials determined.
Criminal Division assistant attorney general Brian Benczkowski made the final call, the senior DOJ officials said. The Office of Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen was also involved with the legal analysis, as were the heads of the National Security Division and the Office of Legal Counsel, the officials said.
"All relevant components of the Department agreed with this legal conclusion," Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec said.
thing is: this was never up to the DOJ to decide in the first place: the complaint had to go to Congress after the AG made his decision.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 04:04 AM   #299
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,771
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
As someone noted earlier, if the "murder" is properly authorized, it isn't really murder in the legal sense anyway. I said "True" earlier as a quick way of saying that there are circumstances where killing is legal for any of us, and there are even more circumstances where killing by the President, or more likely at the direction of the President, is legal. So it isn't truly "murder" by definition, but rather an act that would be considered murder if it were not authorized by the President.

As for any subsequent obstruction of the investigation, it would depend on whether he had corrupt intent. If the killing were actually legal, but someone launched an investigation into it, presumably any interference would be legal as well, but there are too many hypotheticals to give a definitive answer.
Is the President the final arbiter of whether his intent is corrupt and therefore he can be justified in obstructing investigation and oversight of his actions? The answer is obvious, but you keep missing it.

The other thing you are stubbornly ignoring is that using public power for oneís personal advantage, even if one believes it is for noble reasons, is the very definition of government corruption. Trump has repeatedly admitted, both publicly and privately, to his corrupt intent. How you can so doggedly cherry-pick the evidence astounds me.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 05:57 AM   #300
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,750
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
more detail, if you need:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/25/p...ral/index.html



thing is: this was never up to the DOJ to decide in the first place: the complaint had to go to Congress after the AG made his decision.
Neither quote provide evidence of AG Barr saying the quoted material, in fact your link says that it was career officials in the DoJ that made the decision and AG Barr had little influence in the decision.

Don't get me wrong here, I believe that AG Barr has lied through his teeth on various things since taking up the position, but that is no reason to attribute quotes to him that he never said.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 06:10 AM   #301
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,879
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Neither quote provide evidence of AG Barr saying the quoted material, in fact your link says that it was career officials in the DoJ that made the decision and AG Barr had little influence in the decision.

Don't get me wrong here, I believe that AG Barr has lied through his teeth on various things since taking up the position, but that is no reason to attribute quotes to him that he never said.
Why do you get so hung up about Barr?
It's his department - if he wasn't directly involved, it was because he made it clear that he didn't want to be involved: there is no way something which contains his name didn't get cleared with him.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 06:39 AM   #302
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,309
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
And YOU would be wrong. In fact your position is absurd. And whats even more ridiculous is your denial of the corrupt intent.

If there is no corrupt intent, you don't hide it. You don't stonewall. This alone proves "consciousness of guilt". The corrupt intent might as well be tattooed on your forehead. Personally I consider what you are doing is both intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt.
This comment is unfortunate. Post after post, you convey that you're outraged and not much more than that.

I disagree with Meadmaker. And I'm outraged by Trump. Still, I appreciate Meadmaker's efforts and I think your comments are way off base.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 02:48 PM   #303
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,737
If your loyal lawyer stooge advises you that an action would be illegal and you do it anyway, I don't think you need more evidence of corrupt intent.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 03:11 PM   #304
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,737
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Only if you do it corruptly. Really, that word is important. There are whole Supreme Court cases about it.
If only we could see into that pebble of a mind, and see if he knows he's guilty.



Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
The President can meet with whomever he wants. Presumably, he's smart enough not to tape the conversations. That didn't end so well for Nixon.
No, the President can not meet with anyone he wants. Meeting with known adversaries of the United States could be considered Treason. Though we are not technically at war with Russia, they do not have the United States best interests in mind.

I don't think he is smart enough to ensure the conversations were not recorded.

I wonder if they found any bugs after the spooks left?
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 03:39 PM   #305
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,462
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
No, the President can not meet with anyone he wants. Meeting with known adversaries of the United States could be considered Treason. Though we are not technically at war with Russia, they do not have the United States best interests in mind.
"Only Nixon could go to China If Nixon goes to China, it's probably treason."

- Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, probably
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 03:56 PM   #306
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,506
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
This comment is unfortunate. Post after post, you convey that you're outraged and not much more than that.

I disagree with Meadmaker. And I'm outraged by Trump. Still, I appreciate Meadmaker's efforts and I think your comments are way off base.
We have a difference of opinion. I believe in democratic principles and the system of checks and balances. Those are being steadily eroded by Trump. But he isn't doing it alone. He is being assisted by this grotesque apologetics where his wanton disregard of those principles is excused and rationalized.

People talk about patriotism and are clueless about this enduring Republic. It only persists and prospers when we uphold those principles. Wave the flag. but not stand up for fair and free elections? Seriously, if you are willing to give away our republican ideals fought for at Yorktown and Saratoga and that men gave the last full measure of devotion to preserve at Gettysburg.

Anyone who knows me, knows that I'm a strong believer in civility and I'm tolerant of other's opinions. I find it impossible to be tolerant to those who are willing to rationalise Trump's wanton disregard of the Constitution and democratic principles. This isn't personal, it's about having an actual democracy for my grandchildren.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 03:58 PM   #307
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,647
Anybody else think that on an issue on which the survival of the US as a democracy might well depends, they are in no mood to play some silly intellectual game about it?
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 03:59 PM   #308
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,506
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
If only we could see into that pebble of a mind, and see if he knows he's guilty.


No, the President can not meet with anyone he wants. Meeting with known adversaries of the United States could be considered Treason. Though we are not technically at war with Russia, they do not have the United States best interests in mind.

I don't think he is smart enough to ensure the conversations were not recorded.

I wonder if they found any bugs after the spooks left?
Sorry, he can. POTUS is in charge of Foreign policy.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 04:06 PM   #309
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,462
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Anybody else think that on an issue on which the survival of the US as a democracy might well depends, they are in no mood to play some silly intellectual game about it?
We tried it the other other way, but when we led with emotion, we ended up with silliness like "an issue on which the survival of the US as a democracy might well depend". And then any attempt to reason against such nonsense gets dismissed as "some silly intellectual game".

Maybe you'd get better results if you spent less time on personal attacks and wild hyperbole, and more time on rational debate.

Last edited by theprestige; 9th October 2019 at 04:07 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 04:23 PM   #310
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,506
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
We tried it the other other way, but when we led with emotion, we ended up with silliness like "an issue on which the survival of the US as a democracy might well depend". And then any attempt to reason against such nonsense gets dismissed as "some silly intellectual game".

Maybe you'd get better results if you spent less time on personal attacks and wild hyperbole, and more time on rational debate.
Don't get emotional. Just do what we tell you.

It's not hyperbole. I could only hope it was.

Here we have the President of the United States witholding authorized military aid to an American ally and suggesting they dig up dirt on his political opposition. Here we have the White House, the Department of Justice and the State Department refusing to cooperate with Congress on an inquiry.

It takes a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty or cognitive dissonance to suggest that being seriously worried about our system of government in our current environment as hyperbolic.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 04:30 PM   #311
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,462
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Don't get emotional. Just do what we tell you.



It's not hyperbole. I could only hope it was.



Here we have the President of the United States witholding authorized military aid to an American ally
To be clear, Presidents do this all the time, and it doesn't threaten our democracy.

Hell, President Obama withheld aid from Egypt until they changed their regime to one more to his liking.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 04:39 PM   #312
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,506
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
To be clear, Presidents do this all the time, and it doesn't threaten our democracy.

Hell, President Obama withheld aid from Egypt until they changed their regime to one more to his liking.
Do you hear yourself? NO THEY ******* DON'T!

And since you feel the need to foist such a festering turd of fabrication on the forum I challenge you to offer citations.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 05:00 PM   #313
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,462
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Do you hear yourself? NO THEY ******* DON'T!



And since you feel the need to foist such a festering turd of fabrication on the forum I challenge you to offer citations.
They literally do.

President Obama literally withheld military aid from Egypt. He literally allowed that aid after Egypt changed its regime in a way he approved of.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 05:29 PM   #314
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,506
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
They literally do.

President Obama literally withheld military aid from Egypt. He literally allowed that aid after Egypt changed its regime in a way he approved of.

Wow. Not so they would investigate a political opponent. The President has a wide range of authority when conducting foreign policy, but he doesn't have the authority to extort a foreign government for personal or political gain.

I really cant believe you're this obtuse. Is it deliberate?
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 05:36 PM   #315
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,997
Carrots (foreign aid) and sticks (sanctions, war) really is how foreign policy often works.

What Trump's done that's way outside of any norm and is totally illegal is to use the carrot for personal gain.

And of course, even if you want to say the "I would like you to do us a favor, though" was NOT using the missiles as a carrot, it's still solicitation of oppo research from a foreign national, and totally illegal.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 05:39 PM   #316
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,997
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Wow. Not so they would investigate a political opponent. The President has a wide range of authority when conducting foreign policy, but he doesn't have the authority to extort a foreign government for personal or political gain.

I really cant believe you're this obtuse. Is it deliberate?
When conservative can't defend Trump, they nitpick our precise wording about stuff instead, and pretend to be making an argument.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 05:41 PM   #317
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,462
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
When conservative can't defend Trump, they nitpick our precise wording about stuff instead, and pretend to be making an argument.
Meadmaker isn't a conservative, though. Nor is he interested in defending Trump. If you're tired of dealing with conservative shenanigans, why not try engaging Meadmaker on his own own terms, and seeing where it leads? Are you afraid of where it might lead?

Last edited by theprestige; 9th October 2019 at 05:42 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 05:42 PM   #318
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,506
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Carrots (foreign aid) and sticks (sanctions, war) really is how foreign policy often works.

What Trump's done that's way outside of any norm and is totally illegal is to use the carrot for personal gain.

And of course, even if you want to say the "I would like you to do us a favor, though" was NOT using the missiles as a carrot, it's still solicitation of oppo research from a foreign national, and totally illegal.
I would assert that asking Ukraine to investigate a political opponent is more than opposition research.

I'd also argue its a theft of American resources for personal political gain.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 05:44 PM   #319
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,506
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Meadmaker isn't a conservative, though. Nor is he interested in defending Trump. If you're tired of dealing with conservative shenanigans, why not try engaging Meadmaker on his own own terms, and seeing where it leads? Are you afraid of where it might lead?
I'm pretty sure he's referring to someone else.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 05:46 PM   #320
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,997
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Meadmaker isn't a conservative, though. Nor is he interested in defending Trump. If you're tired of dealing with conservative shenanigans, why not try engaging Meadmaker on his own own terms, and seeing where it leads? Are you afraid of where it might lead?
He is (or was) literally playing the role of of defense for Trump in this mock trial.

I have been engaging Meadmaker. You must have missed the last couple of pages where we were [respectfully] arguing.

He conceded that there was no expert disagreement with the 1,027 former prosecutors and kinda gave up.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:37 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.