It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

[promethean75]

there's no difference here. national socialism is pseudo-marxism by country and is concerned only with the interests of one's own working class. in this way its an immature and underdeveloped full marxism.

marxism in the form of nationalism was fashionable for 20th century fascists because at that point in history, 'race' was still important. well except for mussolini, who was light years ahead of hitler in this respect.

[Urwrongx1000]

indeed, but that's a truism and explains nothing. what needs to be understood is the behavior of soliciting sympathy, the purpose it serves. here morality becomes weaponized; those who lose must resort to hijacking the conscience of the winners into experiencing feelings of guilt because they lack the means to directly regain power over them. but what is forgotten in the criticism of the 'loser' is that the loser is doing the same thing the winner is doing... trying to gain the upper hand. so when the winners win, it's noble, but when the losers win, it's ignoble and underhanded.

this demarcation ironically reverses the slave-mentality (i did a vocaroo audio on this very thing a year ago). first we have the stage; slave interprets master's caprice as bad, as 'evil'. second stage; winner/master interprets slave's revolt as 'bad', as 'evil'. here, the master/winner engages in the same weaponized moralizing that the slave engaged in directly following his loss of power. now, it is 'bad' to not want to remain the loser, says the winner... and that's the dumbest shit i have ever heard.

now it becomes especially ugly when we apply this analysis to what has been done, and is being done, in the dialectic between the ruling class and the working class. note that the initial power gained by the ruling class was not established by direct force, but rather through the same kind of underhanded deception that is now being scrutinized in the hands of the losers, the working class. the ruling class was able to convince the working class that something other than a direct show of force gave them their right to their position... and this would involve telling the long story of the rise of the aristocratic class to power (which i'm not obliged to tell because it would take too long). suffice it to say that this initial rise to power was not the result of an affirmative show of strength by the ruling class, but rather the result of a lack of organized effort by the working class to keep their power. and what caused this long, drawn out process of losing executive power to the ruling class was cateorically identical to the moralizing that the losers, the slaves, the workers, now execute in an attempt to regain their original power.

Almost all gains in history have been made through all-out warfare, by which any gains are protected by an establishment anyway. It doesn't matter how well the Industrial revolution profits, how well capitalism, or any hypothetical marxist-socialist market profits, if you can't protect those profits by a standing army. You seem to have a philosophical blindspot in this area. The historic 'high' classes are aligned with military might. The upper-classes dictate the order of the armies. Any hypothetical "redistribution of wealth" presumes a military uprising. The 20th Century was most dangerous because the world's wealth was still being held in Swiss Banks, which Europeans will go to war to protect. In fact World War 1 and 2 were both about protecting Central European banks and power, represented by the political powers (Austria-Hapsburg and then Nazi-Germany). Wealth was transferred West, to America, which is the primary reason the world became polarized as it is today.

so you have a 'master' class that gained its status by underhanded and deceptive means... then has the audacity to try and convince the 'slave' class, which it successfully subordinated by weaponizing morality, that they should accept their fate rather than revolt. like i said... the dumbest shit i have ever heard.

i take a great leap here and say something you'll not understand... something that will immediately shock you and strike you as absurd. i'm using a metaphor you like to think in terms of, here. the aristocratic/capitalistic ruling class's entire pathos is feminine and ignoble. in the same way you might see women as being experts at manipulation and able to access power through indirect means, the ruling class has done the same thing through 'philosophy', through 'ideology'. the rise to power of the bourgeois class is an activity perfectly characterized as feminine; accessing power deceptively and then persuading those from whom it was taken that they should feel guilty in wanting it back.

now i'd not use that metaphor myself because it over-generalizes... but i did anyway because it's in a way you might be able to understand. i'm trying to simplify something extremely complicated so it's easily accessible to you.

it's another irony i sit nicely on as i watch the political philosophers go with great amusement. conservatism is the very incarnation of the feminine pathos, while... let's just call it 'marxism ' because that's how everyone understands it these days... is at its core is the embodiment of ultra-masculinity and nobility. okay... let's say that capitalism is dionysian, while socialism is apollonian. will that work for you?

i know, i know. this is probably very disturbing to you and i apologize for that. i've been known to turn whole centuries upside down in one fell swoop.

Ah yes, soooo complex, use small words so I can understand... *eye-roll*

Your perspective is not mine. I view social-policies as extension of genetic tribalism. Power is what really matters, and boiling everything down, especially political philosophy.

If you can't enforce your ideas by Reason, then you must use (Physical) Force, which means, a military.


Communist-Marxist ideals are Eastern European and do not reflect the idealism of Western European elitism. The social policies do not mesh.

And it doesn't matter, because if you have no Kin, then you have no greater motivation to begin with. All social upheaval comes from Kin-Selection.

[promethean75]

if you can't protect those profits by a standing army. You seem to have a philosophical blindspot in this area. The historic 'high' classes are aligned with military might. The upper-classes dictate the order of the armies. Any hypothetical "redistribution of wealth" presumes a military uprising.

oh i see it, and i've explained how it happened. through a gradual transitioning of citizen's productive roles as the society grows larger and requires more complex forms of management. from the minimalist form of society consisting of citizens that are workers, soldiers and law enforcement combined, to the more advanced societies in which the 'priest' and 'legislator' class emerges as a luxury, as a result of the surplus wealth created by the workers. then begins the philosopphical process of convincing the productive class that these priests and legislators and kings are necessary (sometimes by divine providence, e.g., receiving excalibur from the lady of the lake). meanwhile, to stay any revolt by workers who are smart enough to be suspicious of this, the ruling class gives special interests and privileges to the military class in exchange for their protection. and thus was structured the hierarchy of a society organized by the ruling class to keep them in power.

so i'm not denying anything you've said. not only do i agree, but i'm describing how it happened. or rather, how it got to the point where there could exist a useless and parasitic class of aristocrats in no danger of being usurped. yeah but that shit didn't fly for long in russia, did it? the industrial proletariat was a little smarter than the old feudal peasantry (well except for these peasants), and only one rifle away from being a mobilized soldier. and the conditions are always ripening more for something like this to happen, because the number of workers always exceeds the number of military personnel ready to defend against an uprising.

[Urwrongx1000]

Russian people never had a centralized government; their Steppic continent was/is too big. Russians are Scandinavian and Norse people, mixed with Steppic Mongolians and Huns. They're nomadic peoples, clannish and tribalist. Russians have traditionally had an inferiority complex toward Europeans, out of envy of their cultures, especially the French whom they admire more than others (Napoleon conquered Russia). Russians are naturally industrialistic and communistic. When it comes "naturally" to one race/ethnic group, that's different than any supposed Marxism/Communism which is inflicted upon others. Many ethnic groupings are elitist and want no party in any hypothetical "universal brotherhood" or "proletariat of the workers".

Most workers are simple-minded buffoons, and you know this very well. They don't have leadership qualities, which are monopolized and indoctrinated by the elitists anyway. There are few 'noble' qualities within the working-populace.

French anti-Elitism, wrought out of contempt, is not the same as Russian anti-Elitism, wrought out of an inferiority complex. Russian people aren't really 'respected' within Western and Southern European countries, perceived as invasive outsiders, tacky, gawdy, lacking sophistication, still retaining many 'barbarian' qualities of their ancestors. The English in particular, sneer upon Russian (and therefore Communist sentiment).

The Western World is still anti-Communist, due to the Anglo antagonism. This is relevant today, as the Neo-cons, Neo-libs, demonize Russia and Eastern Slavs, every chance they can get, accusing Trump of "colluding" with them, just because they're a bunch of fucking losers.

[promethean75]

Many ethnic groupings are elitist and want no party in any hypothetical "universal brotherhood" or "proletariat of the workers".

that's gotta be a pretty frickin small 'grouping' if it consists only of elitists. usually on planet earf, in order for a group to increase in size, it has to successfully manage it's environment and divide up the labor involved in doing it. so if you got a group of only 'elitists', they're either living off the wealth snatched from some other group, or on their way out (because none of them wanna work). dawkins once created an analogy model to describe what is called an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS), and he used a community of birds to do it. in this community there are three types of birds, as follows:

grudgers: birds that will pick mites off of birds that pick mites off of them.
suckers: birds that will pick mites off of birds that don't pick mites off of them.
cheats: birds that don't pick mites off of other birds, but allow other birds to pick mites off of them.

and he explains how the cheat type is the only anomaly that wouldn't allow a community with an ESS to exist. if you did the math, you'd see why. a community with cheats would result either in extinction, or extinction. you could have a temporarily stable group of cheats and suckers, but eventually nothing would be left but the cheats... and then nothing would be left at all... because they'd all die of mite infestation.

only a group of grudgers and suckers, or a group of grudgers and grudgers, or a group of suckers and suckers, would have an ESS.

now this analogy works well to describe the kind of relationship the 'cheat', which is the'elite' (modern capitalist) would have to its community. so your hypothetical grouping of only 'elite' isn't something realizable unless we're talking 800 a.d. barbarism or post-apocalyptic mad max. which is to say, you can do your whole 'kinsmen tribal' thing, but it would have to be as a cult that rented out an apartment building or warehouse to live in and made its money trading stocks.

but that's too easy, too simple. the grand project of mankind is more than that, and it involves building social ecosystems that are sustainable indefinitely. and to do that, we gotta get rid of the cheats or we'll all go extinct.

and this is why i can't pay any attention to these silly philosophy forum cliques made up of conservative nordic wanna-be alpha-males who play philosophy as if it were a dungeons and dragons role-playing card game. no, you guys are not, and will never be, the noble warriors of truth, nor will what the few of you ever say at a philosophy forum amount to more than a hill of beans. king arthur is dead, and we have killed him. stop stammering about your virtue like a blue-bottled priest! (that was a nietzsche re-mix, btw)

[Urwrongx1000]

Everytime you level that argument, I just have the doubt that you could never create or lead a business of more than 10, let alone 100 or 1000 employees.

That you consider business/corporate ownership "leeching", really refutes any point you could make. I don't think you understand a mere fraction of responsibility that goes into it. The "elite" groups, aren't necessarily elite, as you paint them. As-if there is only-cheating to rise to the top. It's not that simple, not that black-and-white.

And in terms of race and ethnic groups, there will always be a dominant 'Leadership' group or caste. That's nature. Groups want their best to lead them. If you have no group, like typical Westerners, then you won't understand Europe, Russia, or the Eastern Hemisphere. Caste, Rank, Elite, come over decades and centuries. It takes 500 years to make a king, for example. It's not something that "just happens" or "out of nowhere". The "elites" are there for a reason.

Even the French had reasons to overthrow theirs, and, not coincidentally, which International-Cabal was spurning the French Revolts along???


The French lost their Morale and Empire after Bonaparte.

[Urwrongx1000]

Attempting to impeach the duly-elected President of the United States, without a charge, without evidence, and under the condition of an anonymous source, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST!

This is one of the worst attacks and failures in US history. It will have serious consequences and blowback, for the Democrats, Liberals, Leftists, and the entire system. I hope and expect that the "whistleblower" is exposed through the Senate, as we the US public has a Right to face this accuser. Furthermore, after the Senate blocks the impeachment, which is doubtless, the US can only hope that the President uses his full power of office in retaliation against the DNC, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, to expose their corruption, Joe and Hunter Biden's no-show contract, and to make sure these threats are removed from power permanently.

The attacks against the First and Second Amendment, by the Left, might come to ahead. It's time to test the Constitution and who is truly willing to protect this nation from (Liberal-Democrat) corruption. They want to silence; they want to take away our guns and Rights. They want to divide. So let the country divide. I think everybody knows which side will come out on top in the end.

[Carleas]

Attempting to impeach the duly-elected President of the United States, without a charge...

You're right, it's time to bring those charges!

I wonder what you call the process by which they bring charges against a duly-elected President... maybe accusement?

[Urwrongx1000]

You're right, it's time to bring those charges!

I wonder what you call the process by which they bring charges against a duly-elected President... maybe accusement?

Apparently you haven't been paying attention? Don't you live in DC??

Dems are trying to stretch "Using office for personal gain" as wide as possible. There's no such Law, no such Crime. This baseless accusation could be posed against any President. It's meaningless. It literally doesn't mean anything. Did Obama "gain personally" through his president? Did Bush "gain personally"? Did Clinton? Did Reagan? Surely, all people "gain" personally by being President. How could you not? It's a stupid, senseless, meaningless term, with no precedent in Law. No Crime!

"Bribe"? Nope. Coercion? Nope. Quid Pro Quo? Nope!


Trump was/is investigating Crime and Corruption in Ukraine. What did he discover, except Biden corruption, which is what this is all about. Dems, being defensive about their own corruption, try to launch an Impeachment claiming Trump is guilty of WHAT THEY ARE!!!] Democrats are the corrupt mother fuckers, who did shady and slimy business in Ukraine. Hunter Biden NO-SHOW JOB?! On US Taxpayer dollar?! And then claim it's a crime to investigate this?!

Dems think they are immune from corruption, above the law!


JUSTICE is coming

[Carleas]

Did Obama "gain personally" through his president? Did Bush "gain personally"? Did Clinton? Did Reagan?

The question isn't whether they 'gained personally', it's whether they abused the powers of the office for personal gain.

Quid Pro Quo?

What do you mean by this? Several witnesses have testified that Trump withheld military aid to the Ukraine on the condition that the Ukraine announce an investigation of Biden. Quid = military aid, quo = Biden investigation.

Trump was/is investigating Crime and Corruption in Ukraine.

This is implausible. If that were the real motivation, it would have been handled by the Department of Justice, not by the President's personal attorney (who is not an employee or agent of the United States).

[Urwrongx1000]

The question isn't whether they 'gained personally', it's whether they abused the powers of the office for personal gain.

The question still stands.

Also the Liberal-Left-Media is protecting Biden and his corruption, giving his son a no-show work job in Ukraine at taxpayer expense. Sounds like "abuse of power". I'm sure this accusation could apply to Obama, Bush, Clinton, again, a definition so broad as to be meaningless.

What do you mean by this? Several witnesses have testified that Trump withheld military aid to the Ukraine on the condition that the Ukraine announce an investigation of Biden. Quid = military aid, quo = Biden investigation.

I like how you Liberal-Leftists make it a "crime" to investigate your Liberal-Left leaders (Biden/Obama/Clinton).

It's also why the Media establishment is completely silent about Bill Clinton and Epstein's Lolita Express. This is how corrupt you and they are. It's "illegal" to bring down your corruption.

Quite frankly Trump did nothing wrong, he knows it, and more and more Americans know it with every passing day. Trump was Right(eous) to go looking into the Ukraine corruption. What did he find, except Biden, and Dem corruption?! Then this impeachment sham, is an attempt to coverup that corruption, with more corruption (false allegations, attempting a coup).

This is implausible. If that were the real motivation, it would have been handled by the Department of Justice, not by the President's personal attorney (who is not an employee or agent of the United States).

DOJ is corrupt too. Trump knows how deep the swamp is, and has to take matters into his own hands. That's another reason he was voted in. He is outside the Establishment. He is Anti-Establishment. He is exactly what America wanted, exactly what is needed, and he knows the levels of corruption, because he's paid-off plenty of politicians during his business career. Guliani also has a history of taking down Mob bosses (corruption).

So the shoe fits.

Quid Pro Quo Joe Biden, on the other hand, he has no excuse. It's good that the underbelly of the Far-Liberal-Left and Democrat-Sham party, corruption, is all coming to light. Dems are desperate, hence their Hail Mary throw to impeach and silence the President. But there's no receiver.

I hope Dems are voted out of office 2020 and 2022, full Republican-Right-Conservative government, House Republican control, Senate Republican control, Supreme Court lean Right, President Trump, sounds like a Trifecta!

Will you even have a job then, Careleas? Or are you down the line to be Fired too? You're Fired! That's why the people Hired him, Voted him, into office.

[Carleas]

The question still stands.

Two things:
1) "Maybe Obama did it too" is a boring question. Make a specific allegation and show your evidence.
2) Assume every president to now has done what Trump is accused of doing -- are you saying that they were all OK, or are you saying that they should all have been removed (including Trump)?

I like how you Liberal-Leftists make it a "crime" to investigate your Liberal-Left leaders

This is non-responsive. You said there was no quid pro quo, I gave you the quid and the quo. Reconcile those things.

DOJ is corrupt too. Trump knows how deep the swamp is, and has to take matters into his own hands.

Whether or not that's true, ours is a government of laws. Trump isn't king, he's the head of the executive in a democracy, whose powers are explicit and limited and flow from the Constitution and laws written by Congress. If he senses corruption, his job is to clean house, not to employ mercenaries because he doesn't trust the employees of the executive branch.

That's why the people Hired him, Voted him, into office.

Most people who voted voted for someone else, and almost half the population didn't vote.

[Urwrongx1000]

Two things:
1) "Maybe Obama did it too" is a boring question. Make a specific allegation and show your evidence.
2) Assume every president to now has done what Trump is accused of doing -- are you saying that they were all OK, or are you saying that they should all have been removed (including Trump)?

Evidence? Who needs evidence, these days? Certainly not the Democratic party!

All we need now, set by this precedent, is blind-hatred and throwing accusations. Due Process, not required.

This is non-responsive. You said there was no quid pro quo, I gave you the quid and the quo. Reconcile those things.

It's not a Quid Pro Quo when you investigate corruption (of Biden and DNC).

It's very much accidental. Trump wanted to ensure Ukraine wasn't corrupt; instead he found Biden by circumstance.

Ukraine corruption revealed/reveals Democrat corruption. Democrats respond by trying to impeach, to cover their tracks. Too late!

Whether or not that's true, ours is a government of laws. Trump isn't king, he's the head of the executive in a democracy, whose powers are explicit and limited and flow from the Constitution and laws written by Congress. If he senses corruption, his job is to clean house, not to employ mercenaries because he doesn't trust the employees of the executive branch.

Law?! What law? There is no law against "abuse of power". It doesn't make sense. In order for there to be laws, there must be Crimes for breaking them.

Democratic Impeachment proves Lawlessness. They maybe "entitled" to do so, according to the rules. But trying to impeach a duly-elected President, without merit, without evidence, without proof, without charging a crime (Real Law), is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST.

As was recently mentioned, this week, Congress (Democrats) are abusing their power. Completely SHAM impeachment, absolutely Partisan, polarizing, divisive. The Democrats are responsible for dividing the nation, not Trump, not anybody else.

Most people who voted voted for someone else, and almost half the population didn't vote.

304 -- 227

Not even close. Try again.

[Carleas]

Evidence? Who needs evidence, these days? Certainly not the Democratic party!

This is a tu quoque fallacy. Regardless of what the Democratic party does, you have not presented evidence.

It's not a Quid Pro Quo when you investigate corruption

It seems like you're trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, you're claiming there was no quid pro quo; on the other, you're claiming that Trump was trying to make a deal (i.e. a quid pro quo) to fight corruption. Put differently, you're arguing both that he didn't do it, and that he did it with the best of intentions.

Law?! What law?

The power of the Presidency is circumscribed by law. The President only has that authority given to the position by the Constitution, the largest part of with is in executing the laws as passed by the Legislature. The President's authority is limited by the set of laws he's charged with executing.

So, when you ask, "Law? What law?", the burden is on the President and his defenders to point to a law that permits him to hire a personal attorney to conduct state affairs, as opposed to using the apparatus that the Legislature has provided for him.

304 -- 227

Are you under the impression that a total of 531 people voted in the 2016 election?

[Urwrongx1000]

It seems like you're trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, you're claiming there was no quid pro quo; on the other, you're claiming that Trump was trying to make a deal (i.e. a quid pro quo) to fight corruption. Put differently, you're arguing both that he didn't do it, and that he did it with the best of intentions.

No testimony, no fact, that there is "Quid Pro Quo", just flawed interpretation, based on Democratic hatred and emotion. That's called "reading into it whatever you want". No aide withheld. And, based on the charges, it wouldn't matter whether aide was released, or not, because you setup and Framed the President, to be in a lose-lose, guilty-guilty postion. Damned if he did release Aide, damned if he didn't. Plenty of fallacies in your argument and positions there.

The power of the Presidency is circumscribed by law. The President only has that authority given to the position by the Constitution, the largest part of with is in executing the laws as passed by the Legislature. The President's authority is limited by the set of laws he's charged with executing.

So, when you ask, "Law? What law?", the burden is on the President and his defenders to point to a law that permits him to hire a personal attorney to conduct state affairs, as opposed to using the apparatus that the Legislature has provided for him.

The point is, Congress is abusing power and acting above the Law. You can't impeach a President for nothing, because you don't like him, because of emotion/hatred. Well, you can try, and you will go down hard. Because the Constitution is on the President's side, along with the Supreme Court. It's going to be excellent watching the Whistleblower-Leaker become exposed in the Senate, Shift brought to testify, Biden brought to testify, Burisma investigated, Biden and son investigated, Democratic corruption investigated, exposed, and Democrats deposed from power for 20 years to come. All Republican-Conservative House, Executive, Supreme Court, then the nation can move forward unobstructed. This is what happens when you play with fire and lose.

Are you under the impression that a total of 531 people voted in the 2016 election?

It's called the Electoral College. Democrats need to figure-out it works.

Irony:

[Carleas]

No testimony, no fact, that there is "Quid Pro Quo"

Describe, in specific, what Trump was doing to "ensure Ukraine wasn't corrupt". As far as I can tell, the only theory of the case that includes Trump acting to eliminate corruption has Trump withholding military aide in order to force the Ukraine to investigate Biden. That is a quid pro quo.

So either there was no quid pro quo, no withholding of aide, or there was no attempt to deal with corruption in the Ukraine. Not both.

It's called the Electoral College.

...right. And electoral votes are different from the popular vote, yes? And if we're talking about "the people", we care about the popular vote, not the Electoral College. And if we look at the popular vote, it's clear that "Most people who voted voted for someone else, and almost half the population didn't vote."

[Urwrongx1000]

Describe, in specific, what Trump was doing to "ensure Ukraine wasn't corrupt". As far as I can tell, the only theory of the case that includes Trump acting to eliminate corruption has Trump withholding military aide in order to force the Ukraine to investigate Biden. That is a quid pro quo.

So either there was no quid pro quo, no withholding of aide, or there was no attempt to deal with corruption in the Ukraine. Not both.

The liberal mindset is insane. Where in the call is it implied or even remotely suggested that "investigate Biden OR ELSE?!"

Nowhere. Trump is perfectly within his Right to ask Ukraine to investigate corruption, foreign and domestic. If Biden is corrupt, then the request is completely legitimate. And he is. Quid Pro Quo Joe and his Son, nice no-show job in Ukraine at Burisma, under the Obama administration, admitted on video. THAT's the corruption and Quid Pro Quo, for Joe.

It's called the Electoral College.

...right. And electoral votes are different from the popular vote, yes? And if we're talking about "the people", we care about the popular vote, not the Electoral College. And if we look at the popular vote, it's clear that "Most people who voted voted for someone else, and almost half the population didn't vote."[/quote]
Popular Vote is meaningless, literally doesn't mean anything.

Electoral College is setup so Presidential candidates don't spend 100% of their time in California and New York.

Even you should know that.

[Zero_Sum]

there's no difference here. national socialism is pseudo-marxism by country and is concerned only with the interests of one's own working class. in this way its an immature and underdeveloped full marxism.

marxism in the form of nationalism was fashionable for 20th century fascists because at that point in history, 'race' was still important. well except for mussolini, who was light years ahead of hitler in this respect.

Race is still important and this will become abundantly clear as more white people begin to notice there's a whole lot less of us out there in existence becoming the new population minority. Marxism didn't have any influence on national socialism or fascism from what I can see.

[Aegean]

there's no difference here. national socialism is pseudo-marxism by country and is concerned only with the interests of one's own working class. in this way its an immature and underdeveloped full marxism.

marxism in the form of nationalism was fashionable for 20th century fascists because at that point in history, 'race' was still important. well except for mussolini, who was light years ahead of hitler in this respect.

Race is still important and this will become abundantly clear as more white people begin to notice there's a whole lot less of us out there in existence becoming the new population minority. Marxism didn't have any influence on national socialism or fascism from what I can see.

you do not understand what the master of cynical negation si telling you.
I can...;cause I'm brilliant. He taught me to declare what I want others to believe of me.
Well, him and this entire forum of geniuses.

He's telling you it was determined that black be blacks and whites be white...and you cannot blame them for what the universe - a.k.a. god - made them to be.
Might s well hate a mosquito for annoying you at night.

It's all determined and we are manifestations of what has been determined and will forever live the exact lives it has been determined that we live.

So, except for the fucking police and those damn judges, we cannot blame anyone. All are innocent victims of circumstances.
I exposed my cock, yesterday, to an old lady...as it was determined that I do...and she did not call the police but called me over. It's fate.
I had no part in any of it...even as she pleasured me to a happy ending, in the backroom of a bookstore.
I thank the absolute universe for that gift.

[Carleas]

Where in the call is it implied or even remotely suggested that "investigate Biden OR ELSE?!"

1) We don't have a transcript, because the White House refuses to provide a transcript that they insist contains nothing worth hiding.
2) This happened over months. Military aid was withheld at least as early as July 3.

Popular Vote is meaningless, literally doesn't mean anything.

I find the people saying this also put a lot of weight on the notion that "the people" elected Trump. It's true that the system elected Trump, but most people who voted voted for someone else.

[Urwrongx1000]

Pretty weak arguments...

The Senate comes next, I look forward to this "whistleblower" being exposed and Biden's investigated.

[obsrvr524]

Where in the call is it implied or even remotely suggested that "investigate Biden OR ELSE?!"

1) We don't have a transcript, because the White House refuses to provide a transcript that they insist contains nothing worth hiding.

How did that get into your bubble of belief?

I find the people saying this also put a lot of weight on the notion that "the people" elected Trump. It's true that the system elected Trump, but most people who voted voted for someone else.

And there is a damn good reason for that to be the law.

[Carleas]

Pretty weak arguments...

Not as weak as the rebuttal

How did that get into your bubble of belief?

- Irregularities in the released transcript, together with testimony of others on the call, show that we don't have an actual transcript.
- Mulvaney said they have tapes from which the transcript was produced.

And there is a damn good reason for that to be the law.

Whether or not it's a good policy, its pedantically the case that winning the Electoral College and winning the popular vote are different things, and if you appeal to the will of the people, you expose yourself to pedants like me pointing out that, wellactually, the people mostly preferred someone else.

[Urwrongx1000]

The Electoral Collage is the Will of the People. Popular vote would appeal to California-Los Angeles-San Francisco-New York only; because those are the concentrations of population. This is common-sense; even elementary school children can understand this. President Trump was duly elected, with overwhelming majority. Now the UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST matter is Abuse of Power of the House Majority DNC, trying to impeach a duly-elected President without cause and committed no crime. No bribery. No "Quid Pro Quo". And trying to investigate Trump for a crime that DNC, Joe Biden did in Ukraine, Ukraine and US CORRUPTION, gifting his son a No-Show job worth millions, with an admitted Quid Pro Quo on video.

Trump is being punished, for DNC and Biden corruption. At least, come the Senate, this FAKE-whistleblower will be exposed. The accusations dissolved. The smear campaign halted. NO crime committed. NO reason for impeachment.

Abuse of Power by DNC and House Majority. Corruption within the Democrat Party. Corruption by Adam Schiff and Nadler.


The whole "basis" of this impeachment is an Anonymous Witness, and if the American people want to know, we are SILENCED and our First Amendment is violated. This is a violation of Free Speech.

[obsrvr524]

How did that get into your bubble of belief?

- Irregularities in the released transcript, together with testimony of others on the call, show that we don't have an actual transcript.

It wasn't proposed as a literal transcript but rather a "memorandum of conversation" or "memcon" because the staffers translating from foreign languages must write out the substantive intent of each sentence in order to avoid misrepresentation from word-by-word translations. Even when they are writing out the English, in English, they still, using the same thinking - write out the substantive intent without worrying about precise wording, perhaps even improve the wording. That practice, used throughout the West among heads of state and international corporations, has been testified to by professionals and not contested.

Biased interpretation of the results of such a wide spread and historical practice allows for suspicion to signal maleficence when there is none. The only words anyone testified to being left out had no effect on the substantive content and no one proclaimed contrary. People with prejudice were just alarmed because they had assumed a literal word for word transcript when such isn't the practice with any foreign language memorandum of conversation.

Equally people with prejudice sounded alarm over the length of the conversation record before considering the fact that every sentence was being spoken twice, once in each language.

Presumption and suspicion used to promote false narratives. Not the first. Not the last.

- Mulvaney said they have tapes from which the transcript was produced.

Not actually. What he said was, "Let me ask you this: If we wanted to cover this up, would we have called the Department of Justice almost immediately and have them look at the transcript of the tape?”

Again with prejudice, it is easy to take his word "tape" to mean a literal taping. People got in the habit of using the word "tape" when referring to any record of conversation. It is my understanding that electronic recording is used for sake of the translators but immediately overwritten after the memcon is checked. The memoranda are then locked away.

Also prejudice led the the suspicion that Mr. Trump's directive to secure the memcons was nefarious. In fact such higher level securing had become his practice immediately after discovering prior leaked conversations with Mexico and Australia (no doubt from Vindman and the like).

Again, presumption and suspicion used to promote false narratives. Not the first. Not the last.

Encouraging disrespect for Mr. Trump from his own subordinates has been an ongoing endeavor from the CIA and deep state's resistance from 2016. From such spawned disrespect, leaking of damaging inferences, suspicions, betrayals, and even leaking classified information is inspired and acquired by undercover operatives and -- observers.

And there is a damn good reason for that to be the law.

Whether or not it's a good policy, its pedantically the case that winning the Electoral College and winning the popular vote are different things, and if you appeal to the will of the people, you expose yourself to pedants like me pointing out that, wellactually, the people mostly preferred someone else.

Okay but if you want to be a pedant, then you must consider exactly who "the people" really are. Your presumptive conclusion will be different.

Given a race variation of 50 whites and 10 blacks, who are "the people"? The majority?

The US is outstanding in many ways. One of them is that their constitution protects minorities of quite a variety. One of the intentionally overlooked minorities in the nation are the rural, non-urbanites versus the densely populated urbanites.

The US has States that are largely farmers and other states that are largely urbanite socialists. Farmers require representation in government as much as, if not more than, urbanites. They have very different needs. Socialist cities (Los Angles, New York,..) depend upon high population density because they thrive off the contention between other people - money and lawyers. The highest population will always be in the larger urban cities.

But does that mean that the socialist urbanites should totally rule over the farmers? Making them slaves to the socialists? No more so than those 50 whites should totally dominate those 10 blacks.

The US electoral college is what prevents such default slavery and protects a number of non-racial minorities from power mad users (Socialists urbanites). The founders had already calculated that issue.