Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
List of Trump's crimes?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Watermelon View PostOh 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.
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 PostIn 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.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 PostIt’s because I’m worried about how you left rational behind, to embrace conspiracy theories.
For you to call that a 'conspiracy theory' is ... well ... a conspiracy theoryMy 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 PostI 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
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 PostNo 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.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 PostWhen 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.'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 PostI 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.
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 PostIt 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.
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 PostThere'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.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostCorrect 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.
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:
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 PostAnd 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. ....
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 PostThose 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:
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."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 PostCorrect 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.
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
by Sparko
Today, 08:33 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
42 responses
249 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:53 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
107 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
194 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Today, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
73 responses
334 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 03:51 AM |
Comment