News Us politics - read first post before comment

[mumstheword]

HUH? "... partisan politics rather than rule of law are going to decide his guilt" "the upshot of that is the President may not be above … but is apparently above the law". Ludicrous.

We don't have a "parliament" though don't worry the House of Representatives are trying to make this so as hard as they might.

Were you aware @Sideways, that Trump WANTED it to go to trial? He was happy to have the case investigated because there is real substance to the alleged Biden corruption.

In what way is it NOT the leader of the administative branch of US gov's job to make sure a regime getting aid is NOT using the money for corrupt purposes?

Did you know Joe Biden is caught on camera at the Council for Foreign Affairs boasting and admitting that he threatened to withhold aid to stop a Ukrainian investigation into BURISMA, the company his son was getting paid 100's of 1000's of $'s to sit on. A man with a disreputable history (thrown out of the military for drug related shenanigans, no experience with gas or any appropriate creds, other than being the vice president of US's son)???

So in what way is the president "above the law" for wanting that cleared up? Especially when.the newly elected Ukrainian president ran.on an.anti corruption platform and was voted for by Ukrainians, obs fed up with the rampant corruption in their gov.

Trump has given more substantial aid than.the Obama regime did, too, and in what way is he "out of.line" wanting those gov's who run europe/the EU to contribute aid, when it is the EU who carry on about Russia, being such a threat, them and the CIA and affiliated sub sets of the globalist regime(s) . Trump has been civil but firm with Putin and Russia, unlike Obama, who was also caught on camera offering to cook up deals with Russia ... dubious intent. Did you hear about the Uranium One scandal? Worth looking into. A taste of the kinds of things the Obama/Clinton/Biden administration got up to.

NO ONE tried to impeach Obama, despite the blatant and obv dubious actions there. Things like pallets of (millions of) cash delivered by air to Iran. Iran, who fund terrorist orgs with cash Hmmmmm. Wha?????

so I don't know what you mean.by "dyregulated" or "hysterical". Both The Albatross and myself have substantiated our political.perspective with actual, observable factual arguments, but it does require an interest in getting to the bottom of what actually is, and has, been going on. Not derailing.the discussion with emotion-based allegations..

 

[Sideways]

The Albatross and myself have substantiated our political.perspective with actual, observable factual arguments,

"Ludicrous" isn't an argument.

Please - stop assuming that I don't know the facts. I'm confident that you're (both) underestimating me in that regard.

I'm happy to engage in debate about the issues that I've posted about.

Otherwise, please stop singling me out for posts that simply don't relate to the argument I was putting forward. It's bullying behaviour, and has no place here.

ETA In response to your question, "Do you know..." - yes. I'm aware of the statements Trump has made. The fact that you disagree with me? Doesn't make me uninformed.

More to the point, Trump's personal opinion about getting the impeachment over and done with isn't at odds with the argument I put forward, Trump and I are in agreement there. And since you apparently got up in the middle of the night to watch opening statements, you'd know that Trump's lawyer agrees with me that this impeachment trial is as much a partisan farce as the last impeachment trial. So...if you understood my argument, you'd know that Trump's legal team and I are pretty much on the same page there.

So please, spare me the education on all of the things you seem to think I don't know about, because I haven't disrespected either of you that way.

 

[mumstheword]

Well let's just talk about the facts then. No hard feelings, just politcal discussion, with an intent to further awareness of the facts, as a means to further (our) self empowered, political awareness.

Trump's wanting to "get it over with" because, in his eyes, there is no there, there, isn't at odds with him being open and willing for the matter to go to trial. He has repeatedly stated that he did nothing wrong.

And it's up to the Dems to prove he did.

They are not behaving like that though, are they ? Congress Dems and their allies, repeatedly, act in an unconstitutional.manner, as does the press (although, I guess the left press are not as mandated to behave constitutionally) - by stating he is guilty, but where is the evidence?

If I'm not mistaken, the U.S. constitution states one is innocent until proven guilty.

Even Mueller, with the dubious Mueller report, tried to state. In his final press statement, that, basically, and I'm paraphrasing here, just because they couldn't find substantiated evidence, it doesn't mean Trump is cleared/innocent.

Totally unconstitutional position.

It's a logical deduction to say the Mueller report was inadequate and sketchy, on my part. Why else would Barr and Durham have been.called in to investigate the origins of the Steele Dossier and the "Russia Collusion" narrative?

As The Abatross has stated, never before has a president undergone such intense scrutiny; and and all they could come.up with is some vague "Abuse of power" allegation?

And "Obstruction of Congress"?

A "Democratic" ( in inverted commas because they are actually undermining democracy, irony of ironies) majority have been calling for his impeachment since and even before, he was sworn in ,and took office.

Do you allow yourself to.be bullied by people who want to destroy you and thwart your intent?

Because that is what the Congress Dems (and their media and "deep state" allies) have been, transparently and covertly doing, this whole time; so, of course, it feels like a waste of time to POTUS, who has been busy making trade deals, strengthening.the economy, freeing unjustly imprisoned people (see First Step act), standing up to foreign regimes who hate America (see Iran and their funded terror regime etc...), making good on his strengthening American borders promise, and withdrawing support for wars in the Middle East (unlike John Bolton, who lefties are loving now, after he comes out with his anti POTUS accusations), and, tackling the substantial and entrenched corruption within his country and involving shady deals in other countries (as in the Biden's in China and the Ukraine, for example).

So why would he want to capitulate to those, overtly unfair and unconstitutional tactics?

Another thing...

How great are loose borders when a virus breaks out? If this coronavirus teaches us nothing else, it should teach is that borders are actually important. If a virus started in.Mexico, perhaps those lefties that hate Trump, for the border wall, would rethink their position.

Really, it comes down to the question;

What is it that you think he did, that's so illegal?????

 

[Ronin]

Scare mongering and what ifs and xenophobic strawmen border hate speech.

So reported.

 

[Chris-duck]

How great are loose borders when a virus breaks out? If this coronavirus teaches us nothing else, it should teach is that borders are actually important.

This isnt accurate. The coronavirus is less deadly than the flu that happens to multiple people every single year. It's not a borders issue, illness happens. It's interesting to me how people kick off about foreign people coming to UK/USA/Australia due to illnesses, but *our* flu would probably wipe out a crapton of people abroad, media scaremongering at its finest.

 

[mumstheword]

This isnt accurate. The coronavirus is less deadly than the flu that happens to multiple people every single year. It's not a borders issue, illness happens. It's interesting to me how people kick off about foreign people coming to UK/USA/Australia due to illnesses, but *our* flu would probably wipe out a crapton of people abroad, media scaremongering at its finest.

That doesn't negate the point though. The point is, were there to be a "real" pandemic scare, borders and boundaries would be an important aspect of containing them/it.

I don't know the full story about the coronavirus and like you I have a healthy scepticism about the msm.
Fearmongering and vested interests abound.

I don't think we have the full story about the coronavirus, but rumours are that's it's worse than official reports say it is, in terms of deaths and it's swift spread. I don't know what's going on, and for all I know the press is exaggerating, for covert reasons that we are not privy to.I just don't know enough.

Personally, I'm not going to freak out. I believe when my times up my times up but I have had nasty virus's that caused long term illness and life crisis. I don't have the means to travel anywhere, so it doesn't affect my decisions, though.

The point is boundaries and borders have their place. In times of crisis, they protect people within them. That's the purpose and reason for them. I am.very sceptical of the George Soros funded open.borders push.

But don't take my.word on anything. I encourage those who find my opinions objectional, to do their own research. My opinions are just my opinions.

 

[Ronin]

What are you even talking about, Mums?

Rumors and such nonsense aren't reporting. Aren't facts.

Covert reasons blah blah, in this discussion, is paranoid nonsense and a logical fallacy.

Borders as a so big protection and go on, I could well argue is just a logic supporting mass murder, ethnic cleansings, forced displacement of populations begging for help, and other major human rights violations.

And I hate memes on a lot of things, but Natives with the message to xenophobic Americans are onto something.

There probably are people who would make it first with that Get out of truly American land argument.

.... which while we are at it, is sooo antiAmerican altogether, and frankly disgusting.

So can we drop the xenophobic nonsense already, or.

 

[joeylittle]

And it's up to the Dems to prove he did.

They are not behaving like that though, are they ? Congress Dems and their allies, repeatedly, act in an unconstitutional.manner, as does the press (although, I guess the left press are not as mandated to behave constitutionally) - by stating he is guilty, but where is the evidence?

If I'm not mistaken, the U.S. constitution states one is innocent until proven guilty.

Just gonna say it again...impeachment proceedings are not the same as jury-of-your-peers, innocent-until-proven-guilty criminal proceedings. Repeat, they are not. Not the same, not the same, not the same. You're seeing the sides, but I don't think you've got them in the right context.

Trump = Republican.
Senate = currently Republican
House = currently Democrat

Constitution states, impeachment initiates in the house, and concludes in the Senate. US is extremely partisan right now. Would the impeachment have made it through the House - even come up at all in the House? - were it not for the Democrat majority? Extremely doubtful.

So, they impeached. It happened. I'm not sure why you're specifically saying their actions were unconstitutional. They did exactly what the constitution allows them to do, including the part about how the majority decides the situation.

Senate looks at what the House did, and decides whether or not the impeachment will stand. In a Republican controlled Senate, with a Republican president - who is extremely popular among his base, I should add - will a Republican Senate uphold and enforce the House's impeachment resolution?

No. They will not.

So, what's this all about then? Politics. And I don't mean that dismissively. We're dealing with how our government decides to go about governing. How they apply the Constitution. What they decide, matters.

But make no mistake - it will happen along party lines. Same as it did with Bill Clinton's impeachment back in the 90s.

If a virus started in.Mexico, perhaps those lefties that hate Trump, for the border wall, would rethink t

It's not a wall. It's a slatted fence. Viruses could technically be transmitted fairly easily.

The point is boundaries and borders have their place.

That's a much more discussable way to make the point. Thank you for clarifying. And yes, they do. I don't think the virus topic is especially relevant to the US southern border, though.

 

[Sideways]

What is it that you think he did, that's so illegal?????

Right, so either you haven't read my posts, or you don't understand.

Here's a mindtrip for you: my position on this is neither for or against Trump.

I haven't speculated on whether there is any basis to the allegations or not. Don't personally care.

My arguments aren't for Trump, or against Trump.

"Innocent until proven guilty" - this would be where I was arguing that that rule of law and natural justice actual matters. Which is all I was arguing.

So back up, read posts that you're responding to. If you don't understand what I've said? Go ahead and ask.

But you've outlined why you think I'm an idiot, and then put my exact argument back to me. Check yourself, Mums, because my argument isn't anti-Trump. It isn't one way or the other as far as Trump is concerned.

 

[Justmehere]

General overview of the Impeachment process from NPR: How The Senate Impeachment Trial Works

From ABC news:

An impeachment proceeding is the formal process by which a sitting president of the United States may be accused of wrongdoing. It is a political process and not a criminal process.
Trump impeachment: Here's how the process works

From a very right leaning source, The Hill:

Trump himself tweeted about the Mueller Report: “There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed!” Pundits have picked up on this distortion, opining, for example, that “Trump is correct that the public ought to maintain the presumption of innocence.”

Wrong.

Politicians who come under fire for abusing their office do not get a legal presumption of innocence. People only get the presumption of innocence if they are indicted and facing trial for crimes. The presumption of innocence is for criminal defendants, not presidents.
Why the presumption of innocence doesn't apply to Trump

This is a political process. Not a criminal or civil trial. They can't send the President to jail or fine him. Civil and criminal courts would have to be engaged to do that. This is a political process about if the President gets to keep the elected position of President or not. Totally different ballgame than a civil or criminal trial, and no, the President does not have the same rights or responsibilities. One example: he doesn't even have to show up for the whole thing. If this was a civil or criminal trial, it would be a very different story. He would HAVE to show up or be penalized for not doing so. Instead, he's skipping the whole thing. Take what you know and expect for a civil or criminal trial and throw it out. This is a political matter. Totally different rules and process.

 

[mumstheword]

Right, so either you haven't read my posts, or you don't understand.

Here's a mindtrip for you: my position on this is neither for or against Trump.

I haven't speculated on whether there is any basis to the allegations or not. Don't personally care.

My arguments aren't for Trump, or against Trump.

"Innocent until proven guilty" - this would be where I was arguing that that rule of law and natural justice actual matters. Which is all I was arguing.

So back up, read posts that you're responding to. If you don't understand what I've said? Go ahead and ask.

But you've outlined why you think I'm an idiot, and then put my exact argument back to me. Check yourself, Mums, because my argument isn't anti-Trump. It isn't one way or the other as far as Trump is concerned.

I was responding to a statement you, yourself made about "Trump being above the law".

And your cynical attitude toward.the impeachment trial. But you yourself admit you havn't watched it.

 

[mumstheword]

So, I'm going to bow out now anyway. There's a hostile tone and baseless accusations about me being zenophobe, so I'm out.
I've been deliberately taken out of context and its degenerated into a personal attack fest, so I'm out.