(01-26-2020, 07:41 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2020, 10:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know who you are either. Not personal.
Both of you seem to think I should view you as experts even though I have no idea what you do for a living or where you learn things.
I at least give links to what I talk about. Stuff from real journalists and real experts.
How irrelevant, but consistent. It's a messageboard, bro. No one knows who anyone is. I have two degrees in poli sci and international affairs. I have mentioned this before, but the truth is it doesn't matter. My education is unessential in an argument. It's called appeal to authority. This is true whether I appeal to myself or to any other authority. One could use authority as a weight to tip the scales in favor of a position when making a personal evaluation (all other things being equal), but it is not a metric for truth. You don't seem to get this, despite it having been addressed multiple times.
Even so, JJ constantly links to sources. I used to, before I realized you're a pretentious blowhard that holds everyone else to a different standard than yourself. You stand only on what is convenient to your current argument. I can understand why progressive posters do this: They are operating with a different world view. You don't make this same claim, so your motivation to argue seems to be driven by unearned pompousness. Even after people address every point you make, you just go back to using your original premise to support your position with zero regard to the conversation that came before it.
Imo, you are the most disingenuous person on this board. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that almost everyone on this board has a problem with the way you argue, which should give you pause, but it doesn't. I would much rather be involved in the point/counterpoint parts of these debates, but your involvement renders that moot. So, I instead choose to waste my time berating you. Fortunately for everyone on this board, I only have the stomach to do it in spurts.
My undergrad is a BS in meme develooment but my graduate degrees are dark humor and troll mockery.
(01-26-2020, 02:07 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2020, 05:04 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I checked on it. I see huffing and puffing about the whistleblower, as if it matters who the whistleblower is, and a claim that Trump withheld aid from many countries besides Ukraine. This is an equivocation. Congress was notified about aid being withheld from other countries, and the reasons given were in each case national rather than personal or partisan.
More lies. Sad!
The last time I checked, My natural right to confront my accuser trumps a statute pertaining to the actions of the Inspector General. Especially in this case where it is alleged that the leaker would have been a subject in any investigation of the Biden's.
An impeachment trial is not a criminal trial. There is not any absolute right to confront accusers or cross examine witnesses. Maybe there should be, but there isn't.
(01-26-2020, 07:41 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2020, 10:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know who you are either. Not personal.
Both of you seem to think I should view you as experts even though I have no idea what you do for a living or where you learn things.
I at least give links to what I talk about. Stuff from real journalists and real experts.
How irrelevant, but consistent. It's a messageboard, bro. No one knows who anyone is. I have two degrees in poli sci and international affairs. I have mentioned this before, but the truth is it doesn't matter. My education is unessential in an argument. It's called appeal to authority. This is true whether I appeal to myself or to any other authority. One could use authority as a weight to tip the scales in favor of a position when making a personal evaluation (all other things being equal), but it is not a metric for truth. You don't seem to get this, despite it having been addressed multiple times.
Your degrees don't necessarily mean you're right about anything or everything, but they do help me understand where you're coming from and add to the conversation.
As for links, we need to bring those in because none of us know anything about any of this firsthand. We have to start from a common set of facts, then we can decide what our various opinions about those facts are.
(01-26-2020, 07:41 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2020, 10:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know who you are either. Not personal.
Both of you seem to think I should view you as experts even though I have no idea what you do for a living or where you learn things.
I at least give links to what I talk about. Stuff from real journalists and real experts.
Even so, JJ constantly links to sources. I used to, before I realized you're a pretentious blowhard that holds everyone else to a different standard than yourself. You stand only on what is convenient to your current argument. I can understand why progressive posters do this: They are operating with a different world view. You don't make this same claim, so your motivation to argue seems to be driven by unearned pompousness. Even after people address every point you make, you just go back to using your original premise to support your position with zero regard to the conversation that came before it.
Imo, you are the most disingenuous person on this board. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that almost everyone on this board has a problem with the way you argue, which should give you pause, but it doesn't. I would much rather be involved in the point/counterpoint parts of these debates, but your involvement renders that moot. So, I instead choose to waste my time berating you. Fortunately for everyone on this board, I only have the stomach to do it in spurts.
There aren't a lot of people who persistently discuss politics on this board. There's about 10 of you, and 9 out of the 10 have a point of view somewhere to the right of Fox News. There's RJ, but he is satisfied just to tell you that he thinks you're wrong. I'm trying to show you why I think you're wrong. Maybe that makes me a bad person. It obviously annoys you.
I'm trying to understand what you want. What would be better for you? Do you just want no one to disagree ever? Or do you want people to only disagree briefly without ever explaining why?
(01-26-2020, 09:27 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 02:07 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]The last time I checked, My natural right to confront my accuser trumps a statute pertaining to the actions of the Inspector General. Especially in this case where it is alleged that the leaker would have been a subject in any investigation of the Biden's.
An impeachment trial is not a criminal trial. There is not any absolute right to confront accusers or cross examine witnesses. Maybe there should be, but there isn't.
This is the south down here boy. We don't think u should have the right to not be enslaved...
The nazis wrote clear laws that jews were inferior. As long as its stamped with an official seal were golden right.
Congress shall make no law.... but RULES...
someone please tell this guy what inalienable means.
(01-26-2020, 10:23 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 09:27 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]An impeachment trial is not a criminal trial. There is not any absolute right to confront accusers or cross examine witnesses. Maybe there should be, but there isn't.
This is the south down here boy. We don't think u should have the right to not be enslaved...
The nazis wrote clear laws that jews were inferior. As long as its stamped with an official seal were golden right.
Congress shall make no law.... but RULES...
someone please tell this guy what inalienable means.
I know very well what inalienable means.
We hold it self evident that the rights to life, liberty, and property are inalienable.
The impeachment trial proposes to remove Donald Trump from the presidency. It does not propose to end his life. It does not propose to put him in jail (to take his liberty). And it does not propose to take any property from him.
'Meet the Press' just showed a Maureen Dowd quote which cited a dem Senator aide who said their phones were not ringing. "No one cares."
![[Image: tenor.gif?itemid=14071016]](https://media1.tenor.com/images/35b470ee7b526a4ad5e38a8da76488c7/tenor.gif?itemid=14071016)
(01-26-2020, 09:27 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 02:07 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]The last time I checked, My natural right to confront my accuser trumps a statute pertaining to the actions of the Inspector General. Especially in this case where it is alleged that the leaker would have been a subject in any investigation of the Biden's.
An impeachment trial is not a criminal trial. There is not any absolute right to confront accusers or cross examine witnesses. Maybe there should be, but there isn’t.
Didn’t you use a violation of the Impoundment Control Act as one of your reasons Trump should be impeached?
You have a right to cross-examine during civil cases too. This is a trial and Trump’s right to face his accuser still stands.
Schiff kept citing news articles and opinion pieces to make his case, but these items notably contained unverified or anonymous sources. I think they were fabrications by the failed screenwriter Schiff himself. He was the unverified source.
(01-26-2020, 10:54 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 09:48 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]There aren't a lot of people who persistently discuss politics on this board. There's about 10 of you, and 9 out of the 10 have a point of view somewhere to the right of Fox News. There's RJ, but he is satisfied just to tell you that he thinks you're wrong. I'm trying to show you why I think you're wrong. Maybe that makes me a bad person. It obviously annoys you.
I'm trying to understand what you want. What would be better for you? Do you just want no one to disagree ever? Or do you want people to only disagree briefly without ever explaining why?
We would love someone to argue with us. But reading your lie after lie is not the opposing position we want.
I never state any facts unless I believe they're true.
Opinions are never lies, they're just opinions.
You could say that omitting relevant facts is a type of lie, but it's also a basic tactic of persuasion or debate. Make your opponent state the facts that undermine your case.
If you catch me stating a fact you think is false, know that I didn't do it on purpose. I believed it was true. Tell me why you think it's false.
(01-26-2020, 10:51 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 10:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I know very well what inalienable means.
We hold it self evident that the rights to life, liberty, and property are inalienable.
The impeachment trial proposes to remove Donald Trump from the presidency. It does not propose to end his life. It does not propose to put him in jail (to take his liberty). And it does not propose to take any property from him.
Removing Donald Trump from office will result in many citizens losing their lives, liberty, and/or property.
Huh? Mike Pence will start the bugaloo? What are you on about?
(01-26-2020, 02:07 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2020, 05:04 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Trump withheld aid from many countries besides Ukraine. This is an equivocation. Congress was notified about aid being withheld from other countries, and the reasons given were in each case national rather than personal or partisan.
More lies. Sad!
under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, you don't have to notify congress of a temporary hold if the funds are ultimately going to be spent before the end of the fiscal year. That would have occurred on 9-30-2019. The funds flowed between 9-11-19 and 9-12-19.
Congress has to be sent some sort of special memo in all cases.
(01-26-2020, 03:15 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 02:07 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, you don't have to notify congress of a temporary hold if the funds are ultimately going to be spent before the end of the fiscal year. That would have occurred on 9-30-2019. The funds flowed between 9-11-19 and 9-12-19.
Congress has to be sent some sort of special memo in all cases.
In the case if a temporary hold he doesnt need their approval. It was a 6 week hold. Not 6 months and the funds were released before their expiration.
(01-26-2020, 04:22 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 03:15 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Congress has to be sent some sort of special memo in all cases.
In the case if a temporary hold he doesnt need their approval. It was a 6 week hold. Not 6 months and the funds were released before their expiration.
You're correct that approval from Congress isn't needed in some cases, but notification of Congress is required in all cases. You have to tell them what's going on even if you don't need their permission.
(01-26-2020, 05:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 04:22 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]In the case if a temporary hold he doesnt need their approval. It was a 6 week hold. Not 6 months and the funds were released before their expiration.
You're correct that approval from Congress isn't needed in some cases, but notification of Congress is required in all cases. You have to tell them what's going on even if you don't need their permission.
There is a specific timetable that the money must be spent, there is no specific timetable for a notification for temporary delay.
The GAO opinion has nothing to do with notification. It was about a miscommunication over reasoning.
(01-26-2020, 05:48 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 05:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You're correct that approval from Congress isn't needed in some cases, but notification of Congress is required in all cases. You have to tell them what's going on even if you don't need their permission.
There is a specific timetable that the money must be spent, there is no specific timetable for a notification for temporary delay.
The GAO opinion has nothing to do with notification. It was about a miscommunication over reasoning.
Not to mention the timing of the GAO opinion was a little suspect.
(01-26-2020, 05:52 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 05:48 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]There is a specific timetable that the money must be spent, there is no specific timetable for a notification for temporary delay.
The GAO opinion has nothing to do with notification. It was about a miscommunication over reasoning.
Not to mention the timing of the GAO opinion was a little suspect.
Beyond suspect. This was all coordinated.
(01-26-2020, 05:48 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 05:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You're correct that approval from Congress isn't needed in some cases, but notification of Congress is required in all cases. You have to tell them what's going on even if you don't need their permission.
There is a specific timetable that the money must be spent, there is no specific timetable for a notification for temporary delay.
The GAO opinion has nothing to do with notification. It was about a miscommunication over reasoning.
The GAO report's author is not sure of if the hold should be considered a "rescission" or a "deferral". When somebody from the White House sends the proper memo to Congress, it says which part of the law they are using. Both parts require a memo, however.
(01-26-2020, 07:11 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 05:52 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Not to mention the timing of the GAO opinion was a little suspect.
Beyond suspect. This was all coordinated.
More likely than not, Nancy knew that the GAO report was coming, which is why she delayed handing the articles over. That may seem unfair. But so is using the power of the White House to get foreign governments to investigate your political opponents without probable cause.