|
31
|
General Discussion / Entertainment / The All-Seeing Eye / Re: * * * The Official GOOD MORNING CREW Thread * * *
|
on: January 09, 2020, 07:06:54 pm
|
Since apparently neither of you went to any sort of civics class in high school, let me explain the impeachment process in terms that equate it to the regular justice system. The House acts as the grand jury, who votes to bring charges. The Senate acts as the actual trial with Senators as the jurors and SCOTUS Chief Justice presiding as Judge. I'd say calling witnesses during a trial is a pretty vital part of a trial, is it not? And you don't get to defend yourself from a grand juy.
As someone who has gone through law school and literally conducts grand juries as a regular part of my job:  Then why do you seem to have such trouble properly understanding how an impeachment proceeding works? Is it because you are so far removed from studying them and their analogs you've forgotten? Or is it because you continue to refuse to see how it works because doing so would prove your inept "argument" against the impeachment proceedings? How blind can you be? The definition of conspiracy theory YOU provide literally fits the allegations against Trump to a tee. And again, the only claim I made was that Pelosi's actions are politically motivated. And she has said as much. Hardly a conspiracy theory that a politician's actions are politically motivated. Heck I took an entire course in college on the subject of political theory where entire bodies of research are based on how the actions of politicians literally cannot be separated from political motivations. Can you get your money back for that course? It seems like I could have taught the entire subject matter in less than 5 minutes. "Hurr durr, any type of motivation from a politician is politically motivated because it came from a politician, hurr durr." Yes, lets just forget that while, generally career politicians are solely motivated by money from lobbyists and treading the party line, they are still human and do occasionally have their own thoughts and opinions on matters. And on your conspiracy theory claim, even if Trump didn't understand what he was doing was essentially extorting a foreign power into influencing a US election based on debunked conspiracy theories(which is probable, seeing as the man has an IQ lower than the low temperature you'll see tonight), that does not mean it is not an impeachable offense. Just like if I randomly shot a gun without looking where it was aimed and hit and killed someone, I'd still be a murderer, both legally and morally. Wait wait wait, dude, he took an entire course in college about politics being political, so clearly he's a subject matter expert in literally everything to do with politics. Set aside that he somehow can't parse the difference between doing something political for moral, ethical, and legal reasons and doing something as purely a political ploy, this man is the authority on everything to do with impeachment, Trump, Nancy Pelosi, and probably stuff like dialectical materialism too! Also set aside that for someone who claims not to like Trump, he's sure spending a lot of time trying to argue that the charges against him are baseless and insubstantial. Life must be so easy when you can hand-waive away anything that goes against your guy a guy that you definitely hate but don't want to be investigated for some reason.
|
|
|
|
|
32
|
General Discussion / Entertainment / The All-Seeing Eye / Re: * * * The Official GOOD MORNING CREW Thread * * *
|
on: January 08, 2020, 07:56:32 pm
|
Speculation about a witness with information no one has yet heard is the definition of a conspiracy theory. How about getting some facts before forming your strong opinion.
It is literally not the definition of a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory: A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable.Coincidentally this seems to describe your claims pretty closely.  Bolton was fired by Trump, so I’m sure there’s no axe to grind there.  'Let's be clear, I resigned.' John Bolton contradicts Donald Trump on whether he was firedOof  Also, it’s not the Senate’s job to present facts for the case The Senate has the power to examine witnesses. How do you qualify that as not presenting facts? If the House wanted these witnesses to testify, they should have used the process of the courts to do so. What? The House, via the mechanisms of impeachment, can call witnesses to testify directly. Why do you think they have to do it via the courts? They didn’t, because they knew that during that process, the Republicans would finally have an opportunity to call THEIR own witnesses, and be able to cross-examine the House Majority’s witnesses- something they were previously blocked from doing. Oh heck, you're telling me the Republicans couldn't call any witnesses? That's weird. I could've sworn one of the witnesses the Republicans called ended up confirming quid pro quo had occurred, but I guess if you didn't think it happened we must be living in a fever dream. Like seriously, you must be living in another reality. Not all of the witnesses the Republicans requested to have testified did so, but some did. The House’s investigation was conducted with zero due process, which is why zero Republicans voted for it, and even a few Democrats voted against it. That, in and of itself, tells you that the House’s process was flawed.
Ah yeah partisan politics definitely is the standard for judging whether a process was flawed. That's how we know Obamacare is flawless, because a Republican voted to preserve it. 
|
|
|
|
|
33
|
General Discussion / Entertainment / The All-Seeing Eye / Re: * * * The Official GOOD MORNING CREW Thread * * *
|
on: January 07, 2020, 05:47:28 pm
|
LOL I'm pretty sure you are the one putting forth the conspiracy theory about behind the scenes Ukrainian political scandals.
Bolton Is Willing to Testify in Trump Impeachment Trial, Raising Pressure for WitnessesMr. Bolton did not say precisely what he would be willing to tell Congress. But his lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, told the House’s top lawyer in November that Mr. Bolton knew about “many relevant meetings and conversations” connected to the Ukraine matter that had not been shared with House impeachment investigators. And former White House officials and people close to Mr. Bolton have indicated that his testimony would most likely be damning to Mr. Trump and put additional pressure on moderate Republicans to consider convicting him. Some conspiracy. But hey, I'm sure John Bolton is just a liberal intent on going after Trump for optics, yeah?
|
|
|
|
|
34
|
General Discussion / Entertainment / The All-Seeing Eye / Re: * * * The Official GOOD MORNING CREW Thread * * *
|
on: January 06, 2020, 09:03:21 pm
|
Your mischaracterizations are hilarious. You have literally put your own spin on every single thing you posted in order to come to the conclusion you want to.
Oh god the irony. But it's cool, I get that you don't actually want to engage on anything I've asked you directly because, at least on some level, you understand you're severely under-informed on this subject and consequently can't argue a stronger point than repeatedly whining about bias and spin, much like the FOX News personalities I'm sure you'll deny agreeing with. Or maybe I just don't want to engage in a lengthy political debate here with you. I don't have the time to educate you nor the desire. But keep thinking whatever you want. You know it all.Oh it's very clear you don't want to engage in a debate, you just want to sit back and offer what amounts to "no u" to everything you disagree with. By the way, I've taken the liberty of putting the ironic parts of your post in bold for you. LOL That's not irony when you understand the "you know it all" part is sarcasm. You THINK you know it all. Ooooh, meta irony. The irony is that the audience knows you're full of it but you don't, so your sarcasm is still ironic.  And I'm not offering anything. You came here trolling for a debate. You didn't get one and you aren't getting one. Now your panties are in a bunch because no one will take the bait. It is perfectly within reason to simply respond to someone by saying you disagree, but not engaging in a debate. I know that's hard for you to comprehend since the only language you speak is debate. But not everyone owes you an explanation for why they disagree with you.
I asked you questions in good faith and I got Infowars-level conspiracy theories in response, not to mention veiled insults. Pretty cheek for you to accuse someone else of only speaking debate though.
|
|
|
|
|
35
|
General Discussion / Entertainment / The All-Seeing Eye / Re: * * * The Official GOOD MORNING CREW Thread * * *
|
on: January 04, 2020, 02:26:18 pm
|
Your mischaracterizations are hilarious. You have literally put your own spin on every single thing you posted in order to come to the conclusion you want to.
Oh god the irony. But it's cool, I get that you don't actually want to engage on anything I've asked you directly because, at least on some level, you understand you're severely under-informed on this subject and consequently can't argue a stronger point than repeatedly whining about bias and spin, much like the FOX News personalities I'm sure you'll deny agreeing with. Or maybe I just don't want to engage in a lengthy political debate here with you. I don't have the time to educate you nor the desire. But keep thinking whatever you want. You know it all.Oh it's very clear you don't want to engage in a debate, you just want to sit back and offer what amounts to "no u" to everything you disagree with. By the way, I've taken the liberty of putting the ironic parts of your post in bold for you.
|
|
|
|
|
36
|
General Discussion / Entertainment / The All-Seeing Eye / Re: * * * The Official GOOD MORNING CREW Thread * * *
|
on: December 29, 2019, 12:34:59 pm
|
Your mischaracterizations are hilarious. You have literally put your own spin on every single thing you posted in order to come to the conclusion you want to.
Oh god the irony. But it's cool, I get that you don't actually want to engage on anything I've asked you directly because, at least on some level, you understand you're severely under-informed on this subject and consequently can't argue a stronger point than repeatedly whining about bias and spin, much like the FOX News personalities I'm sure you'll deny agreeing with.
|
|
|
|
|
37
|
General Discussion / Entertainment / The All-Seeing Eye / Re: * * * The Official GOOD MORNING CREW Thread * * *
|
on: December 29, 2019, 12:30:08 pm
|
Okay, enough politics. I’m sorry I brought it up.  Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, kechuas.  not so happy. my buddy came by tonight and we had drinks while watching the lakers game. well he gets smashed and i tell him to crash on the couch. i wake up later because hes breathing hard as fuxk and surrounded by throw up. tdied shaking him awake and he didnt wake up. medics couldnt wake him up with a pain stimulant so now im at the ER waiting to see what the ****. Crap, dude. I’m sorry. I hope everything is okay with your buddy, LT. hey thanks man. turned out he also had nyquil in his system. he finally came around but he's still pretty messed up 2 days later. so is my white leather couch. it's ruined. anyway im just glad he didn't die.  That's scary as fu  ck dude, glad nothing worse happened. He's lucky you acted quickly once you found him.
|
|
|
|
|
38
|
General Discussion / Entertainment / The All-Seeing Eye / Re: * * * The Official GOOD MORNING CREW Thread * * *
|
on: December 25, 2019, 09:17:29 pm
|
Literally nothing in that article substantiates your claim that the impeachment is "purely political". In fact the only mention impeachment gets is that Pelosi thought calling for impeachment would be a distraction leading up to the 2018 midterm elections. Do you expect people to not read your links or something? Or did you not care to read it yourself? And you guys are grossly misstating the "evidence" and "crimes" in order to argue that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong/evil. Do you really think there's nothing criminal about leveraging the endangered sovereignty of a geopolitical ally via withholding aid to force them to spy on a domestic political opponent for the sole purpose of influencing an election? Do you also think there's nothing criminal about selling arms to terrorists to destabilize foreign governments? What about intentionally sabotaging peace talks with an ideological enemy to have an advantage in an election, resulting in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths? Just trying to figure out where you draw the line on what is and isn't criminal when it comes to Republican presidents. But hey, the democrats have been doing that all along. It's their m.o. Pretend to have the moral high ground in order to shame anyone who disagrees with them.
Die mad about it, I guess. Turns out it's pretty easy to convince people you have the moral high ground when the other guys are committing crimes and flat out stating they won't play by the rules.
|
|
|
|
|
39
|
General Discussion / Entertainment / The All-Seeing Eye / Re: * * * The Official GOOD MORNING CREW Thread * * *
|
on: December 23, 2019, 07:54:12 pm
|
Boy it sure is cute (and extremely naive) of you to interpret all actions as giving democrats the moral high ground. I guess that's what they are hoping their blind followers will think. Specifically with regards to the impeachment proceedings, I don't see how anyone could genuinely argue the Democrats don't have the moral high ground. They're investigating crimes for which credible evidence continues to mount. I can see right through that. I'm sure the wool fiber occluding your vision is stunningly clear. LOL @ Pelosi being against impeachment until convinced in the hearings. I am literally laughing out loud as I read it. She orchestrated the whole thing from day one, putting on a public persona as wanting to do the right thing and not impeach right away, and you bought it hook line and sinker.
As neither of us are capable of knowing the truth of anyone's intentions I find it pointless to speculate about what someone privately thinks, which is why I commented only on what has been publicly stated. To speak with certainty over nothing but personal conjecture, as you've done, is worthless. That isn't to say that I think Pelosi is perfectly candid, but what has been said on record directly contradicts your conspiracy theory. But the cutest thing here is that you apparently think I'm a Democrat supporter, which in equal parts insults and amuses me. There are only two Democrats I actually like in terms of policy positions, and the only reason I occasionally support Democratic legislation (or impeachment, in this case) is that such legislation is usually less harmful than whenever the Republicans decide some social service should lose funding or that we should build a wall like some petty fiefdom worried about Norse raiders.
|
|
|
|
|
40
|
General Discussion / Entertainment / The All-Seeing Eye / Re: * * * The Official GOOD MORNING CREW Thread * * *
|
on: December 22, 2019, 09:00:36 pm
|
Pelosi having to be pressured into the proceedings supports my point, though. She understands like I do that it's very possible this will backfire. Her position wasn't that she doesn't want Trump impeached, because we all know she does, but rather that it is the political ramifications that are driving her actions. Since your point was "the Democrats think it will help them in the next election" I fail to see how the House Democrat leadership initially not wanting to pursue impeachment actually supports your argument that the impeachment is a "purely political play". If the House leadership didn't want it done, it wouldn't be done, no matter what public sentiment demanded. Pelosi was persuaded to support impeachment by the findings of the House Intelligence Committee. If anything it shows that Pelosi was wary that a weak case for impeachment, with motivations drawn primarily from sentiment and not substance, would cause the real politik calculus to turn against them in the general election. That impeachment is now moving ahead demonstrates the case has a level of substance that no longer threatens to backfire. Also, anti-Trump sentiment and thinking impeachment is proper are two very different things. Sure, many house dems were voted in because constituents don't like Trump. That's a long leap from there to impeaching a sitting president. Not if voters believe that the sitting president has committed crimes, which many do. I have even found some to have acted so far from the constitution that it's a serious travesty. How off the mark would I be if I assumed you were a constitutional originalist? But I also didn't think impeachment was appropriate. That is for specific criminal conduct Would you consider arming terrorists to destablize geopolitical enemies an impeachable crime? If constituents don't like something, their first and best recourse is to vote that person out of office. Impeachment was not intended to be the mechanism for removing politicians you don't like. It was designed to pierce the immunity a sitting president has as it relates to criminal charges.
And if the sitting President credibly attempted to coerce a sovereign nation into influencing the intended mechanism by which constituents could vote that President out of power, what then? Exactly what is the recourse for a President that attempts to circumvent the intended mechanism for removing him or her from power if not impeachment? I believe in situations like those the founding fathers would have recommended a vigorous exercising of our second amendment rights, and I also believe that between the two options impeachment is the much preferred solution.
|
|
|
|
|
41
|
General Discussion / Entertainment / The All-Seeing Eye / Re: * * * The Official GOOD MORNING CREW Thread * * *
|
on: December 19, 2019, 06:21:24 pm
|
You think drafting impeachment charges is productive? It's literally a foregone conclusion that the senate will acquit. The house knew that going in. I don't know that we can say that definitively. It would only take a few Republican senators to join the Democrats to invoke using a secret ballot, and if that happens then the vote to convict becomes a whole lot more interesting. This is purely a political play and the democrats think it will help them in the next election. Not sure that that's true - Speaker Pelosi had to be pressured into letting the impeachment proceedings take place at all, since she thought it was the wrong move. She's been (at least publicly) very reluctant about the whole thing. It will be interesting to see if their gamble pays off. Because it's just as likely from my perspective that it might end up backfiring. But don't think for one second this is about doing what's right. If that were true, sure, I'd agree doing what's right is productive even if you know it won't bring any results. But that isn't what this is about.
I think whether or not it's morally right (which by my reading is how you're using "right") is irrelevant. The Democratic majority in the House was voted in on a wave of very strong anti-Trump sentiment, so it could be argued that the Democrats are doing right by their constituents by impeaching Trump. If I had a Dem representative I know I'd want to see his/her name on the list of Yea votes, since that was my primary motivation in voting Dem in the midterms. Also, not sure if you didn't see this or just didn't want to remark on it, but in case of the former: Out of curiosity, what do you see as the Democrats' agenda? And the Republicans'?
|
|
|
|
|
42
|
General Discussion / Entertainment / The All-Seeing Eye / Re: * * * The Official GOOD MORNING CREW Thread * * *
|
on: December 18, 2019, 07:46:42 pm
|
I'm just happy the democrats are too pre-occupied with their war on Trump to get anything else accomplished. I'm ok sacrificing Trump since he's a terrible human being, if it means we can avoid the horrendous policies the democrats are espousing.
What do you expect them to get done with the Senate and Presidency held by Republicans? Hopefully nothing. But you'd be surprised what can be acquiesced to if it isn't too controversial. You think I trust the Republican senate or Trump to be the gatekeepers? No thank you. I feel much better with them not even attempting to push their agenda (and quite frankly I also don't want the republican agenda being pushed through either). Fair enough. I was asking in good faith since, from my perspective, with there being no real way for Democrats to actually push legislation into law, impeachment is about the only productive thing they could really be doing right now. Out of curiosity, what do you see as the Democrats' agenda? And the Republicans'?
|
|
|
|
|
44
|
General Discussion / Entertainment / The All-Seeing Eye / Re: * * * The Official GOOD MORNING CREW Thread * * *
|
on: December 15, 2019, 06:07:12 pm
|
Curious to see if anyone has any thoughts on what’s goin on in the House Judiciary Committee right now. This truly is a scary time for our government.
I've been following it pretty closely and the optimist in me wants to believe that the public will finally see through the facade that is our "democracy" and will fight back against the oligarchic hellscape we live in, since at this point the Republicans are pretty much as mask-off with their intentions as you can be. But then I hear coworkers and family talking about how Adam Schiff should be the one on trial and I just resign myself to hoping I don't get drafted into the migrant/resource wars. 
|
|
|
|
|
|