Market politics

[EVNow]

Question for the left - you do know there is ZERO chance Trump is removed from office, right? Are heads going to explode when that become reality?

I don't think anyone with even a basic understanding of US politics gives much of a chance of 20 R senators abandoning Trump (and thus their political careers, at least in the short run).

BUT, I'd definitely give more than zero chance. BTW, PredictIt gives 18% chance for the senate convicting Trump. That is much less than what 538 gave for Trump to win in '16 (some 35%).

PredictIt

 

[ggr]

I don't recall you actually producing said policy. Produce it, and I'll shut up, but you are making a Grand Canyon sized assumption there.

BS. Search for "US demands resignation of Ukrainian investigator" in Google, From March 26, 2016:

Ukrainian Protesters Demand Dismissal Of Prosecutor-General

Shokin’s deputy, Vitaliy Kasko, resigned last month, accusing Shokin and his office of being a "hotbed of corruption."Shokin's office dismissed the claim as a publicity stunt.

U.S. and European diplomats have publicly called for Shokin's dismissal, and a top U.S. State Department official whose area of responsibility includes Ukraine earlier this month publicly called for him to go.

 

[wdolson]

Interesting, I would say bribery laws (fire the prosecutor that is investigating the company that my son works for, or no aid). Hypocrisy, it's EXACTLY what the Dems are accusing Trump of, but I would argue the evidence is stronger against Biden than Trump.

I do NOT, after reading the direct transcript (not the crap that the left media is embellishing) believe that Trump comes remotely close to what you assert he has done. Mark my words, the Impeachment vote will be along party lines, and the Senate will acquit. In the end, this will be a colossal waste of time.

The Ukrainian prosecutor was NOT investigating Burisma. That was one of the problems with him. He was tasked with investigating government corruption and other high level corruption and he was refusing to do it. There are many, many articles out there that point this out:

What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor

The facts behind Trump’s bogus accusations about Biden and Ukraine

Debunking 4 Viral Rumors About the Bidens and Ukraine

It's a well known fact outside the Republican propaganda bubble.

 

[MikeQ]

Possible - I'd not think Trump really understands what he is signing. Just a gist of whatever the staff tells him.

I think that describes almost every politician. Either the staff or the lobbyist that bought the politician tells them the shorthand version.

 

[Intl Professor]

I believe the courts have interpreted "enemy" as being in an active war. If the courts were to rule that what Russia did to interfere in the 2016 election was an act of war, and Trump was personally colluding, then possibly. But while it's almost certain Trump did collude with Russia in some way in 2016, proving it in court is a heavy lift. And there is no determination that a state sponsored cyber attack constitutes and act of war.

As for what they were doing with the voter registration data, that's a good question. It doesn't appear they managed to break into every state's database, but they did get into some states. It's also highly suspicious that the Georgia secretary of state had the voter registration records available on the internet for anyone to see and didn't take them down right away when someone made him aware of it. He's now governor.

I concede weakness in my argument Trump has committed treason if one uses the Courts' decisions on "enemy" and "war," etc. Ordinary logic and common sense are not always consistent with the law. I hate to use this argument but how many times have we been reminded impeachment is a "political proceeding" not a criminal one? The House's investigation, now turned into an impeachment proceeding for high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the highest magistrate of the nation is serious business. I dislike using political because our practice in ordinary life is quite worthy of disparagement. But there is another notion at the roots of what the history of Western political theory teaches and is exemplified by people we revere as statesmen. Moral leadership.

Look at what pundits and journalists are saying, the mass of the public will be swayed by the hearings if they are conducted in a civilized manner. That will be required for the impeachment to proceed. We must always assume ordinary people are able to make up their minds and prevail in a democracy. Trump and Trump supporters cannot rely on the Lewandowski defense. And Dems like myself should keep away from testimony at the hearings. That means the squad. No grandstanding. When democracy is at stake, democracy has to work.

 

[wdolson]

I concede weakness in my argument Trump has committed treason if one uses the Courts' decisions on "enemy" and "war," etc. Ordinary logic and common sense are not always consistent with the law. I hate to use this argument but how many times have we been reminded impeachment is a "political proceeding" not a criminal one? The House's investigation, now turned into an impeachment proceeding for high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the highest magistrate of the nation is serious business. I dislike using political because our practice in ordinary life is quite worthy of disparagement. But there is another notion at the roots of what the history of Western political theory teaches and is exemplified by people we revere as statesmen. Moral leadership.

Look at what pundits and journalists are saying, the mass of the public will be swayed by the hearings if they are conducted in a civilized manner. That will be required for the impeachment to proceed. We must always assume ordinary people are able to make up their minds and prevail in a democracy. Trump and Trump supporters cannot rely on the Lewandowski defense. And Dems like myself should keep away from testimony at the hearings. That means the squad. No grandstanding. When democracy is at stake, democracy has to work.

The US has a much narrower legal definition of treason than most countries and a narrower definition of what the general public considers treason. There is the legal definition and there is the "duck test". A "duck test" is: it quacks, swims, and looks like most ducks I've seen, therefore it's probably a duck.

For most people the duck test for treason is if someone betrays their country, especially a person in a position of public trust, that's treason and Trump's behavior meets the duck test for most of us.

The framers of the constitution were aware of times when kings had abused the treason laws to get rid of people who were inconvenient, so they made the legal definition of treason under US law very narrow. In this case it sucks, but we have other laws that apply to this situation. It's just that the names of the crimes are less understandable by the general public.

 

[wdolson]

I don't think anyone with even a basic understanding of US politics gives much of a chance of 20 R senators abandoning Trump (and thus their political careers, at least in the short run).

BUT, I'd definitely give more than zero chance. BTW, PredictIt gives 18% chance for the senate convicting Trump. That is much less than what 538 gave for Trump to win in '16 (some 35%).

PredictIt

Someone pointed out tonight that there is nothing preventing the Senate from having a secret ballot on impeachment. If they have a secret ballot that would give cover to those who vote to convict.

 

[Norbert]

Greta Thunberg leaves US with simple climate crisis message: vote

As Greta Thunberg departs the US to sail across the Atlantic for the second time in a few months, she is leaving behind a simple message for those who care about the climate crisis: you must vote.

“My message to the Americans is the same as to everyone – that is to unite behind the science and to act on the science,” Thunberg told the Guardian on Tuesday.

“We must realize this is a crisis, and we must do what we can now to spread awareness about this and to put pressure on the people in power. And especially, the US has an election coming up soon, and it’s very important that for everyone who can vote, vote.”

 

[Off Shore]

Someone pointed out tonight that there is nothing preventing the Senate from having a secret ballot on impeachment. If they have a secret ballot that would give cover to those who vote to convict.

It would require a simple majority vote in the Senate to change the rules, meaning 100% of the Democrats plus IRRC two Republicans would have to support it. I imagine @LeaderMcTurtle would move Earth (he's no longer authorized to deal with Heaven) to prevent that.

 

[bkp_duke]

The Ukrainian prosecutor was NOT investigating Burisma. That was one of the problems with him. He was tasked with investigating government corruption and other high level corruption and he was refusing to do it. There are many, many articles out there that point this out:

What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor

The facts behind Trump’s bogus accusations about Biden and Ukraine

Debunking 4 Viral Rumors About the Bidens and Ukraine

It's a well known fact outside the Republican propaganda bubble.

Amazing how FACTS get in the way of the left arguments:
What Hunter Biden did on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma

"...a series of criminal investigations launched by Ukrainian authorities against its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, a multimillionaire former minister of ecology and natural resources. The allegations concern tax violations, money-laundering and licences given to Burisma during the period where Zlochevsky was a minister."

Reuters is FAR from a right-leaning news org.

 

[bkp_duke]

BS. Search for "US demands resignation of Ukrainian investigator" in Google, From March 26, 2016:

Ukrainian Protesters Demand Dismissal Of Prosecutor-General

Just because there was a public call for him to quit doesn't mean it didn't PERSONALLY benefit the Bidens.

Oh . . . wait . . . that's EXACTLY what the Dems are accusing Trump of. Irony.

 

[bkp_duke]

Aside from JRP3's reply: It seems like you don't know much outside of the coverage by FoxNews and similar outlets. Elsewhere it is common knowledge that at the time the prosecutor was fired, the investigation had already become dormant, and that not only the US but also several others were asking for a prosecutor who would investigate more (not less) into corruption, and that there was corruption in that prosecutor's office itself.

Got anything besides the PERSONAL attacks and judgement?

I think you guys are just upset that people with different views come in and mess up your echo chamber.

 

[bkp_duke]

My head will remain intact. There is plenty of evidence that the Republicans will likely support him no matter what crime he commits. That doesn't mean the Dems shouldn't push the impeachment since it's the right thing to do.

Not true, there are PLENTY of never Trumpers still in the Reb party that would abandon Trump. They just don't see that a crime was actually committed and believe that removing a properly elected official (LESS than a year from an election) for purely partisan reasons is a horribly bad precedent.

But, we understand the left "must win at all costs", precedent be damned.

 

[JRP3]

Amazing how FACTS get in the way of the left arguments:
What Hunter Biden did on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma

"...a series of criminal investigations launched by Ukrainian authorities against its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, a multimillionaire former minister of ecology and natural resources. The allegations concern tax violations, money-laundering and licences given to Burisma during the period where Zlochevsky was a minister."

Reuters is FAR from a right-leaning news org.

Did you actually read the article you linked?

Interviews with more than a dozen people, including executives and former prosecutors in Ukraine, paint a picture of a director who provided advice on legal issues, corporate finance and strategy during a five-year term on the board, which ended in April of this year.

Somewhat contrary to the idea that Biden had no idea about the business he was advising and did nothing on the board.

Interesting you left out part of the section you quoted:

They also said that his presence on the board didn’t protect the company from its most serious challenge: a series of criminal investigations launched by Ukrainian authorities against its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, a multimillionaire former minister of ecology and natural resources. The allegations concern tax violations, money-laundering and licences given to Burisma during the period where Zlochevsky was a minister.

In an interview with Reuters in September, former Ukraine prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko said Hunter Biden’s position on the board when his father was vice-president raised no red flags. “From the point of view of Ukrainian law, (Hunter Biden) didn’t violate anything,” Lutsenko said.

Ukraine’s new general prosecutor Ruslan Ryaboshapka, who took over in August, said he was not aware of any wrongdoing by Hunter Biden.

The former prosecutor said that any issues Burisma did have were not related to Biden. In addition to the closed tax investigation, Ukraine authorities opened an investigation into licenses awarded to Burisma and a separate money-laundering probe into founder Zlochevsky. Both of these have been re-opened in recent months, but neither relate to the period after Biden joined the board.

Short version: All speculation of Biden doing anything wrong is a complete fabrication by the president and his cronies. There is a preponderance of public evidence that neither of the Bidens did anything wrong. Even your own source material shows that, clearly, yet you keep denying it.

 

[JRP3]

Got anything besides the PERSONAL attacks and judgement?

I think you guys are just upset that people with different views come in and mess up your echo chamber.

I think we get upset with people who deny reality. You've been buried under an avalanche of contrary evidence from multiple sources, including that supplied by yourself. Of course you're going to be judged in a negative light because of your continued denial with zero evidence to support your claims.

 

[JRP3]

I think that describes almost every politician. Either the staff or the lobbyist that bought the politician tells them the shorthand version.

I'll bet Sanders and Warren know more details about their legislation than most.

 

[bkp_duke]

I think we get upset with people who deny reality. You've been buried under an avalanche of contrary evidence from multiple sources, including that supplied by yourself. Of course you're going to be judged in a negative light because of your continued denial with zero evidence to support your claims.

I could say the EXACT same thing, see the difference in perspective? I have also provided evidence, at least as much as those on the other side have provided. So it is a false statement to say I have provided zero evidence.

Personal attacks mean those with a different opinion cannot defend their position with logic and reasoning. It's a strong sign of a weak argument.

 

[bkp_duke]

Did you actually read the article you linked?

Of course I read the article. You do know that the State Dept raised concerned out how bad it looked for Hunter to be involved with Burisma?
https://nypost.com/2019/10/18/state-department-official-raised-concerns-about-hunter-biden/

That looks easily as bad was the concerns voiced about Trump's phone call. Big different, Hunter profited off his, Trump did not.

 

[dmunjal]

A unique take on the impeachment from The Hill.

I side with progressives that The Deep State/MIC is the real enemy here.

 

[JRP3]

I have also provided evidence, at least as much as those on the other side have provided.

No you haven't, not even close, since the evidence you presented didn't even support your case, and we presented a much larger volume of evidence. That fact that you think you've made a convincing argument says quite a bit.