Impeachment failing in battleground states
Moderator: Global Moderator
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14306
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
Let's see how Merkel's experiment in Germany plays out.
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
Pot... meet kettle. One would think that Trumpanzees would shy away from the whole "please back up your opinions up with data" rhetoric and skip right to the non-sequiters, straw-men, and factless rambling retorts.MangoMan wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 3:58 pmboglerdude wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:24 pm Open the borders to increase supply of skilled labor. And allow more US medical and dental grads.
Opening the borders will increase the supply of UNskilled labor and welfare recipients. You are delusional if you think otherwise.
Allowing more healthcare grads will solve nothing other than to further saturate the already over-saturated urban and suburban areas with providers who will then need to cut costs and patient time in order to survive. You know not of what you speak. I have 35 years in the industry, and increasing the output of dentists was counter-productive on all levels. Now corporate dentistry is taking over because they can use economies of scale to reduce overhead and increase profitability, but at the cost of over treatment and poor quality outcomes.
If you are going to make statements, please provide some data to back up your opinions.
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
Ok Boomer... Your experience in dentistry and narrative wreak of someone who is just realizing that his cartelized industry is being filled with more supply than before, therefore decreasing the ability to profit obscenely off of customers. I don't know what the "Right Amount" of dentists are, but I'mMangoMan wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:03 pmLOL. Thanks for the ad hominem attack I've missed in your absence. And the usual 'only my sources are good' attitude. I guess working in the dental trenches for 35 years does not qualify me, in your ever so humble opinion, as an authority on the topic of the dentistry. And how exactly did this become about Trump?moda0306 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 5:34 pmPot... meet kettle. One would think that Trumpanzees would shy away from the whole "please back up your opinions up with data" rhetoric and skip right to the non-sequiters, straw-men, and factless rambling retorts.MangoMan wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 3:58 pmboglerdude wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:24 pm Open the borders to increase supply of skilled labor. And allow more US medical and dental grads.
Opening the borders will increase the supply of UNskilled labor and welfare recipients. You are delusional if you think otherwise.
Allowing more healthcare grads will solve nothing other than to further saturate the already over-saturated urban and suburban areas with providers who will then need to cut costs and patient time in order to survive. You know not of what you speak. I have 35 years in the industry, and increasing the output of dentists was counter-productive on all levels. Now corporate dentistry is taking over because they can use economies of scale to reduce overhead and increase profitability, but at the cost of over treatment and poor quality outcomes.
If you are going to make statements, please provide some data to back up your opinions.
And yeah when you use Breitbart and Prager F'king U as sources then lecture someone else to find sources when you're just using your experience in the dental industry to speak to immigration policy, then yeah I'm going to throw out an Ad Hom (though not really, as I'm not levying a judgment of your argument based on said insult).
And we are discussing immigration policy. Your support of Trump is more valid in a good jab at your inconsistency and lack of informed argumentation than your Dental experience is to the topic of immigration.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14306
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
Ooh, thread got spicy while I was offline doing paperwork.
- I Shrugged
- Executive Member
- Posts: 2064
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
Jeez, I heard the opposite. Doodle, I think you need to broaden your coverage sources. Try these short videos of his testimony:doodle wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 8:11 am Only because they arent paying attention or just don't care about presidential abuse of power.
"I would love to send Ambassador Sondland, a really good man and great American, to testify, but unfortunately he would be testifying before a totally compromised kangaroo court, where Republican’s rights have been taken away, and true facts are not allowed out for the public...."
So what does Sondland say....there was absolutey a quid pro quo at presidents behest...US aid for political dirt on rival.
That's enough for me. Impeach
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_c17vxrPWQ
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J19NhzlQJwA
and finally this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-DbvapybVs
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
Jeez Moda...your lithium levels must be low.moda0306 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:46 pm Ok Boomer... Your experience in dentistry and narrative wreak of someone who is just realizing that his cartelized industry is being filled with more supply than before, therefore decreasing the ability to profit obscenely off of customers. I don't know what the "Right Amount" of dentists are, but I'm
And yeah when you use Breitbart and Prager F'king U as sources then lecture someone else to find sources when you're just using your experience in the dental industry to speak to immigration policy, then yeah I'm going to throw out an Ad Hom (though not really, as I'm not levying a judgment of your argument based on said insult).
And we are discussing immigration policy. Your support of Trump is more valid in a good jab at your inconsistency and lack of informed argumentation than your Dental experience is to the topic of immigration.
For starters, your average dentist (or doctor) isn't doing what they do to "profit obscenely off of customers." If you really believe that, then...may I ask if you yourself accept medical and dental care from people you revile so deeply?
And, I'm still old-fashioned enough to think that convicting someone for what he might have said during a phone call is not something that should ever happen in the U.S. justice system. The law we have (last I checked) is pretty clear that intentions can never constitute a crime - only actions with tangible results. It's not a long step from there to being able to, say, prosecute people for holding unpopular political opinions. Before you start telling us what a great thing that would be, consider that one day YOU might be the one holding the unpopular opinion.
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
Ridiculing someone isn't an "Ad Hominem." Supposing some sort of conclusion based on that insult is the ad hominem. I'm not trying to establish any conclusion... simply to put Trumpanzees in their place. And you're right... you're no-more cartelized than CPA's, and I have plenty of ridicule for my own profession, cartelization of my license, utter reliance on the complexity of our tax code for a rich demand for our services, and don't pretend life is hard cuz immigrants and too many accounting grads.MangoMan wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 7:20 pmmoda0306 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:46 pmOk Boomer... another ad hominemMangoMan wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:03 pmLOL. Thanks for the ad hominem attack I've missed in your absence. And the usual 'only my sources are good' attitude. I guess working in the dental trenches for 35 years does not qualify me, in your ever so humble opinion, as an authority on the topic of the dentistry. And how exactly did this become about Trump?moda0306 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 5:34 pmPot... meet kettle. One would think that Trumpanzees would shy away from the whole "please back up your opinions up with data" rhetoric and skip right to the non-sequiters, straw-men, and factless rambling retorts.MangoMan wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 3:58 pmboglerdude wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:24 pm Open the borders to increase supply of skilled labor. And allow more US medical and dental grads.
Opening the borders will increase the supply of UNskilled labor and welfare recipients. You are delusional if you think otherwise.
Allowing more healthcare grads will solve nothing other than to further saturate the already over-saturated urban and suburban areas with providers who will then need to cut costs and patient time in order to survive. You know not of what you speak. I have 35 years in the industry, and increasing the output of dentists was counter-productive on all levels. Now corporate dentistry is taking over because they can use economies of scale to reduce overhead and increase profitability, but at the cost of over treatment and poor quality outcomes.
If you are going to make statements, please provide some data to back up your opinions.
Your experience in dentistry and narrative wreak of someone who is just realizing that his cartelized industry is being filled with more supply than before, I realized this 35 years ago when I graduated. But regardless, dentistry is not a cartel any more than CPAs are.
therefore decreasing the ability to profit obscenely off of customers. Another ad hominem, and obscenely? Really? Are you profiting obscenely from your clients?
I don't know what the "Right Amount" of dentists are, but I'm kind of a jerk? You're right, you have no clue what the right number is. Thank goodness it's not you setting policy.
And yeah when you use Breitbart I don't read Breitbart, and have never quoted them.
and Prager F'king U Still not sure what your issue is with Prager, besides that he is a conservative. There is nothing that is not fact and education in their videos.
as sources then lecture someone else to find sources when you're just using your experience in the dental industry to speak to immigration policy I did no such thing. I was only referring to boglerdude's second baseless comment when claiming to be an expert.
then yeah I'm going to throw out an Ad Hom (though not really, as I'm not levying a judgment of your argument based on said insult).
And we are discussing immigration policy. No, actually we are discussing impeachment and its effect on battleground states.
Your support of Trump is more valid in a good jab at your inconsistency and lack of informed argumentation than your Dental experience is to the topic of immigration. Again, what does Trump have to do with this other than your TDS? I did not mention his name, nor did I say I was a supporter. Maybe a bit less of the weed you've been smoking my friend; it must be pretty strong.
The idea that Prager U operates only in facts, and not priorities, values and opinions, is garbage.
If you're going to ridicule people for not backing up their posts with facts, quit parading around this place with your partisan factless/sourceless posts and "dental experience."
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
I don't "revile" any profession. I just ask that professions are honest about the advantages they have and don't scape-goat immigrants and academia for their inability to make a tidy profit.WiseOne wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:02 amJeez Moda...your lithium levels must be low.moda0306 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:46 pm Ok Boomer... Your experience in dentistry and narrative wreak of someone who is just realizing that his cartelized industry is being filled with more supply than before, therefore decreasing the ability to profit obscenely off of customers. I don't know what the "Right Amount" of dentists are, but I'm
And yeah when you use Breitbart and Prager F'king U as sources then lecture someone else to find sources when you're just using your experience in the dental industry to speak to immigration policy, then yeah I'm going to throw out an Ad Hom (though not really, as I'm not levying a judgment of your argument based on said insult).
And we are discussing immigration policy. Your support of Trump is more valid in a good jab at your inconsistency and lack of informed argumentation than your Dental experience is to the topic of immigration.
For starters, your average dentist (or doctor) isn't doing what they do to "profit obscenely off of customers." If you really believe that, then...may I ask if you yourself accept medical and dental care from people you revile so deeply?
And, I'm still old-fashioned enough to think that convicting someone for what he might have said during a phone call is not something that should ever happen in the U.S. justice system. The law we have (last I checked) is pretty clear that intentions can never constitute a crime - only actions with tangible results. It's not a long step from there to being able to, say, prosecute people for holding unpopular political opinions. Before you start telling us what a great thing that would be, consider that one day YOU might be the one holding the unpopular opinion.
I've had it with boomers (or anyone) trying to lecture Americans on "The Rule of Law." Law is an opinion with a gun, and that's before it's selectively enforced by Soldiers of Capital, and has been utterly ignored by conservatives and centrists (and, yes, leftists) when convenient to their cause, only to raise their concern when "their guy" becomes victim to it.
All that-said, I don't know where I ever suggested we prosecute people for unpopular political views. I'm a pretty big civil libertarian.
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
I love this forum.
Huh?
Now you've managed to display your ignorance of my profession as well. You claim that the "rule of law" is the problem, and then attempt to substantiate that proposition by citing one instance after another in which the law has been bastardized, trampled or thrown entirely by the wayside. You should take ten giant steps back and take a good, critical look at the side you're rooting for.
Last edited by Maddy on Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
- Cortopassi
- Executive Member
- Posts: 3338
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
- Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
Can someone explain then, why Blago is spending 14 years in federal prison for "trying" and failing at the same thing? Why did the dems roll over on him??
Under the direction of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald,[100] Governor Blagojevich was arrested at his home by federal agents on December 9, 2008, and charged with corruption. The Justice Department complaint alleged that the governor conspired to commit several "pay to play" schemes, including attempting "to obtain personal gain ... through the corrupt use" of his authority to fill the United States Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama following his election as president, claiming that in wiretapped recordings Blagojevich discussed his desire to get something in exchange for an appointment to the seat.
The Illinois House and Senate moved quickly thereafter to impeach the governor for abuse of power and corruption. On January 8, the Illinois House voted 114–1 (with three abstentions) to impeach Blagojevich.[104][105] The charges brought by the House emphasized Blagojevich's alleged abuses of power and his alleged attempts to sell legislative authorizations and/or vetoes, and gubernatorial appointments including that of Obama's vacated Senate seat. Blagojevich was taped by the FBI saying "I've got this thing, and it's fucking golden. I'm just not giving it up for fucking nothing."[106] He was removed from office and prohibited from ever holding public office in the state of Illinois again, by two separate and unanimous votes of 59–0 by the Illinois Senate on January 29, 2009. Blagojevich's lieutenant governor Patrick Quinn subsequently became governor of Illinois.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
Do you honestly think the Blagojevich and Trump situations are equal?
- Cortopassi
- Executive Member
- Posts: 3338
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
- Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
No, but similar. So, my question would be is if a tape of the phone call Trump had come out and clearly showed he was going to withhold aid, would that make a 100% difference to republicans?
Are they taking their positions simply because there is no specific hard evidence?
Are they taking their positions simply because there is no specific hard evidence?
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
"The Rule of Law" is a problem... not THE problem. Part of the problem is that even if "The Law" could be enforced without the enforcement arm of the state imploding on itself, it still would be just an opinion with a process that is pre-decided by some that was legitimate. Others would likely disagree.Maddy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:08 amI love this forum.
Huh?
Now you've managed to display your ignorance of my profession as well. You claim that the "rule of law" is the problem, and then attempt to substantiate that proposition by citing one instance after another in which the law has been bastardized, trampled or thrown entirely by the wayside. You should take ten giant steps back and take a good, critical look at the side you're rooting for.
The other part of the problem is that because the system can't enforce all laws without imploding, that huge imbalanced priorities are made about when/how to enforce which laws, and people quickly go from wanting some laws enforced to wanting others not enforced based on moving goalposts of reasoning.
I didn't really give examples, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I more or less said that conservatives and centrists are clownish and hypocritical on "The Rule of Law," just as many on the left are, though not all of them try to communicate "Rule of Law" values as their driving moral force, but some other moral priority.
What "side" do you assume I'm rooting for? I'm not terribly confident on impeachment. I have mixed feelings on it. What I am confident is that Trumpanzees have no f'ing idea what they're talking about, and are hopeless tribal boobs.
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
I wonder, when Trump gives one of his slurred, stroked-out, meandering speeches, does that indicate he might need some sort of deficiency test?
Or is it just senility setting in? I'd love to see a cognitive impairment test on the man...
You Trumpists really are something to behold... but I don't say this with little anger. Just confusion and embarrassment. This place used to have some really damn intelligent conversations going on.
And pug I also attacked your argument... the nicknames were for effect and to call out idiocy when I see it. So there was no "avoidance." I'm not trying to build my conclusion on a premises of insults.
Lastly, the idea that PragerU is way more than just facts isn't a matter of disagreeing with their politics. It would be equally ridiculous to say that Glenn Greenwald is "Just the facts," which I'd never do. PragerU is absolutely dripping with opinion. You may agree with those opinions, but to pretend it's "nothing but facts and education" is idiotic on its face.
Or is it just senility setting in? I'd love to see a cognitive impairment test on the man...
You Trumpists really are something to behold... but I don't say this with little anger. Just confusion and embarrassment. This place used to have some really damn intelligent conversations going on.
And pug I also attacked your argument... the nicknames were for effect and to call out idiocy when I see it. So there was no "avoidance." I'm not trying to build my conclusion on a premises of insults.
Lastly, the idea that PragerU is way more than just facts isn't a matter of disagreeing with their politics. It would be equally ridiculous to say that Glenn Greenwald is "Just the facts," which I'd never do. PragerU is absolutely dripping with opinion. You may agree with those opinions, but to pretend it's "nothing but facts and education" is idiotic on its face.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
That's interesting, they seem very different to me.
Article of Impeachment: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/96/HR/P ... HR0005.pdf
Simply?Cortopassi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:26 pm Are they taking their positions simply because there is no specific hard evidence?
- Cortopassi
- Executive Member
- Posts: 3338
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
- Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
I am not saying Blago was a saint. And I don't know anything much more than what was on the news. But even in reading the link you provided, Blago's impeachment points are all "plots" for him to do something illegal, which at least the main one, selling the Senate seat, he failed at. So it was all just talk.
Isn't that like the republicans saying, hey, Trump tried to get them to investigate and stopped the aid for a while but they did get their aid in the end? No harm, no foul?
No harm, no foul, Blago wasn't able to sell the seat, right?
Is that not similar? Trying to do something bad/illegal, but failing? Like I tried to rob a bank but wasn't able to get away with any money, that's apparently not a crime in some weird twisted logic.
Isn't that like the republicans saying, hey, Trump tried to get them to investigate and stopped the aid for a while but they did get their aid in the end? No harm, no foul?
No harm, no foul, Blago wasn't able to sell the seat, right?
Is that not similar? Trying to do something bad/illegal, but failing? Like I tried to rob a bank but wasn't able to get away with any money, that's apparently not a crime in some weird twisted logic.
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
Taking the Blago and Trump impeachment cases together, it looks to me like the bar for impeachment is a lot lower than it is for a prosecution in a civil court. And come to think of it, Bill Clinton's little lie might not have resulted in a court case either, in the real world.
I don't think that was meant to happen though. Otherwise, the Constitution would describe impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors, or for being an a**hole". I also think that after the Bill Clinton debacle, the Republicans have lost their right to complain now that it's their guy (aka the a**hole) in the hot seat. Gotta remember that they started this, and now they have to live with the consequences: ANY government official facing a hostile legislative body can now be first extensively investigated to find the desired pretext, then impeached.
I don't think that was meant to happen though. Otherwise, the Constitution would describe impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors, or for being an a**hole". I also think that after the Bill Clinton debacle, the Republicans have lost their right to complain now that it's their guy (aka the a**hole) in the hot seat. Gotta remember that they started this, and now they have to live with the consequences: ANY government official facing a hostile legislative body can now be first extensively investigated to find the desired pretext, then impeached.
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
From sondlands opening testimony it seems like a lot of the Ukraine policy was filtered through Rudy Giuliani. Why does the president involve his private lawyer and a private citizen when conducting government foreign policy? Is Giuliani a firewall? A way to claim attorney client priviledge when conducting foreign affairs in a shady manner? If trump delegates his attorney to carry out foreign policy how does any communication between the two come to light without breaking attorney client priveledges? And if things go south, with any policy directive carried out by Giuliani trump can always throw his attorney under the bus claiming he acted independently of Trump's orders.
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
The short answer is that he was stabbed in the back too many times by Obama leftovers bent on carrying out a coup.doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:19 am From sondlands opening testimony it seems like a lot of the Ukraine policy was filtered through Rudy Giuliani. Why does the president involve his private lawyer and a private citizen when conducting government foreign policy? Is Giuliani a firewall? A way to claim attorney client priviledge when conducting foreign affairs in a shady manner? If trump delegates his attorney to carry out foreign policy how does any communication between the two come to light without breaking attorney client priveledges? And if things go south, with any policy directive carried out by Giuliani trump can always throw his attorney under the bus claiming he acted independently of Trump's orders.
Not to be confused with the Weiner guy who, when not snapping shirtless photos of himself and sexting teenage girls, was charged by the former Secretary of State with the job of safekeeping tens of thousands of classified documents.
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
A forum is the sum of its contributors. The blind spot between these statements is so large that you can drive a truck through it.
If you truly want an intelligent conversation, be the change you wish to see in the world.
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
Tyler,
I agree that a forum is a sum of its contributors. My trying to bleed any valid critical analysis out of Trumpists is the most fruitless efforts I've ever experienced. I know intelligent, intriguing leftists, libertarians, anarchists, monarchists, and conservatives. But almost all the Trump apologism here wreaks of some mix of knuckle-dragging idiocy, tribalism and groupthink. I'll "be the change I want to see" by calling out bad reasoning/sourcing where it lies, rather than put up with constant gas-lighting attempts using Scott Adams, Breitbart and Prager-U as sources.
And there's nothing contradictory about saying that conversations used to be intelligent here and engaging in pointed assessments of where we are at. If you want to call out inconsistency, look no further than the orange clown with his finger on the button.
The idea that anyone could look at the greasy clown show that is US federal politics and claim that only the Dems, in an era of that shit show in the white house, are materially part of the problem, is absolutely ludicrous.
- Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4963
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Impeachment failing in battleground states
moda,
Perhaps being respectful in your language would be a good start, maybe also being respectful of those you disagree with, even if it is President Trump. Be respectful of the office of the President if nothing else. Sugar catches more flies than vinegar.
Best wishes.
For example, these are inflamatory words in the context of your post (my opinion) - bolded text:
I agree that a forum is a sum of its contributors. My trying to bleed any valid critical analysis out of Trumpists is the most fruitless efforts I've ever experienced. I know intelligent, intriguing leftists, libertarians, anarchists, monarchists, and conservatives. But almost all the Trump apologism here wreaks of some mix of knuckle-dragging idiocy, tribalism and groupthink. I'll "be the change I want to see" by calling out bad reasoning/sourcing where it lies, rather than put up with constant gas-lighting attempts using Scott Adams, Breitbart and Prager-U as sources.
And there's nothing contradictory about saying that conversations used to be intelligent here and engaging in pointed assessments of where we are at. If you want to call out inconsistency, look no further than the orange clown with his finger on the button.
The idea that anyone could look at the greasy clown show that is US federal politics and claim that only the Dems, in an era of that shit show in the white house, are materially part of the problem, is absolutely ludicrous.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.