Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

List of Trump's crimes?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    If that were true then there would never have been a president who ran for re-election and lost. All of them had over 50% of the voters wanting them gone.
    Oh the poll i was referring to was regarding impeachment and removal from office. Apparently 50% currently want trump impeached and removed. They compared it to Clinton who peaked at only 29%. I don’t have enough knowledge about polls to state anything further than what it shows.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
      Oh the poll i was referring to was regarding impeachment and removal from office. Apparently 50% currently want trump impeached and removed. They compared it to Clinton who peaked at only 29%. I don’t have enough knowledge about polls to state anything further than what it shows.
      It depends on who is polled and how the question is asked. I once participated in a phone survey with the following questions:

      1) Are you in favor of raising personal income taxes?
      2) Are you in favor of raising business taxes?
      3) Are you more in favor of raising personal income taxes, or business taxes?

      No matter how these questions are answered, the headline can read "Majority of those surveyed say they are in favor of raising taxes, but opinions divide on whether it should apply to personal income or businesses". But is that really an accurate reflection of public opinion?

      So you ask the questions one way, and 50% say they favor impeachment and removal from office. Asked another way, and that figure could easily go up or down. I also have no doubt that there are many on the left who are in favor even if the evidence against Trump is inconclusive -- or in this case, non-existent.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seanD View Post
        In Trump's case the polls are probably even more inaccurate because they're undoubtedly a lot of undercover Trump supporters that won't openly admit it because of the stigma. Folks that are polled about that probably don't even have a clue why he's being impeached, but they know that it's just the proper societal etiquette (and also fear of not getting physically attacked) to say you hate Trump.
        That is quite the bit of excuse making there seanD.
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
          It’s because I’m worried about how you left rational behind, to embrace conspiracy theories.
          I have not embraced conspiracy theories pix. The fact trump tried to extort Ukraine using Congressionally allocated funds isn't a conspiracy theory, it is what the evidence shows. We have the testimomies of career state department officials, ambassadors, a call transcript and Trump and Mulvaney's own words, and Trump's own history of asking for help from other countries.

          For you to call that a 'conspiracy theory' is ... well ... a conspiracy theory
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            I have not embraced conspiracy theories pix. The fact trump tried to extort Ukraine using Congressionally allocated funds isn't a conspiracy theory, it is what the evidence shows. We have the testimomies of career state department officials, ambassadors, a call transcript and Trump and Mulvaney's own words, and Trump's own history of asking for help from other countries.

            For you to call that a 'conspiracy theory' is ... well ... a conspiracy theory
            When there is no solid evidence supporting something and a great deal of it contradicting it, then offering unwavering and uncritical support for it sure sounds like conspiracy theory.

            Just sayin.'

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              No matter who is in the White House, it is typical that roughly half of all voters want him gone. Trump isn't unique in that respect.
              That isn't really true MM, Clinton enjoyed 60 ot 70% approval even while being impeached! And there is no equivalence between some subset of the population not liking the president and wanting someone else in office and 50% wanting that same president impeached and removed from office. Looking back on the Clinton Impeachment, there is no comparison. I would guess one must go back to Nixon for anything even close. And even then, I'm not sure that in today's climate Nixon would have felt the need to resign. What Nixon did was no worse than what Trump has done. So the difference is that in Nixon's day all parties valued the constitution and the rule of law and especially the integrity of the election process more than they did retaining power. And the public had far less tolerance for the sort of shenanigans Trump is engaged in.
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                When there is no solid evidence supporting something and a great deal of it contradicting it, then offering unwavering and uncritical support for it sure sounds like conspiracy theory.

                Just sayin.'
                I watched a good bit of the hearings and read a good bit of the testimony. And there is no correlation between that content and your comment above as it relates to what Trump did to Ukraine.
                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                Comment


                • And that shows what a difference an acquiescent press that will lie and tell the public that it was all about sex (no, it was about lying under oath -- perjury) compared to being saddled with a rabidly hostile press that will lie about the nature of the "witnesses" and evidence.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    I watched a good bit of the hearings and read a good bit of the testimony. And there is no correlation between that content and your comment above as it relates to what Trump did to Ukraine.
                    Correct me if I'm wrong but you also maintain that Trump colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 election, that the transcript of the call Trump-Zelensky call shows a demand for quid pro quo, and that the witnesses were all giving direct testimony rather than repeating second, third and even fourth hand hearsay.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      It depends on who is polled and how the question is asked. I once participated in a phone survey with the following questions:

                      1) Are you in favor of raising personal income taxes?
                      2) Are you in favor of raising business taxes?
                      3) Are you more in favor of raising personal income taxes, or business taxes?

                      No matter how these questions are answered, the headline can read "Majority of those surveyed say they are in favor of raising taxes, but opinions divide on whether it should apply to personal income or businesses". But is that really an accurate reflection of public opinion?

                      So you ask the questions one way, and 50% say they favor impeachment and removal from office. Asked another way, and that figure could easily go up or down. I also have no doubt that there are many on the left who are in favor even if the evidence against Trump is inconclusive -- or in this case, non-existent.
                      Ah yes thanks, I remember something similar from Yes Minister. I don’t know what question was asked so that’s a dead end.

                      Well everyone values evidence a little differently. I think they have easily met preponderance of the evidence and I base that opinion solely on the evidence provided and taking into account the failure to provide an equally plausible explanation in defense.

                      Was there really nothing that the witnesses said that made you even a little teeny weeny bit concerned about Trump? Even just simply the fact that so many people, held in high regard by both sides and well experienced, felt so concerned didn’t concern you?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                        There's also the fact that a plurality did not want Trump elected in the first place.

                        If there were an "electoral college" sort of filter applied to the polls, the results might be quite different.
                        I haven't taken the time to see the way the question was asked, or what alternatives were offered, but that ONE POLL seems to be a fixation for the hate-Trump-all-the-time crowd.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Correct me if I'm wrong but you also maintain that Trump colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 election, that the transcript of the call Trump-Zelensky call shows a demand for quid pro quo, and that the witnesses were all giving direct testimony rather than repeating second, third and even fourth hand hearsay.
                          Those are corrupted assessments of my actual claims. So you stand corrected.

                          The issue with Ukraine is not something any single line of evidence shows. For example, the call transcript shows Trump asking Zelinsky for a 'favor' relating to investigating

                          1) Biden (and Burisma per testimony)
                          2) a debunked conspiracy theory concerning Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election.

                          When a person in power asks for a favor of a subordinate, it is not necessarily merely a 'favor'. In fact, from the subordinate's perspective, that unequal position requires they take this 'favor' as more a condition on the antecedent or even as a command - even if the person in power claims there are no strings attached. And the fact the subordinate can be implicitly coerced in such a way is why there are laws against this sort of thing.

                          consider this article on abuse of authority in the workplace:

                          https://work.chron.com/abuse-authori...lace-8178.html

                          in it we find this:

                          Source: above

                          Work»Career Advice»Workplace Etiquette»
                          Abuse of Authority in the Workplace
                          by Patrick Gleeson, Ph. D.,; Updated August 08, 2018
                          Abuse of Authority in the Workplace
                          Related Articles
                          1
                          What to Do When Someone Threatens You in the Workplace
                          2
                          Word a Grievance for a Hostile Workplace & Hostile Verbal Threats
                          3
                          Deal With a Boss Who Discriminates
                          4
                          Putting a Boss on Notice for Workplace Bullying
                          Abuse of authority in the workplace takes many different forms. What you should do about it depends in part not only on the severity and frequency of the abuse, but also on its specific nature. Even one instance of racially or sexually-motivated abuse is cause for filing a report. Other instances of bad behavior are reportable, but can sometimes be stopped by instead confronting the abuser.



                          Trouble Spots
                          Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said about pornography that he "knows it when he sees it." Abuse of authority in the workplace has this in common with Justice Potter's definition of pornography -- that even though there might not be a clear demarcation point beyond which a boss's bad behavior rises to the level of abuse of authority -- most workers know when bosses abuse their authority, especially when the abuse affects them directly.

                          Certain actions by a boss or conditions that a boss may impose on a subordinate are likely trouble-spots. Here are some instances:

                          Favoritism
                          Bullying
                          Unreasonable and arbitrary demands on subordinates
                          Suggestive or threatening sexual behavior
                          Discrimination based on sexual orientation, racial and ethnic identity or age
                          Financial malfeasance
                          Requiring employees to perform personal tasks

                          Verbal intimidation

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          I have bolded the two that apply here.

                          So this request for a 'favor' is not by any means innocent or without implication of quid pro quo. Trump asks for that favor in relation to a requested meeting at the white house. So there is a direct tie to the meeting and the investigation. Exactly how much of a tie exists, whether or not Trump would hold non-compliance with the favor as a strict condition for the meeting is not clearly established in the call transcript itself. But the fact Trump has connected them is. And the fact Trump holds power over Ukraine makes that tie a likely abuse of power. Especially given Trump's history of exactly those kinds of ties and quid pro quo directives in his life as a businessman. ESPECIALLY in light of recorded conversations with his 'fixer' and others where he clearly gets others to do his bidding using exactly that same sort of implicit language.

                          Your denial of what I make clear above is the dishonest part of your claim about me in your reply. These are real issues. Companies get sued over violations. Managers get fired. Criminal entities make use of these sorts of techniques to create plausible deniability all the time. To claim there is 'no indication of quid pro quo' in the transcript then is simply a lie. There is an indication of quid pro quo, even a strong indication given DT's historical use of such language, but not proof.

                          And we could have a meaninful discussion if you, or MM, or pix, or CP, could admit that the implication exists, but there is no proof. That is where the truth lives concerning the transcript. The truth is not as Trump and the GOP claims - no indication of quid pro quo in the transcript. And likewise, the truth is not 'the transcript proves quid pro quo'. The truth is between the two.

                          To establish there was quid pro quo requires the additional testimony and facts gleaned in the investigations applied to the entire issue in a logical, deductive manner. When that is done, the potentially innocent 'alternative' possibilities' that exist as theoretical implications of the 'favor' requested in the transcript are eliminated beyond reasonable doubt.
                          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 12-03-2019, 09:11 AM.
                          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            And we could have a meaninful discussion if you, or MM, or pix, or CP, could admit that the implication exists, but there is no proof. ....
                            A) I'm minding my own business and leaving you alone
                            2) I honestly don't think it's possible to have a meaningful discussion with you on this issue, Jim, because you seem far more emotionally involved than intellectually involved.
                            C) Once again, you are dishonestly (though I believe it's due to ignorance or prejudice, not dishonesty per se) misrepresenting my position and lumping me in with others who have beliefs that differ from my own.

                            Now, what "implication", exactly, is it you wish for me to admit exists?

                            ETA: I'll take a gamble here --- and suppose you're talking about the "implication" of a QPQ in the Ukraine situation.

                            I believe I've stated before that QPQ is done all the time in international relations. We don't just give foreign aid because we love another country - we do it, at least in part, because we hope to influence them to do or not do certain things. That's clearly "this for that".
                            Last edited by Cow Poke; 12-03-2019, 09:16 AM.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              Those are corrupted assessments of my actual claims. So you stand corrected.

                              The issue with Ukraine is not something any single line of evidence shows. For example, the call transcript shows Trump asking Zelinsky for a 'favor' relating to investigating

                              1) Biden (and Burisma per testimony)
                              2) a debunked conspiracy theory concerning Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election.

                              When a person in power asks for a favor of a subordinate, it is not necessarily merely a 'favor'. In fact, from the subordinate's perspective, that unequal position requires they take this 'favor' as more a condition on the antecedent or even as a command - even if the person in power claims there are no strings attached. And the fact the subordinate can be implicitly coerced in such a way is why there are laws against this sort of thing.

                              consider this article on abuse of authority in the workplace:

                              https://work.chron.com/abuse-authori...lace-8178.html

                              in it we find this:

                              Source: above

                              Work»Career Advice»Workplace Etiquette»
                              Abuse of Authority in the Workplace
                              by Patrick Gleeson, Ph. D.,; Updated August 08, 2018
                              Abuse of Authority in the Workplace
                              Related Articles
                              1
                              What to Do When Someone Threatens You in the Workplace
                              2
                              Word a Grievance for a Hostile Workplace & Hostile Verbal Threats
                              3
                              Deal With a Boss Who Discriminates
                              4
                              Putting a Boss on Notice for Workplace Bullying
                              Abuse of authority in the workplace takes many different forms. What you should do about it depends in part not only on the severity and frequency of the abuse, but also on its specific nature. Even one instance of racially or sexually-motivated abuse is cause for filing a report. Other instances of bad behavior are reportable, but can sometimes be stopped by instead confronting the abuser.



                              Trouble Spots
                              Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said about pornography that he "knows it when he sees it." Abuse of authority in the workplace has this in common with Justice Potter's definition of pornography -- that even though there might not be a clear demarcation point beyond which a boss's bad behavior rises to the level of abuse of authority -- most workers know when bosses abuse their authority, especially when the abuse affects them directly.

                              Certain actions by a boss or conditions that a boss may impose on a subordinate are likely trouble-spots. Here are some instances:

                              Favoritism
                              Bullying
                              Unreasonable and arbitrary demands on subordinates
                              Suggestive or threatening sexual behavior
                              Discrimination based on sexual orientation, racial and ethnic identity or age
                              Financial malfeasance
                              Requiring employees to perform personal tasks

                              Verbal intimidation

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              I have bolded the two that apply here.

                              So this request for a 'favor' is not by any means innocent or without implication of quid pro quo. Trump asks for that favor in relation to a requested meeting at the white house. So there is a direct tie to the meeting and the investigation. Exactly how much of a tie exists, whether or not Trump would hold non-compliance with the favor as a strict condition for the meeting is not clearly established in the call transcript itself. But the fact Trump has connected them is. And the fact Trump holds power over Ukraine makes that tie a likely abuse of power. Especially given Trump's history of exactly those kinds of ties and quid pro quo directives in his life as a businessman. ESPECIALLY in light of recorded conversations with his 'fixer' and others where he clearly gets others to do his bidding using exactly that same sort of implicit language.

                              Your denial of what I make clear above is the dishonest part of your claim about me in your reply. These are real issues. Companies get sued over violations. Managers get fired. Criminal entities make use of these sorts of techniques to create plausible deniability all the time. To claim there is 'no indication of quid pro quo' in the transcript then is simply a lie. There is an indication of quid pro quo, even a strong indication given DT's historical use of such language, but not proof.

                              And we could have a meaninful discussion if you, or MM, or pix, or CP, could admit that the implication exists, but there is no proof. That is where the truth lives concerning the transcript. The truth is not as Trump and the GOP claims - no indication of quid pro quo in the transcript. And likewise, the truth is not 'the transcript proves quid pro quo'. The truth is between the two.

                              To establish there was quid pro quo requires the additional testimony and facts gleaned in the investigations applied to the entire issue in a logical, deductive manner. When that is done, the potentially innocent 'alternative' possibilities' that exist as theoretical implications of the 'favor' requested in the transcript are eliminated beyond reasonable doubt.
                              Reality: you’re incapable of having a meaningful discussion on all things Trump because you seem to have a belief he’s the Antichrist and there is no evil he can’t perform. There is no meaningful discussion to be had, with such an extreme viewpoint.
                              "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                              GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                Correct me if I'm wrong but you also maintain that Trump colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 election, that the transcript of the call Trump-Zelensky call shows a demand for quid pro quo, and that the witnesses were all giving direct testimony rather than repeating second, third and even fourth hand hearsay.
                                Out of curiosity, what do you think Trump would have said if he was trying to demand quid pro quo?

                                Alternatively, if he actually was demanding quid pro quo, could the words he used be interpreted in that way?

                                You keep complaining about hearsay but it’s well understood now (I didn’t know before) that the intelligence committee was conducting an evidence gathering inquiry. This makes the hearsay complaints even more ridiculous than before. Has anyone ever had an issue with hearsay during evidence gathering before this?

                                Also which witnesses testimony do you think was all hearsay?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                63 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                249 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                107 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                334 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X