It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:37 am

Trump gained his money on his own?!

What world do you live in?

He inherited 300 million dollars, which if you calculate for inflation what trump claims to be worth, he hasn’t even kept up with inflation. Meaning: he lost some of daddy’s mob/real estate money.

Psycho linguistic brainwashing techniques have come a LONG way since the constitution was drafted. Surely you agree with this. We have current threats the founders couldn’t have dreamed of.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11098
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:55 am

If you want to understand fascist regimes and douchbags with really low self esteem...

Look at this bullshit!!! A crowd behind you in a speech???!!! Really???!!

https://images.app.goo.gl/G7ZYeVZ14gU24GSK8
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11098
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:25 am

I live in a world of Consent Violation.

Too bad you can't figure it out?
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3481
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:35 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:I live in a world of Consent Violation.

Too bad you can't figure it out?


You folks really don’t read my posts. Somehow you think replies like this are clever rejoinders.

I have repeatedly stated that in negative zero sum worlds, that EVERYONE’S consent is being violated NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO!!!

This however! Should not embolden people to be abusive in extremely clear ways, just because it’s true for all of us!

When it comes to debate, meta discussions are given priority over subset discussions.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11098
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am


Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby Carleas » Wed Dec 18, 2019 5:00 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:"Interference" in US election means the following:

1. Forcing a person who votes, to stay home, against his/her will.
2. Forcing a person who votes, to choose one candidate under duress (gunpoint, threat of violence).
3. Not counting the votes of the people.
4. Counting votes wrongly.
5. Illegal immigrants or non-citizens being counted as votes.

Oops, you forgot
6. Arresting a candidate.

And we're talking about
7. Starting a salacious and unjustified criminal investigation into a candidate.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6117
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby promethean75 » Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:12 pm

Now look, all you trumpsters need to relax, mmkay? He's not gonna be removed from office so chill. Even as we speak he's paying off all the senators, so everything's gonna be fine.

MAGA
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3664
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby MagsJ » Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:57 pm

promethean75 wrote:Now look, all you trumpsters need to relax, mmkay? He's not gonna be removed from office so chill. Even as we speak he's paying off all the senators, so everything's gonna be fine.

MAGA

..maybe that was their objective/goal? never underestimate others and what they will do to achieve their goal/what they feel they are owed.. monetarily, or other, wise.

They’ve been doing it with Brexit, after-all.. by having prolonged Brexit so that they can pocket as much cash as they can, before we officially leave.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20941
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby obsrvr524 » Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:25 pm

Carleas wrote:And we're talking about
7. Starting a salacious and unjustified criminal investigation into a candidate.

You must be talking about the Russian collaboration hoax. Or did you mean the newer Ukraine Quid Quo Pro hoax?

Both now proven to be initiated by Hillary, the DNC, CIA, and FBI - American "Deep State", global socialists.

:)
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby obsrvr524 » Sat Dec 28, 2019 2:58 am

Carleas wrote:I think there are good principled reasons to remove Trump from office, and I think there are good pragmatic reasons to impeach Trump even though it is unlikely that he will be removed from office. I don't approve of them "doing whatever they have to" (who are you quoting there? I don't think I said that and I don't see it in any of my posts in this thread), but I approve of a reality-based approach to getting Trump out of office as soon as possible.

And to preempt what may be a response: the conduct alleged in the Articles is both likely and grounds for removal, as have been many other things that Trump has done as President. There is no tension or duplicity between thinking 1) this conduct should lead to removal, 2) this is not the first conduct that should have led to removal,

I would like to hear the actual reasoning behind those accusations.

I think there are only 3 possibilities concerning people who believe that:
1) They are deeply deceived.
2) They hope to deceive others.
3) They are just stupid people.

Plus the possible combinations, I guess.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby Carleas » Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:41 pm

Carleas wrote:And we're talking about
7. Starting a salacious and unjustified criminal investigation into a candidate.

obsrvr524 wrote:You must be talking about the Russian collaboration hoax. Or did you mean the newer Ukraine Quid Quo Pro hoax?

Neither. I'm talking about a hypothetical. Specifically,
Carleas wrote:So now, suppose a country has no legitimate grounds for investigation, but they know that even the threat of arrest will significantly impact the outcome of the election. So, suppose France hates Trump, they want him to lose, so they accuse him of being a pedophile and start an investigation into everything he's ever done in France, and make a big old stink of it so it stays in the international news. Electoral interference?

Urwrong likes Trump, so he's taking an extreme position on the definition of "foreign electoral interference" that doesn't hold water. I'm taking something he's acknowledged would constitute electoral interference (arresting a candidate), and using it to put pressure on his broader claim. I'm using a hypothetical to remove motivated reasoning around the current facts. Instead, we can stipulate what happened, and see if, given those premises, we agree that it constitutes "foreign electoral interference" in the relevant sense.

obsrvr524 wrote:I would like to hear the actual reasoning behind those accusations.

What accusations? That he's done something impeachable? I'd have seen him impeached for pardoning Arpaio, failing to separate himself from his business interests, refusal to read briefings, his likely cognitive deficits, his repeated lies, his general demeanor... I could go on, but the point is that I absolutely believed Trump should be removed from office prior to July 25 of this year.

And I also believe that the evidence we have suggests that the Ukraine affair is also sufficient reason to remove him from office.

obsrvr524 wrote:I think there are only 3 possibilities concerning people who believe that:
1) They are deeply deceived.
2) They hope to deceive others.
3) They are just stupid people.

This is a pretty glaring failure of imagination and/or humility. Whatever accusation you're referring to, one possibility has to be that you are wrong, that you're reasoning incorrectly or from incorrect or incomplete information.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6117
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby obsrvr524 » Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:24 am

Carleas wrote:
Carleas wrote:And we're talking about
7. Starting a salacious and unjustified criminal investigation into a candidate.

obsrvr524 wrote:You must be talking about the Russian collaboration hoax. Or did you mean the newer Ukraine Quid Quo Pro hoax?

Neither. I'm talking about a hypothetical. Specifically,

Oh, so you changed subject, not talking about anything actually happening. Maybe start a new thread?

Carleas wrote:
Carleas wrote:So now, suppose a country has no legitimate grounds for investigation, but they know that even the threat of arrest will significantly impact the outcome of the election. So, suppose France hates Trump, they want him to lose, so they accuse him of being a pedophile and start an investigation into everything he's ever done in France, and make a big old stink of it so it stays in the international news. Electoral interference?

Urwrong likes Trump, so he's taking an extreme position on the definition of "foreign electoral interference" that doesn't hold water. I'm taking something he's acknowledged would constitute electoral interference (arresting a candidate), and using it to put pressure on his broader claim.

I didn't read everything that Urwrong wrote, but I didn't see him writing anything false. And I suspect that it isn't so much that he loves Mr Trump, but like you hate Mr Trump, he hates the deep state dragon. People love to hate these days. I'm sure it's a symptom.

Carleas wrote:I'm using a hypothetical to remove motivated reasoning around the current facts. Instead, we can stipulate what happened, and see if, given those premises, we agree that it constitutes "foreign electoral interference" in the relevant sense.

It's far more likely that you are using a hypothetical to inject motivated reasoning.

Reading back on that discussion, I think that the pedantic definition of "foreign interference" needs an expose'. His is perhaps too narrow and yours too broad. I think that your hypothetical would not have resolved that problem.

Carleas wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:I would like to hear the actual reasoning behind those accusations.

What accusations?

Specifically this:
Carleas wrote:I think there are good principled reasons to remove Trump from office


Carleas wrote:I'd have seen him impeached for pardoning Arpaio, failing to separate himself from his business interests, refusal to read briefings, his likely cognitive deficits, his repeated lies, his general demeanor... I could go on, but the point is that I absolutely believed Trump should be removed from office prior to July 25 of this year.

And I also believe that the evidence we have suggests that the Ukraine affair is also sufficient reason to remove him from office.

And that reveals the bottom line. Did you forget to mention his orange hair and that ridiculous long red tie he wears? Obviously anyone dressed like that should be impeached. You make it obvious that you hate the man and now use all of your dialectic trickery to argue for his demise.

And as I have mentioned to you before, the only outcome of you arguing with me will be a threat to your bubble of belief that you defend even more stridently than phyllo does his own. You will never be able to acquiesce, never be able to "see the light", never be able to admit to the degree of deception that has been injected into your psyche. It would be a sacrilege to your soul. You will protect your bubble at all cost.

Carleas wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:I think there are only 3 possibilities concerning people who believe that:
1) They are deeply deceived.
2) They hope to deceive others.
3) They are just stupid people.

This is a pretty glaring failure of imagination and/or humility. Whatever accusation you're referring to, one possibility has to be that you are wrong, that you're reasoning incorrectly or from incorrect or incomplete information.

Well you are partly right in that I recognized yet another category - the Band Wagoneers, bw - those who just jump onto the bandwagon because they love to throw stones and divert attention from themselves. I have identifies a few of those here as well (you not being one).

As far as me being in the wrong, well ... not really. Why? Because I bother to look at the facts and weed out mere opinion. I might miss a fact now and then, but in this issue, the facts have been on public display for a long time. Although often not on MSMBC, CNN, or the entire US media cabal.

Speaking of watching the facts rather than merely hearing the most entertaining reporting to your heart, most of my thoughts are directed by watching the direct firsthand evidence of, for example, a speech given by a public figure and then watching how it is reported by various "news" media.

The following is William Barr testifying to the real situation concerning the spying on a presidential candidate. Everything that he said seemed both appropriate and accurate. But immediately afterward the US media cabal attacked Barr for being merely a Trump puppet. And what was especially bad and unethical is that they report it as though it is "news" facts on the news programs when in fact, it is very biased opinions that are obviously being used to manipulate the voting public ("Fake News"). They lie to the American voting public and the rest of the world so as to help destroy, not merely Mr Trump, but the USA itself, especially the US Constitution.

AG William Barr Interview on IG Report and Spying on President Trump

Or
Youtu.be

Already the people whom you, the gang of 8, and the media cabal support - the deep state, permanent bureaucracy players, are largely identified and in serious trouble. The FACTS indicate everything against the deep state global socialists and media cabal, and nothing against Mr Trump.

The swamp, although extremely slowly (and for good reason) is being drained.
Last edited by obsrvr524 on Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby Meno_ » Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:17 am

Nobody looks at social philosophy, and even though the familiar framing of rhetoric may sway either way, the idea of a middle of the road viewpoint does not appeal to anyone.

But that is the point. Trump is playing with that discrepancy, exactly, he has an incontrversible centered position that he has entertained from day 1.

The ontological absence, has been replaced by the swamp, the swamp no one knows about, except in partisan political aspects. This is why all the presidents men are inclined to adhere to the facts supporting an unfounded negating process, because they can not visualize- a logos apart from the loss of material dialectical process, which from the beginning was turning on a connexion between national and international political structures.

This is why having witnesses has become such a contentious political rhetoric, where the swamp is phased I no it's political nemesis.

This process directly implies a politics of media hype, looking forward to next November. This is the view that Juliani
wants to push, for those very reasons.

No one can after all draw a connection between an internal national swamp, consisting of the socially designated base of material dialectic.

In fact it is easy within a democratically slanted media to take up this argument, without crossing the line from facts into fiction.

The Republicans had a lot of trouble defending their position on that basis.

And the explanation can be presented in terms of the indefinite vocabulary of the meaning of what the swamp consists of.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 7661
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby Carleas » Fri Jan 03, 2020 4:40 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:Oh, so you changed subject

No... I realise you "didn't read everything that Urwrong wrote", so I understand why you haven't followed how this is relevant to the subject of the thread. But in fact, you separately arrived at the conclusion that "the pedantic definition of "foreign interference" needs an expose'[sic]": we're discussing exactly that. And since Trump was impeached due to his solicitation of foreign electoral interference, finding out what kind of foreign conduct we deem improper is part of the same question.

And so, I hope you'll now agree on the subject. Feel free to go back and read the whole thread if you're still unclear. If you want to tweak the hypo to try to tease out some relevant distinction, feel free to do that as well.

obsrvr524 wrote:And that reveals the bottom line. Did you forget to mention his orange hair and that ridiculous long red tie he wears?

No, and it says more about your politics than mine that you see no disctinction between wearing a red tie and misusing the pardon power, conflict of interest, not doing the job, mental incapacity, flagrant lying, and decorum. The founding fathers mention several of the latter explicitly as grounds for impeachment, but I don't recall red ties coming up at the Convention.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6117
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby obsrvr524 » Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:27 pm

Speaking of being able to detect fake news and bias, in the US Senate just earlier today, I listened to sen McConnell comment on both the US Military operation carried out yesterday and his intentions and concerns about the impeachment trial. Then sen Schumer stood to give his comments. Schumer began immediately with a lie about what McConnell JUST SAID not 10 minutes ago from the same podium. And again and again, he lied about what McConnell had said. That is the legacy of the socialist/democrat party in the USA.

When you have the opportunity to see the actual evidence, rather than merely what a media chooses to relay to you (many people don't), you can then easily see who is lying. And it isn't that one party or person is totally innocent and the other totally guilty of deception. It is an issue of extreme differences in their tactics.

In the US, politics has always been about who can lie better. But in this impeachment coup, the Republicans have been smart enough to stop lying for a while because the socialist/Democrats are so blatantly lying that the truth serves them better. Usual congenital liars are incapable of recognizing when the truth is more to their own favor.

I listened to both sides of what just happened moments ago in the US Senate and I heard one person give his personal testimony and then another lie about, not the subject matter but what it was that the first person just said. I don't need a media service to twist the story. I saw it directly within minutes of each other. Who was lying? The prosecution.

And now you misquote, twist, deceive about what I just wrote in the prior post. You just claimed:
Carleas wrote:No... I realise you "didn't read everything that Urwrong wrote", so I understand why you haven't followed how this is relevant to the subject of the thread. But in fact, you separately arrived at the conclusion that "the pedantic definition of "foreign interference" needs an expose'[sic]": we're discussing exactly that.

While what I actually wrote was:
obsrvr524 wrote:Reading back on that discussion, I think that the pedantic definition of "foreign interference" needs an expose'.

You, in the predicted desperate attempt to defend your bubble of belief, conveniently leave out exculpatory evidence, just as the FBI has been found guilty of doing against Mr Trump. I stated that I hadn't read him completely. But later I said "reading back...". So your entire attack is fallacious, a "spin" on the news, a strawman. You can't help yourself.

Your side of this impeachment battle is steeped in extreme deception. I think to the point that they/you cannot even see how often and how deeply entrenched into deception it has become. They even allowed a farcical kangaroo court in the House to try to deceive the public. Your side now lies without even knowing it, merely out of deeply vested hatred and habit.

The gang of 8 is much, much worse than anything Mr Trump has even tried to do. And it is THEY who yearn and strive to be above the law through their deceptions (the "devil").



Carleas wrote:No, and it says more about your politics than mine that you see no disctinction between wearing a red tie and misusing the pardon power, conflict of interest, not doing the job, mental incapacity, flagrant lying, and decorum.

No, what it means is that you have yet to reveal any reasoning behind those very accusations, as earlier requested. You seem to be just throwing accusations out there. Why not impeach him for his hair color as well since there is no rationale behind it all?
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby Carleas » Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:55 pm

Apologies if I misunderstood, did you stop half-way through writing your post and read everything that was written? I wasn't there for the writing process, so you'll forgive me for assuming that the state of your knowledge remained constant throughout your post. In the context of your acknowledgement that you had not read Urwrong's half of the conversation, I interpretted your "reading back on the discussion" as skimming -- which meshes with you asking for the very clarification in terms that we were discussing, and your assertion that that discussion was "chang[ing] the subject".

obsrvr524 wrote:you have yet to reveal any reasoning behind those very accusations

Which are you disputing?
Arpaio pardon; failure to separate himself from his business interests; refusal to read briefings; likely cognitive deficits;
repeated lies; general demeanor.

While I think there are valid critiques of corporate media, using them to dismiss reporting of any fact you don't like is not justified. We know that there is misleading reporting on both sides of stories, by people whose business and political interests are benefited by one version of events or another (Fox vs. MSNBC). We also know that reporting is at least somewhat contstrained by facts, so that e.g. reporting from sources accross the political spectrum, or by foreign outlets, or citizen journalists, or direct from the source will corroborate or disprove a spin. The conslusion from media bias isn't that we can believe whatever we want, it's that we should take the reporting with a grain of salt, think critically about who is saying what and why, and triangulate towards truth.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6117
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby obsrvr524 » Sat Jan 04, 2020 12:04 pm


I am not disputing. I am asking for your reasoning. For example, how is his "general demeanor" a grounds for negating the votes of half of the nation's population? How is that justified in your mind? It seems amazingly fascist.

Carleas wrote:While I think there are valid critiques of corporate media, using them to dismiss reporting of any fact you don't like is not justified.

Again, you strawman. I said nothing of facts that I don't like. I specifically stated facts that I witnessed being misreported, regardless of whether I liked the facts.

If you witness a car accident and then see it being misreported on 6 out of 7 media outlets and that 7th one seems to repeatedly be the one reporting accurately, arn't you going to be concerned about the legitimacy of the first 6?

It is very well known that the media cabal in America is extremely bias. Even liberal journalists admit it, not to mention the legal suits being won against them in US courts.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Sat Jan 04, 2020 5:03 pm

Carleas,

Pleasure to see you again!

Any quotes will be emboldened AND in italics and any quoted material was written by you. It's easier this way. It seems like every message board has a different quote system.

Let's stipulate two things: 1.) I am not a Trump supporter or voter. AND 2. I think the Impeachment is nonsense.

And....off we go:

If the police receive an anonymous tip, and follow it up and in so doing find evidence of a crime and prosecute the criminals, the criminals have no right whatsoever to unmask the the anonymous tipster, much less cross-examine her at trial, and much less still during grand jury deliberations.

What if the tipster is also the initial accuser as relates the underlying subject matter of the trial? Granted, we can get into technicalities such as, "The House of Representatives is accusing Trump, not the tipster," but you understand the meaning of my question. The tipster provided more than a tip in this case, also, the tipster provided evidence and testimony. The whole impeachment proceeding is a inherently a legal matter, technically anything before the House of Representatives is. Me saying a car with license plate XXXXXX hit a car and took off is not itself part of a legal proceeding, it's part of an investigative proceeding. The Impeachment process is an investigative proceeding AND a legal proceeding simultaneously.

Does it hold water that Trump should be able to confront the initial accuser? Maybe not yet, because Trump does not necessarily have to mount a defense against Impeachment, he has to present a defense if it goes to Senate trial. There has been a voir dire of the, "Tipster," who is actually also a witness, but only by some involved in the process so far.

Even it it weren't obvious, as Peter and I have pointed out, that an anonymous tip can lead to independent evidence of a crime. Even if that weren't so, the Constitution doesn't say anything about the standard of evidence for impeachment. The House can impeach for whatever, in its sole discretions, it determines to be a "high crime[] [or] misdemeanor[]", and the Senate can remove the President on its similar discretion. They are not constrained by the developed body of criminal law, because 1) this is not a criminal case, and 2) the authority to impeach and remove is granted exclusively to the House and Senate and is not subject to judicial review.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the actual removal from office proceedings, so that is kind of de facto judicial review. Granted, there cannot be an appeal of the Senate's decision, whatever that decision is, although the House of Representatives could de facto appeal by adopting new articles of impeachment. The new articles of impeachment could also theoretically be substantially similar as res judicata might not be automatic grounds for dismissal in the case of an impeachment because, as you have pointed out, it's really a unique process.

I agree that the Constitution doesn't say anything about the standard of evidence. The Constitution also lacks in any defining of what might constitute, "High crimes and misdemeanors," and that's because the Constitution is fundamentally flawed and would really be better to be re-written from scratch. I doubt that will happen, though. Here we have the word, "High," which qualifies the crimes and misdemeanors, but no illumination as to what would make a crime or misdemeanor, "High," as opposed to a crime or misdemeanor that is not high. Not ideal since this is supposed to be the prevailing legislative document of the land.

What accusations? That he's done something impeachable? I'd have seen him impeached for pardoning Arpaio, failing to separate himself from his business interests, refusal to read briefings, his likely cognitive deficits, his repeated lies, his general demeanor... I could go on, but the point is that I absolutely believed Trump should be removed from office prior to July 25 of this year.

It seems like a good few of these things would have certainly been the case prior to him taking office. Specifically, "His likely cognitive defects, his repeated lies, his general demeanor," which essentially means that you would have seen him impeached perhaps on the very day that he took office, had such an event been possible. I think that's one of the reasons why you see so much backlash from the right as relates impeachment, the prospect of impeachment was telegraphed (by many on the left and perhaps others) well in advance of not only the articles of impeachment themselves, but the very subject matter of the articles of impeachment even existing.

Also, it comes as no surprise to me that the aggregate polling numbers of those both for and against impeachment (as well as the split) are reasonably close to the actual results of the popular vote. The people who thought that he should not have been in office in the first place believe he should be removed while those who did believe he should be in office think he should not be removed.

I mean, look, can we just have everyone freely admit that the impeachment was a political tool to drive up the base and not really predicated upon anything morally? Granted, give the customers what they demand...so I don't necessarily blame them for that aspect of things.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7137
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby Carleas » Sat Jan 04, 2020 5:49 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:I am not disputing. I am asking for your reasoning.

Arpaio pardon: This is a misuse of the pardon power; pardoning a corrupt sheriff who ignored court order to stop acting like a racist. Madion endorsed using impeachment as a remedy for misuse of the pardon power (though his comments were about pardons for behavior he directed).

Failure to separate himself from his business interests: The presidency is a position of trust. It's clear that taking personal business interests into account in the exercise of presidential power would be a violation of the oath to faithfully execute the office. Even where there is no evidence of wrongdoing, refusing to separate from business decisions and to take steps to insulate those businesses from the office makes every executive decision suspect, and undermines the independence and good faith of the exercise of office.

Refusal to read briefings: understanding the situation and making informed decision just is the faithful execution of office. Refusal to read briefings is effective incapacity.

Likely cognitive deficits: Literal incapacity.

Repeated lies: Faithful execution of office requires not lying all the time.

General demeanor: It is difficult to estimate how much Trump has damaged the office of the president, and the country in the eyes of the world. Joking about people breaking the law to his benefit; insulting foreign leaders; retweeting racists and conspiracy-mongers; this is damaging to the institutions of society in a way that the people do not have a right to overrule by simple majority. I say again, the election of the President is not democratic. We are prohibited from electing certain people, no matter how many people vote for them. We don't elect them directly, and each individual's vote is not given the same weight. The electoral college was intended as a mechanism to prevent the people's choice of a popular idiot. The Constitution takes a paternalist stance, limiting what democracy can provide, and providing for mechanisms by which democratic choices can be overturned by more conservative instutions of power. Trumps demeanor matters, it's an embarassment, and people who know better can and should do something about it.

PavlovianModel146 wrote:Pleasure to see you again!

Likewise, my friend!

PavlovianModel146 wrote:What if the tipster is also the initial accuser as relates the underlying subject matter of the trial?

Still, I don't think it's relevant. The response is that we can completely ignore all information provided by the whistleblower, and still have plenty of independent evidence that Trump has committed impeachable acts.

One case I can think of where this wouldn't apply is if the police violated the law in obtaining evidence, then drew inferences from that evidence to seek out other evidence and chalked the initial evidence up to an anonymous tip. But here, there is no indication of that. The whistleblower used proper channels to report information he had legal access to. The system he used to report it was specifically designed to insulate whistleblowers while permitting them to tip off investigators to the misdeeds of their superiors.

PavlovianModel146 wrote:The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the actual removal from office proceedings, so that is kind of de facto judicial review.

My understanding is that the role of the Chief Justice is in maintaining order over the procedings. He doesn't vote on the outcome, call or question witnesses, or otherwise advance a position on the outcome, but takes and applies the rules as the Senate determines them in advance. He's an impartial arbiter, not a participant.

PavlovianModel146 wrote:The Constitution also lacks in any defining of what might constitute, "High crimes and misdemeanors,"

My understanding is that this was a legal term of art prior to the Convention; according to a Congressional report from the Watergate era, the Governer-General of India was impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors a few weeks prior to the beginning of the Convention, of which the Framers were likely aware. Moreover, many at the convention were lawyers, well-versed in English common law. The intent was probably to borrow the existing common law meaning.

PavlovianModel146 wrote:the Constitution is fundamentally flawed and would really be better to be re-written from scratch.

I can think of dozens of ways in which I would have written the Constitution differently (3/5 Compromise?), but I've changed my mind on whether we should rewrite it completely. I don't think we could achieve a better document from scratch, because most of what the Constitution has going for it now is not the genius of its construction (though I do think there's a great deal of genius in it), but in the reverence that people across the political spectrum have for it. The most brilliant document possible could not produce a functioning government if the process that produced it, and the institutions that flow from it, were not seen as legitimate. At this point in history, I don't think we could produce a replacement to the Constitution, one that makes all the compromises necessary to make such a document in a messy pluarlist society, and have that document be seen as legitimate by enough of the population to be a true foundation for our laws.

The Constitution is a tradition more than anything else: it's not perfect, but logical perfection is not really the point.

PavlovianModel146 wrote:It seems like a good few of these things would have certainly been the case prior to him taking office.

I mean, I didn't vote for him and I think poorly of the Republican party for not doing more to undermine his candidacy. But I do think there's a meaninful inflection point between pre-oath and post-oath. Demeanor and lying, for example, are meaningfully different behaviors once someone is inaugurated; lying as a candidate doesn't violate the presidential oath of office, but lying after inauguration does.

And I think there's evidence that his cognitive decline has continued during his presidency.

But also see my response to Obsrvr above, particularly on demeanor. The Constitution is paternalist, it's not creating a direct democracy and it intentionally limits who people are permitted to choose as president. The original design would have prevented Trump from being elected, because the electors were supposed to overrule the people when they elected someone like Trump.

PavlovianModel146 wrote:I mean, look, can we just have everyone freely admit that the impeachment was a political tool to drive up the base and not really predicated upon anything morally?

I don't think this is so. As I said above, there's no tension between thinking Trump should not have been elected, thinking we should do everything in our power to get him out of office as quickly as possible, and thinking that breaking the law to withhold aid to secure foreign interference in an election is a really, really bad thing for the President to do.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6117
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Sat Jan 04, 2020 6:48 pm

All quotes Carleas and emboldened and italicized:

Still, I don't think it's relevant. The response is that we can completely ignore all information provided by the whistleblower, and still have plenty of independent evidence that Trump has committed impeachable acts.

One case I can think of where this wouldn't apply is if the police violated the law in obtaining evidence, then drew inferences from that evidence to seek out other evidence and chalked the initial evidence up to an anonymous tip. But here, there is no indication of that. The whistleblower used proper channels to report information he had legal access to. The system he used to report it was specifically designed to insulate whistleblowers while permitting them to tip off investigators to the misdeeds of their superiors.


I think it's relevant simply because, while not a strictly criminal or civil matter, it is a trial at the time that it comes before the Senate. The Constitution itself calls it a trial. The evidentiary standard if either of the two processes (assuming the second one happens) were in any way legitimate (which they are not and won't be) would be that each Senator is going to cast his/her vote based upon a preponderance of the evidence. It's more similar to a civil trial, in that regard.

Given that evidentiary standard combined with the fact that the process is not a well-defined criminal or civil one...nor is it particularly well-defined at all...we have to ask three questions:

1.) What happened?

2.) What is the evidence that it happened?

3.) Does what happened rise to the level of, "High crimes and misdemeanors?"

The clear problem at which we arrive is the obvious fact that, "High crimes and misdemeanors," was not specifically defined in the Constitution. It is basically left to each individual in the decision-making body, in the present case, the Senate to determine for themselves what the standard is for something to be a high crime or misdemeanor and whether or not that standard has been met.

What evidence is needed to inform this decision? Well, for me, the evidence would include the testimony of as many direct parties to the matter as I could possibly get. We can't decide where the bar is and it hasn't been laid out for us, but we know what the bar means to us, so any evidence whatsoever (whether exculpatory or damning, even in part) is going to be an aid to seeing if the bar has been cleared.

My understanding is that the role of the Chief Justice is in maintaining order over the procedings. He doesn't vote on the outcome, call or question witnesses, or otherwise advance a position on the outcome, but takes and applies the rules as the Senate determines them in advance. He's an impartial arbiter, not a participant.

Yes and no. I definitely see your point. The Chief Justice does maintain order over the proceedings, but is there really an, "Impartial," way to do that? What would the negative consequences be if the Chief Justice were thought to have conducted these affairs in a partial way? The problem you have with the whole entire process not being spelled out is that, quite simply, you run out of higher authorities to whom you are accountable. Not that such can be helped. I agree that he acts as an arbiter, or perhaps more so a moderator, my only point being that the Judicial Branch is represented in some way.

My understanding is that this was a legal term of art prior to the Convention; according to a Congressional report from the Watergate era, the Governer-General of India was impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors a few weeks prior to the beginning of the Convention, of which the Framers were likely aware. Moreover, many at the convention were lawyers, well-versed in English common law. The intent was probably to borrow the existing common law meaning.

For me, at least, impeachment should consist of a very clear and unpardonable (not in the legal sense) violation and this just doesn't cut the mustard for me. Quite frankly, I would just assume that this sort of thing or something substantially similar happens all the time and nobody really makes a big deal about it.

More than that, I would argue that this process doesn't even carry with it any weight specifically BECAUSE The Constitution doesn't outline what high crimes and misdemeanors are or could be. If it did, then we would simply look at this event and could make a relatively easy decision as to whether or not the events accused fit the parameters of a potential high crime or misdemeanor. When high crimes and misdemeanors can mean literally anything, then literally any event can be direct evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor.

I read that link and it appears that they replaced something that was relatively precise with something relatively broad. I don't know why you couldn't, at a minimum, have an entire list of specific possible offenses in addition to the broad term that would at least imply that a violation of one of the specific offenses would carry more weight. I mean, I totally get that paper was, like, REALLY expensive back then.

I can think of dozens of ways in which I would have written the Constitution differently (3/5 Compromise?), but I've changed my mind on whether we should rewrite it completely. I don't think we could achieve a better document from scratch, because most of what the Constitution has going for it now is not the genius of its construction (though I do think there's a great deal of genius in it), but in the reverence that people across the political spectrum have for it. The most brilliant document possible could not produce a functioning government if the process that produced it, and the institutions that flow from it, were not seen as legitimate. At this point in history, I don't think we could produce a replacement to the Constitution, one that makes all the compromises necessary to make such a document in a messy pluarlist society, and have that document be seen as legitimate by enough of the population to be a true foundation for our laws.

The Constitution is a tradition more than anything else: it's not perfect, but logical perfection is not really the point.


Not just written it differently, but also what it actually does. The Electoral College for one thing, gone. I'm not just saying that because Trump won, if my goal was for Trump to lose, then I would have voted for the most likely candidate to defeat him (Clinton) which I did not. I could probably comb through my posts here, if I really felt like it, and prove that I took a stance against the EC prior to 2016.

As far as the reverence is concerned, revering the Constitution is every bit as meaningful as revering The Bible, which is to say not meaningful. In my opinion, that's one of the central problems with the Constitution. Among more legally-minded folk, the Constitution is everything except a Bible and the Founders who, in their infinite wisdom, believed that only white males who owned property should vote, are looked upon as Gods. Not only are they not Gods, but they are also just as fallible as any legal expert in this day and age, perhaps more so, because the methods of learning were not as efficient and information not as easy to find.

Anyway, maybe don't rewrite it from scratch. Maybe just have laws, but no Constitution. What's the difference?

I mean, I didn't vote for him and I think poorly of the Republican party for not doing more to undermine his candidacy. But I do think there's a meaninful inflection point between pre-oath and post-oath. Demeanor and lying, for example, are meaningfully different behaviors once someone is inaugurated; lying as a candidate doesn't violate the presidential oath of office, but lying after inauguration does.

And I think there's evidence that his cognitive decline has continued during his presidency.

But also see my response to Obsrvr above, particularly on demeanor. The Constitution is paternalist, it's not creating a direct democracy and it intentionally limits who people are permitted to choose as president. The original design would have prevented Trump from being elected, because the electors were supposed to overrule the people when they elected someone like Trump.


The entire problem with the Electoral College, which leads to thew two-party system, which is also a problem is that it effectively ends up being a binary choice in the end. Faithless Electors (in states that don't prevent it) are exceptions, of course, because they can cast an EC ballot for whoever the hell they want to regardless of whether or not that person even received a single vote. Doesn't seem all that representative to me, just sayin'.

Anyway, I wouldn't think poorly of the Republican Party for that at all. Let's assume that the number one objective, if you're the RNC, is to put forth the candidate most likely to beat the Democratic candidate. On occasion, that would also mean that you put forward the candidate who you think would make the best President, but on other occasions, it might not automatically mean that. Again, my underlying assumption is that the #1 objective was to beat the Democratic candidate...who, by the way, was essentially known well before the Democratic Primaries even started. You have this guy who started off with low polling, and a populist, but he picks off his competitors one by one and rises in the rankings. Okay, here is a guy who can take people down. We need someone to take Hillary down. It's just how you play the game.

I don't see anything in the Oath of Office that should prevent one from lying. Granted, there is a stipulation that one should faithfully execute the duties of office, but I think you can lie from time to time and also do that, depending on who it is that you are lying to and why it is you are lying.


I don't think this is so. As I said above, there's no tension between thinking Trump should not have been elected, thinking we should do everything in our power to get him out of office as quickly as possible, and thinking that breaking the law to withhold aid to secure foreign interference in an election is a really, really bad thing for the President to do.


In what way does anything cause an interference in the Election? It's an election, you vote for the person you want to win. The announcement of an investigation might impact who people vote for, but not the underlying process of the election itself. People can do what they will as relates the announcement, had such an announcement actually taken place.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7137
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Jan 05, 2020 12:49 am

"High crimes or misdemeanors" merely refers to the crimes and misbehavior associated with the nobility. In the case of the US, having no nobility, I'm sure they were just referring to honorable behavior for someone in a high office and officially legal actions. The obvious problem is that Americans have no strong sense of honorability to make up for the lack of specific worded definition. I think that people agree that those with higher authority should be held to higher behavioral conduct.

I think that Carleas is very, very obviously displaying what someone looks like when trying to rationalize a very deep seeded hatred that he cannot sensibly explain even to himself (a hypnosis). As a public official, that would be an impeachable "misdemeanor", much as is the case in Adam Shiff.

The US Constitution allows for amendments capable of rectifying anything in need of being rewritten. I agree that the issue is far more about maintaining reasonable willingness of the people to comply to law and order. The disastrous intent of the socialist/democrat party is to remove any hindrance to their ultimate and absolute power over all citizens and even the world (hence the climate change agenda). Once in power, they will remove any constitutions. Much like China, no complaints will be tolerated. So rewriting the US Constitution is pointless.

In the interim, the socialist/democrat agenda is to create as much chaos and turmoil as possible (creating division, releasing criminals, removing asylums, legalizing misdemeanors, promoting drugs, promoting violence, overload migration, over spend, removing their electoral college, depleting their military, and so on). The idea is to get the USA to collapse from within (with the help of people like George Soros funding the chaos). Once the US collapses, a true absolute authority can be established through marshal law and world communism can be finally realized.

That is why the hatred of Mr Trump is being promoted so strongly

It really isn't that hard to see when not blinded by the raging waters.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:41 am

That’s very umm...

Interesting obsrvr...

Only problem is that at anytime a direct democracy can vote anyone in and anyone out at anytime.

I don’t see in this scenario how the great evil democrat dictator takes control of the US!!!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11098
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:57 am

Ecmandu wrote:That’s very umm...

Interesting obsrvr...

Only problem is that at anytime a direct democracy can vote anyone in and anyone out at anytime.

I don’t see in this scenario how the great evil democrat dictator takes control of the US!!!

You not seeing it, is how it happens. I take it that you are an American.

Nations use propaganda so as to manipulate what their citizens believe. When a media cabal forms as a "deep state propaganda ministry", their aim is to manipulate voters, hypnotize them (unconscious, unaware manipulation). It is easy to do on a large mass. That is the only reason anyone ever voted for Hillary Clinton. And that is also why there is extreme hatred and lies being promoted concerning Mr Trump.

The US media cabal just wasn't quite total enough to prevent alternative beliefs from being heard. That is why they call it "alternative news outlets" and shame it as totally unworthy of listening to. Fox News is one of those rogue news outlets found to be more trustworthy and trusted than the cabal. Without Fox News, I have no doubt that Hillary would have been elected and Mr Trump wouldn't have come close. That is why the cabal hates Fox News so much.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Jan 05, 2020 8:51 am

The following is a reasonably good review of the 2019 Trump hysteria and other headlines from Fox News' Jesse Waters.

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:33 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:"High crimes or misdemeanors" merely refers to the crimes and misbehavior associated with the nobility. In the case of the US, having no nobility, I'm sure they were just referring to honorable behavior for someone in a high office and officially legal actions. The obvious problem is that Americans have no strong sense of honorability to make up for the lack of specific worded definition. I think that people agree that those with higher authority should be held to higher behavioral conduct.

I think that Carleas is very, very obviously displaying what someone looks like when trying to rationalize a very deep seeded hatred that he cannot sensibly explain even to himself (a hypnosis). As a public official, that would be an impeachable "misdemeanor", much as is the case in Adam Shiff.

The US Constitution allows for amendments capable of rectifying anything in need of being rewritten. I agree that the issue is far more about maintaining reasonable willingness of the people to comply to law and order. The disastrous intent of the socialist/democrat party is to remove any hindrance to their ultimate and absolute power over all citizens and even the world (hence the climate change agenda). Once in power, they will remove any constitutions. Much like China, no complaints will be tolerated. So rewriting the US Constitution is pointless.

In the interim, the socialist/democrat agenda is to create as much chaos and turmoil as possible (creating division, releasing criminals, removing asylums, legalizing misdemeanors, promoting drugs, promoting violence, overload migration, over spend, removing their electoral college, depleting their military, and so on). The idea is to get the USA to collapse from within (with the help of people like George Soros funding the chaos). Once the US collapses, a true absolute authority can be established through marshal law and world communism can be finally realized.

That is why the hatred of Mr Trump is being promoted so strongly

It really isn't that hard to see when not blinded by the raging waters.


Yes, but what higher behavioral conduct? At what point is the conduct, 'Bad,' enough to qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor? Interpretation, interpretation, interpretation. As with, 'High crimes and misdemeanors,' 'Higher behavioral conduct,' is in the mind of the person being asked. That is to say, it can mean whatever the hell you want it to mean. I say, want because you could have two substantially similar but not exactly the same (otherwise one would have to admit academic dishonesty) allegations and a person can see it as failure to meet higher behavioral conduct for one person, but not the other person, depending on how they feel about each person.

It's so ill-defined and is so much seeing what one wants to see and interpreting things the way one wishes, wants and chooses to interpret them that makes me nauseous. Articles of Impeachment that not a single Republican voted if favor of and, I believe, only two Democrats voted against both while a third voted against one of them.

Why, what a bipartisan and impartial process we have here. What an effort to look at the facts as objectively as possible. Way to come together on this one.

The only thing that this did was further the divide, but not just between the Representatives and Senators, (they're unimportant anyway) but between the rank-and-file party members and supporters of one party or another. All of the major television media outlets should be made to put, "Entertainment," and the end of their monikers. Fox News and Entertainment. Fox Business News and Entertainment. Cable News Network Entertainment (CNNE). Microsoft National Broadcasting Channel Entertainment (MSNBCE). You get the point.

But, you know, I understand that you have to keep the lights on. Impartial breakdowns of meanings and thoughtful and calm debate isn't going to pay the bills.

"Donald Trump is dividing this country." "The radical left is dividing this country." Both statements are false. We're dividing ourselves and making the various, 'News,' outlets a profit while doing it.

Ummm...first off, I don't think Carleas hates anyone. I've spoken with Carleas and he can certainly speak for himself, but given his proposition that Donald Trump has diminished capacity, I'd imagine that Carleas would feel pity for him in any other context. Secondly, if harboring deep-seeded hatred for others was impeachable, they'd have Donald Trump dead-to-rights.

Yeah, I would LOVE to see an amendment related to anything even have a fighting chance of getting through right now. Welcome to true bipartisanship. Although, I guess that two-thirds thing was a good idea for the same reasons.

That's a good summary of the left you wrote there, that's going to be sure to bridge the divide both here and out in the world. Nice work.

Imagine being one of the only people who actually still wants to understand why people on both sides think about an individual issue the way that they do...I've got to tell you, it's a pretty lonely existence for someone with an interest in the social sciences. It's either the echo chamber or the battlefield for those on both sides, nobody really has any interest in talking to me.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7137
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

PreviousNext

Return to Current Events



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users