(01-22-2020 03:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  My comment was on the absolute prevalence of using the heart-wrenching story as the lede for the issue. And, true to form Big supplies us the story of Larry from Indiana. Somehow you missed that connection between the statements.

Well I didn't use it as the lede. I posted it at the end of my comment ... as an edit ... and because the article noted that there might be up to 300,000 other registered voters without the proper ID.

(01-22-2020 04:47 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  My comment was on the absolute prevalence of using the heart-wrenching story as the lede for the issue. And, true to form Big supplies us the story of Larry from Indiana. Somehow you missed that connection between the statements.

Well I didn't use it as the lede. I posted it at the end of my comment ... as an edit ... and because the article noted that there might be up to 300,000 other registered voters without the proper ID.

It was still fairly funny that it was there in the first place, to be honest.

(01-22-2020 04:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is a thought experiment I saw elsewhere, and would like one of our leftward brethren to take a stab at:

Let's pretend that Joe Biden had a different name. No, better: Let's pretend that Joe Biden had a different letter after his name. Let's pretend he's Joe Biden ®, former vice president under George W. Bush.

In that case, what would the Democrats be doing differently?

Is he running for office this year?

With respect to impeachment, THE issue is that Trump only pressured Ukraine because Biden is likely to be his opponent in the election.

Between testimony during the impeachment hearings (like the testimony that made it clear the Biden angle was a personal/campaign matter and not official US policy), Trump's lack of significant anti-corruption effort in Ukraine (his admin has cut Ukrainian anti-corruption funding), and Trump's lack of significant anti-corruption efforts at home and abroad, it is clear that all he wanted was some political leverage.

BFD. So what. Aren't you the guys that sent Steele to did up dirt from russians?

Was Steele hired by POTUS? Nope - so move along.

Quote:If you are going to act holier than thou, best to be a little holier, at least.

There is zero hollier than thou here - where did I even try and compare the actions of others?

Quote:Is it alleged to be bribery or treason? No. Is it a high crime? No. to be so, it would first have to be a crime.

Wrong again - especially since you cut the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" short. It's been well established that impeachment does not have to be predicated on a crime, as "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't actually refer to legal crimes or misdemeanors, separately. The Constitution clearly intends for "high crimes and misdemeanors" to be read together.

Quote:The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

And to dig deeper, here is an explanation as to why "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a catch all and not legal as you try to argue.

Quote:In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

For the more than 200 years since the Constitution was adopted, Congress has seriously considered impeachment only 18 times. Thirteen of these cases involved federal judges. The “high crimes and misdemeanors” that the House charged against these judges included being habitually drunk, showing favoritism on the bench, using judicial power unlawfully, using the office for financial gain, unlawfully punishing people for contempt of court, submitting false expense accounts, getting special deals from parties appearing before the court, bullying people in open court, filing false income tax returns, making false statements while under oath, and disclosing confidential information.

https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high...anors.html

Quote:Just leaves misdemeanors. What's a misdemeanor? Is acting up in class a misdemeanor?

See above.

(01-22-2020 04:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is a thought experiment I saw elsewhere, and would like one of our leftward brethren to take a stab at:

Let's pretend that Joe Biden had a different name. No, better: Let's pretend that Joe Biden had a different letter after his name. Let's pretend he's Joe Biden ®, former vice president under George W. Bush.

In that case, what would the Democrats be doing differently?

If he was a former republican running in the democratic primary, he would be gaining close to zero traction and wouldn't be making the debate stage at this point in the primary. Democrats would barely talk about him because he would have already dropped out or be a complete non-factor.

Or are you talking about whether he should testify as an impeachment witness? If you are talking about impeachment, then he wouldn't be a witness to either of the charged articles of impeachment so I wouldn't see any reason for him to testify. And if Trump was asking Ukraine to investigate someone who was not a political rival, then I guess Article 1 should fail because Trump would not have been seeking personal advantage.

(01-22-2020 04:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the *only* reason that Trump is being impeached is the (D) behind Biden's name. Had it been *anyone* not running, nothing is wrong. That is interesting.

Kind of by itself shows the sham that it is.

If Trump said the same thing, but said 'Lindsey Graham Jr' --- copacetic by you. Very telling.

I mean, the whole argument is that he is using foreign policy that is supposed to benefit all Americans as a cudgel to induce foreign interference in the election. So the argument is only valid if Trump is doing it against someone he is running (or likely to run) against in an election. Your Lindsey Graham example would have worked if Lindsey Graham was running against Trump in the Republican primary. In that instance, I absolutely think Trump should be impeached for the same reasons, but I still don't think Lindsey Graham Jr. or Senator Graham should be a witness to the impeachment (assuming the facts were otherwise similar).

(01-22-2020 04:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is a thought experiment I saw elsewhere, and would like one of our leftward brethren to take a stab at:

Let's pretend that Joe Biden had a different name. No, better: Let's pretend that Joe Biden had a different letter after his name. Let's pretend he's Joe Biden ®, former vice president under George W. Bush.

In that case, what would the Democrats be doing differently?

Is he running for office this year?

With respect to impeachment, THE issue is that Trump only pressured Ukraine because Biden is likely to be his opponent in the election.

Between testimony during the impeachment hearings (like the testimony that made it clear the Biden angle was a personal/campaign matter and not official US policy), Trump's lack of significant anti-corruption effort in Ukraine (his admin has cut Ukrainian anti-corruption funding), and Trump's lack of significant anti-corruption efforts at home and abroad, it is clear that all he wanted was some political leverage.

BFD. So what. Aren't you the guys that sent Steele to did up dirt from russians?

If you are going to act holier than thou, best to be a little holier, at least.

Is it alleged to be bribery or treason? No. Is it a high crime? No. to be so, it would first have to be a crime.

Just leaves misdemeanors. What's a misdemeanor? Is acting up in class a misdemeanor?

lad just told us the only thing that made it wrong was the (D) behind Biden's name and that Biden was running.

Apparently doing the exact same course of events but replacing the coke-whoring son of the then sitting VP with Ted Cruz Jr is hunky dory in lad-town.

When you make that name change and come to such amazingly dissimilar outcomes, it really kind of underlines the sham that is going on. Thank you, lad, for emphasizing that point of difference so startlingly for us.....

Your ability to stretch the statements of others is unparalleled.

You asked if Dems would do things differently, and I explained exactly why they are going through the impeachment process, which is a political process.

If news came out that Trump did the exact same thing, pressured a foreign country to investigate a Republican Senator for clearly political gain, I don't know if the Dems would role the dice to start impeachment proceedings.

I did NOT provide an opinion on what made Trump's actions wrong, yet here you are, proclaiming that I did. Doing the exact same thing to Ted Cruz is just as wrong. A sitting POTUS should not use the power of their office for personal gain, period.

(01-22-2020 04:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:47 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  My comment was on the absolute prevalence of using the heart-wrenching story as the lede for the issue. And, true to form Big supplies us the story of Larry from Indiana. Somehow you missed that connection between the statements.

Well I didn't use it as the lede. I posted it at the end of my comment ... as an edit ... and because the article noted that there might be up to 300,000 other registered voters without the proper ID.

It was still fairly funny that it was there in the first place, to be honest.

Yes, I debated including it. I only did so because I was trying to demonstrate that anecdotes can be useful additions if they are personalizing a larger issue that affects (or could affect) many people. In retrospect, I wish I had left it out. No sense causing you so much heartburn or stress!

(01-22-2020 05:00 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the *only* reason that Trump is being impeached is the (D) behind Biden's name. Had it been *anyone* not running, nothing is wrong. That is interesting.

Kind of by itself shows the sham that it is.

If Trump said the same thing, but said 'Lindsey Graham Jr' --- copacetic by you. Very telling.

I mean, the whole argument is that he is using foreign policy that is supposed to benefit all Americans as a cudgel to induce foreign interference in the election. So the argument is only valid if Trump is doing it against someone he is running (or likely to run) against in an election. Your Lindsey Graham example would have worked if Lindsey Graham was running against Trump in the Republican primary. In that instance, I absolutely think Trump should be impeached for the same reasons, but I still don't think Lindsey Graham Jr. or Senator Graham should be a witness to the impeachment (assuming the facts were otherwise similar).

I do think it would still be an impeachable offence if he was trying to use his influence for personal gain, outside of an election. So if Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Lindsey Graham Jr because he would somehow benefit, and there was no evidence that he was doing it to further US interests, then it's wrong. I just don't know if he gets impeached.

(01-22-2020 05:03 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:47 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  My comment was on the absolute prevalence of using the heart-wrenching story as the lede for the issue. And, true to form Big supplies us the story of Larry from Indiana. Somehow you missed that connection between the statements.

Well I didn't use it as the lede. I posted it at the end of my comment ... as an edit ... and because the article noted that there might be up to 300,000 other registered voters without the proper ID.

It was still fairly funny that it was there in the first place, to be honest.

Yes, I debated including it. I only did so because I was trying to demonstrate that anecdotes can be useful additions if they are personalizing a larger issue that affects (or could affect) many people. In retrospect, I wish I had left it out. No sense causing you so much heartburn or stress!

I thought that you followed the 'anecdotes are unswaying' train of thought. When one was included in your chain, I found the irony rather delicious and humorous.

(01-22-2020 05:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 05:00 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the *only* reason that Trump is being impeached is the (D) behind Biden's name. Had it been *anyone* not running, nothing is wrong. That is interesting.

Kind of by itself shows the sham that it is.

If Trump said the same thing, but said 'Lindsey Graham Jr' --- copacetic by you. Very telling.

I mean, the whole argument is that he is using foreign policy that is supposed to benefit all Americans as a cudgel to induce foreign interference in the election. So the argument is only valid if Trump is doing it against someone he is running (or likely to run) against in an election. Your Lindsey Graham example would have worked if Lindsey Graham was running against Trump in the Republican primary. In that instance, I absolutely think Trump should be impeached for the same reasons, but I still don't think Lindsey Graham Jr. or Senator Graham should be a witness to the impeachment (assuming the facts were otherwise similar).

I do think it would still be an impeachable offence if he was trying to use his influence for personal gain, outside of an election. So if Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Lindsey Graham Jr because he would somehow benefit, and there was no evidence that he was doing it to further US interests, then it's wrong. I just don't know if he gets impeached.

So the only difference for impeachment is the (D) following Biden's name. If it were an ® I am absolutely 100% positive the Democratic Congress would be prostrate before Trump, not just "dont know if he gets impeached". That is the real world.

So again, all we have as the difference is ® or (D) determining whether there are laudatory orations or impeachment. Still kind of points out the partisan sham, doesnt it?

(01-22-2020 05:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 05:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 05:00 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the *only* reason that Trump is being impeached is the (D) behind Biden's name. Had it been *anyone* not running, nothing is wrong. That is interesting.

Kind of by itself shows the sham that it is.

If Trump said the same thing, but said 'Lindsey Graham Jr' --- copacetic by you. Very telling.

I mean, the whole argument is that he is using foreign policy that is supposed to benefit all Americans as a cudgel to induce foreign interference in the election. So the argument is only valid if Trump is doing it against someone he is running (or likely to run) against in an election. Your Lindsey Graham example would have worked if Lindsey Graham was running against Trump in the Republican primary. In that instance, I absolutely think Trump should be impeached for the same reasons, but I still don't think Lindsey Graham Jr. or Senator Graham should be a witness to the impeachment (assuming the facts were otherwise similar).

I do think it would still be an impeachable offence if he was trying to use his influence for personal gain, outside of an election. So if Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Lindsey Graham Jr because he would somehow benefit, and there was no evidence that he was doing it to further US interests, then it's wrong. I just don't know if he gets impeached.

So the only difference for impeachment is the (D) following Biden's name. If it were an ® I am absolutely 100% positive the Democratic Congress would be prostrate before Trump, not just "dont know if he gets impeached". That is the real world.

So again, all we have as the difference is ® or (D) determining whether there are laudatory orations or impeachment. Still kind of points out the partisan sham, doesnt it?

Being that impeachment is a political process, it's almost inherently a "partisan sham" by design...

The issue to me, is whether or not Trump is "guilty" (for lack of a better word) of what he is accused of, and if what he is accused of is wrong. Based on what I have seen, yes, and yes.

IMO should Trump have been impeached? 100%. Should the Senate vote to remove him? I lean towards no. I think what he did is an abuse of power, but I don't know if this single incident warrants being thrown out of office.

(01-22-2020 05:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is a thought experiment I saw elsewhere, and would like one of our leftward brethren to take a stab at:

Let's pretend that Joe Biden had a different name. No, better: Let's pretend that Joe Biden had a different letter after his name. Let's pretend he's Joe Biden ®, former vice president under George W. Bush.

In that case, what would the Democrats be doing differently?

Is he running for office this year?

With respect to impeachment, THE issue is that Trump only pressured Ukraine because Biden is likely to be his opponent in the election.

Between testimony during the impeachment hearings (like the testimony that made it clear the Biden angle was a personal/campaign matter and not official US policy), Trump's lack of significant anti-corruption effort in Ukraine (his admin has cut Ukrainian anti-corruption funding), and Trump's lack of significant anti-corruption efforts at home and abroad, it is clear that all he wanted was some political leverage.

BFD. So what. Aren't you the guys that sent Steele to did up dirt from russians?

If you are going to act holier than thou, best to be a little holier, at least.

Is it alleged to be bribery or treason? No. Is it a high crime? No. to be so, it would first have to be a crime.

Just leaves misdemeanors. What's a misdemeanor? Is acting up in class a misdemeanor?

lad just told us the only thing that made it wrong was the (D) behind Biden's name and that Biden was running.

Apparently doing the exact same course of events but replacing the coke-whoring son of the then sitting VP with Ted Cruz Jr is hunky dory in lad-town.

When you make that name change and come to such amazingly dissimilar outcomes, it really kind of underlines the sham that is going on. Thank you, lad, for emphasizing that point of difference so startlingly for us.....

Your ability to stretch the statements of others is unparalleled.

You asked if Dems would do things differently, and I explained exactly why they are going through the impeachment process, which is a political process.

If news came out that Trump did the exact same thing, pressured a foreign country to investigate a Republican Senator for clearly political gain, I don't know if the Dems would role the dice to start impeachment proceedings.

I did NOT provide an opinion on what made Trump's actions wrong, yet here you are, proclaiming that I did. Doing the exact same thing to Ted Cruz is just as wrong. A sitting POTUS should not use the power of their office for personal gain, period.

I asked what would be the difference. You offered up Biden as being a Democrat being a major difference in the thought experiment, like a galvanic response. Obviously Ted Cruz Jr instead of Hunter the coke whore makes a difference that engendered that response.

And no offense, if any ® were put into the place of Hunter Coke World then Democrats would not only *not* impeach, they would revel in it. Again, this points out and underscores the fing partisan sham that it is.

(01-22-2020 05:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I thought that you followed the 'anecdotes are unswaying' train of thought. When one was included in your chain, I found the irony rather delicious and humorous.

Well, just because they do not sway me personally doesn't mean they don't sway other people. Maybe Larry's tale of woe would sway OO, who knows?

Also, I thought it was pretty clear from my post (though perhaps not?) that the problem wasn't the anecdote, it is only the anecdote with nothing else. If OO had included his anecdote along with polls showing how unpopular the impeachment trial was, that would have been different and I wouldn't have commented about the anecdote.

(01-22-2020 05:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I asked what would be the difference. You offered up Biden as being a Democrat being a major difference in the thought experiment, like a galvanic response. Obviously Ted Cruz Jr instead of Hunter the coke whore makes a difference that engendered that response.

And no offense, if any ® were put into the place of Hunter Coke World then Democrats would not only *not* impeach, they would revel in it. Again, this points out and underscores the fing partisan sham that it is.

Do we really need to be mocking people for their drug addiction or drug abuse problems? Do we really need to be using words like "whore"?

(01-22-2020 05:50 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 05:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I asked what would be the difference. You offered up Biden as being a Democrat being a major difference in the thought experiment, like a galvanic response. Obviously Ted Cruz Jr instead of Hunter the coke whore makes a difference that engendered that response.

And no offense, if any ® were put into the place of Hunter Coke World then Democrats would not only *not* impeach, they would revel in it. Again, this points out and underscores the fing partisan sham that it is.

Do we really need to be mocking people for their drug addiction or drug abuse problems? Do we really need to be using words like "whore"?

Well....

I think the term 'coke-whore' is kind of tame for a guy who drove he and his ex-wife into massive debt by spending their money on “drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, strip clubs, and gifts for women with whom he had sexual relations”, who is defying a judicial order to disclose his finances from stripper liaison with whom he fathered a child with and had to be sued over, and somehow at the same time is managing to rent a 3.5 million dollar house with his current (pregnant) squeeze at about 12k a month.

(01-22-2020 05:50 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 05:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I asked what would be the difference. You offered up Biden as being a Democrat being a major difference in the thought experiment, like a galvanic response. Obviously Ted Cruz Jr instead of Hunter the coke whore makes a difference that engendered that response.
And no offense, if any ® were put into the place of Hunter Coke World then Democrats would not only *not* impeach, they would revel in it. Again, this points out and underscores the fing partisan sham that it is.

Do we really need to be mocking people for their drug addiction or drug abuse problems? Do we really need to be using words like "whore"?

In this case, I think yes.

(01-22-2020 05:45 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 05:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I thought that you followed the 'anecdotes are unswaying' train of thought. When one was included in your chain, I found the irony rather delicious and humorous.

Well, just because they do not sway me personally doesn't mean they don't sway other people. Maybe Larry's tale of woe would sway OO, who knows?

Also, I thought it was pretty clear from my post (though perhaps not?) that the problem wasn't the anecdote, it is only the anecdote with nothing else. If OO had included his anecdote along with polls showing how unpopular the impeachment trial was, that would have been different and I wouldn't have commented about the anecdote.

But I wasn't trying to make a claim. I was reporting a happening. I reported as what I observed one person doing. You are the one who tried to read a point into it. I used words like maybe.

(01-22-2020 05:50 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 05:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I asked what would be the difference. You offered up Biden as being a Democrat being a major difference in the thought experiment, like a galvanic response. Obviously Ted Cruz Jr instead of Hunter the coke whore makes a difference that engendered that response.

And no offense, if any ® were put into the place of Hunter Coke World then Democrats would not only *not* impeach, they would revel in it. Again, this points out and underscores the fing partisan sham that it is.

Do we really need to be mocking people for their drug addiction or drug abuse problems? Do we really need to be using words like "whore"?

What words did the Democrats use to describe Stormy Daniels?

(01-22-2020 11:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 05:50 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 05:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I asked what would be the difference. You offered up Biden as being a Democrat being a major difference in the thought experiment, like a galvanic response. Obviously Ted Cruz Jr instead of Hunter the coke whore makes a difference that engendered that response.

And no offense, if any ® were put into the place of Hunter Coke World then Democrats would not only *not* impeach, they would revel in it. Again, this points out and underscores the fing partisan sham that it is.

Do we really need to be mocking people for their drug addiction or drug abuse problems? Do we really need to be using words like "whore"?

What words did the Democrats use to describe Stormy Daniels?

Not sure. I know they described her progression (stripped and porn star), which she almost certainly self-identified as.

Any idea on your end?

(01-23-2020 06:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 11:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 05:50 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 05:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I asked what would be the difference. You offered up Biden as being a Democrat being a major difference in the thought experiment, like a galvanic response. Obviously Ted Cruz Jr instead of Hunter the coke whore makes a difference that engendered that response.

And no offense, if any ® were put into the place of Hunter Coke World then Democrats would not only *not* impeach, they would revel in it. Again, this points out and underscores the fing partisan sham that it is.

Do we really need to be mocking people for their drug addiction or drug abuse problems? Do we really need to be using words like "whore"?

What words did the Democrats use to describe Stormy Daniels?

Not sure. I know they described her progression (stripped and porn star), which she almost certainly self-identified as.

Any idea on your end?

Bimbo, whore, trash. Because she was associated with Trump, there was no holding back on the invective. I did not once hear anybody say "it's her body she can do what she wants with it".

But in the case of Hunter, I think the words "coke whore" probably refer to somebody addicted who would do anything to get the money. I don't think Hunter stood on a corner offering his body like a real coke whole. I bet there are lots rich, influential people addicted to drugs, who, because of their situation, do not have to sell themselves. Well, not their body, anyway. Certainly Hunter was selling something. Parental influence, maybe.

But other words and phrases do describe Hunter better than coke whore. That would not be my choice.

OK, I answered your question. Your turn.

Why are Democrats fighting so hard to keep Hunter and Joe from testifying under oath?