Jump to content
BANGKOK

JCauto

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    703
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by JCauto


  1. 23 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

     

    As impeachment is not a criminal process (which the anti trumpers like to say...and I agree), I prefer

    not to refer to these charges as crimes.

     

    Let us refer to them as grounds for impeachment...

     

    And they are very flimsy...once we get Biden and son on the stand everyone will see exactly why Trump saw the 

    Ukraine as shockingly corrupt...and was right to want to know what was going on.

    Fair enough on the "grounds" versus "crimes".

     

    I fail to see how they're "flimsy". If you don't mind, as you've been quite reasonable in both responding and doing so with some substance, would you answer these questions or provide your thoughts in another way pertaining to these issues?

    1. If a President DOES use US Government resources as a lever to get another country to investigate a domestic political opponent, do you believe that is impeachable or that it should be allowed?

    2. If you order your subordinates to not obey a legally-issued subpoena to testify, is that okay or are you allowed to do this and thereby prevent direct testimony in a congressional investigation or is it obstruction of justice?

    3. Are you at all concerned about the precedents that would be established should Trump et al get away with refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas, obstruction, dragooning foreign governments into helping investigate domestic political opponents, etc.? Because no doubt they would, leading to an endless cycle of highly partisan and illegal activity at the top of the political process.

     

    As to the Bidens and Ukraine, forgive me if I am less than impressed especially given the numerous "nothingburgers" such as Benghazi, Hilary's e-mails, etc. Those were thoroughly investigated by a completely Republican-controlled congress and they laid how many charges? None, zero, zip, nada.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

  2. 18 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

     

    Just for you...fresh off the cherry tree.....oh wait....it's a liberal rag....lol

     

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11/new-poll-suggests-democrats-impeachment-push-could-alienate-key-voters

    Thanks! It's nice when people actually respond to questions with relevant answers.

     

    Interesting poll and information. It shows there is fatigue and that people are both tired of the partisan bickering and perceive that this is more of a political/media circus rather than anything that affects their daily lives. 

    On the other hand, it also shows that these things change quite quickly as the difference was in polls between October and early November and mid-November. It remains to be seen if they're able to recapture interest and whether public perception changes again.

    • Like 1

  3. 5 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

    5555 a biased talkshow were democrats failed to present evidence. 3 muppets professors with one sided opinions, one prof turley receiving threats after his disagreeing statement.

    charade remains charade. within this charade rep nunes sues fakenews channel cnn for usd $435 million.

     

    wbr

    roobaa01

    To be perfectly clear, the one "dissenting" professor expressed concern that the process needed to be "watertight", that there needed to be a longer time for the investigation and for the people who were directly involved to testify. The Republicans have steadfastly refused to allow that. Indeed, the President suggested that the Impeachment Investigation and Trial proceed as soon as possible, something that puts him at odds with the Congressional Republicans. Which do you believe should be followed, the Professor and his Republican colleagues or the President? Do you agree with the Professor that those issued a subpoena should testify before this inquiry stage is completed?

    Lastly, I have to ask "is that the new standard you'd suggest be followed from now on?" Because, if so, then when any President is investigated, they have the right to completely ignore the investigation and legal subpoenas to get the involved parties to testify, then you can close the case and be seen as "innocent" because of the lack of direct testimony to those party to the events? Remember, there will be other presidents whom you don't like so well.  Do you wish to give them this same blank cheque to do whatever they want without oversight?

    • Haha 1

  4. 17 hours ago, BobBKK said:

    "hands up all those who have any evidence of Trump wrongdoing"?  None?  not ONE hand?

    you know that word right?  "E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E"  the sort of thing you teach in your law schools?  pathetic

    So are distinguished public civil servants whose sworn testimony directly implicates Trump not evidence? If this standard were applied to all criminal cases, there would be only stupid people in jail because the only way to get convicted would be to be caught on tape saying they done it. This is obviously not the case in any criminal inquiry, you build up evidence through actions/non-actions, communications between involved parties, understanding of those involved, the sequence of events, etc. 

    As otherwise noted, the reason there is no direct evidence of Trump saying or doing anything is that they've chosen to ignore the legal subpoenas that compel them to testify. Why won't they testify if there's nothing they've done wrong? Why are they breaking the law by not testifying? What is it they're covering up?

    Actually, we already know from Ambassador Sondland and numerous others. We just need confirmation to wrap this up. So get to Capitol Hill and demonstrate your innocence!

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

  5. 3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

    Exactly, but they are the true believers in the new religion, so they have to be right, right?

    World's been hotter and cooler, and will be again.

    What none of the Chicken Little's with their "climate emergency" hysteria overlook is that humans are only temporary visitors on planet earth. Sooner or later we will follow the dinosaurs into extinction. If we keep polluting the planet's oceans and putting more planes in the air and reproducing at an unsustainable rate it'll be sooner, and it'll all be our own fault. While I was writing this hundreds of old growth trees were cut down so Americans can have hamburgers and Europeans can have fancy soap.

    Greedy, cruel, destructive warlovers- what's to like about humans, and why do we deserve to survive?

    Care to follow up on my rebuttal of how NASA measures temperatures from earlier times or is that too inconvenient?


  6. 18 hours ago, CGW said:

    Obviously you know better than anyone that posts here that climate change is real, or you just believe anything that you read in the Main Stream Media that is supported by those in Silicone valley, namely google & facebook - if it doesn't fit into what they want us to read they will censor it & label it fake news!

    I'm sure you are aware of the many papers that have been cast aside by the MSM that have been written & supported by many university's including Princeton and Yale!

    I'm sure you are aware that the IPCC have now released data bases to be used in future climate change models as they consider the present nonsense being touted by the MSM to be "climate terrorists". Future reports will include the effects of solar particles & cosmic rays, surprise, surprise the sun affects the temperature on earth.

    I'm sure you are also aware that solar activity has been stronger in the last hundred years than it has been for 9,000 years & that volcanic activity has been at its lowest levels, combined with record El Nino makes it impossible to deny climate change, though many will question if it is man-made.

    Ah, there we go. Do point us to your peer-reviewed and published article in a scientific journal. What's that? You haven't written one? Well get on with it man! There are billions of dollars waiting for you once you publish your revolutionary thesis that debunks all the thousands of peer-reviewed and published papers in scientific journals.

    And yes, I do work in the field.


    If you wouldn't mind though, could you clarify the sentence that begins "I'm sure you are aware that the IPCC..."? It doesn't really make sense.


  7. 10 hours ago, pegman said:

    That should read some were wrong. I was not in doubt. The Conservatives are a 2 province pony show and were never really in it. 

     

    As a social democrate my party is the New Democrate Party (NDP). We lost nearly half our seats but gained an enormous clout in setting government policy. Trudeau either plays by our rules or has to cozy up to the single province separatist BLOC. The Liberals  and separatists are long-term sworn enemies so not much likelihood of that. 

     

    As our price to keep Justin in power we will want a major new social program. By bringing in national pharmacare he can gain a full term in office as long as he governs well to the left. Most of Canada's best and most loved social programs were brought in under  similar circumstances. 

     

    Trump  should beef up the border patrol at the northern border in Montana. There are about to be a mass of conservatives asylum seekers trying to head south. 

    I'm hoping instead that they tackle a bigger issue - the bloody "first past the post" electoral system we inherited from the UK. That, by the way, is the answer to the questions below about how the party with less votes won. Trudeau promised electoral reform and then backed off, and now I guess we can see why. I suppose the Conservatives will now be in favour of it having been screwed by it (rather than benefiting from it as they have in the past). Hope so. Bottom line is that fundamentally undemocratic and easily manipulated voting systems that disenfranchise many people should be replaced.

    Sure, I'd be okay with a pharma plan too, and have no problem with the NDP working with the Liberals. But let's get the most important thing done and ditch First Past the Post.

    I suspect Trump would instead set up a welcome committee. These people tend to be Old White Men. It would be highly amusing though to watch them discover the joys of unfettered capitalism and realize that "you don't know what you got til it's gone." 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...