The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zarlak said:
The amount of times I've heard 'one inch incision!' tonight you could be onto something there.
Click to expand...

When I lived there, I once heard an advert about a drug that stated one of its side effects is 'suicidal thoughts'. What kind of illness do you need to have that you are willing to possibly kill yourself for!
 
WackyWengerWorld said:
Politicians get billions from various industricies to buy political favour/policy and influence elections.

Anyway technically the US has had foreign influence in it's elections for decades. The Israel Lobby has tried to influence elections and buy political favour. How is this that much different?

How is doing a dirty deal with Russia any worse than doing dirty deals with Saudi? Or Israel? Or Pinochet? Or Saddam? And I'm not pro-Russia, I'm anti-Republican, but I'm also anti-hypocricy.
Click to expand...

Lobbying is different from interference. You can lobby and pay for ads and campaigns to convince people, but it's still upto the people to vote. Trying to hack into systems is illegal and more so if a foreign power does it.

Just curious, are you American? If so, the fact the a traditional enemy is suddenly helping a presidential candidate doesn't strike you as odd?
 
RedStarUnited said:
When I lived there, I once heard an advert about a drug that stated one of its side effects is 'suicidal thoughts'. What kind of illness do you need to have that you are willing to possibly kill yourself for!
Click to expand...

There was one on that the entire advert was some guy narrating who shouldn't take it like pregnant women, but to ask your doctors about getting it to get your life back.
 
RedStarUnited said:
When I lived there, I once heard an advert about a drug that stated one of its side effects is 'suicidal thoughts'. What kind of illness do you need to have that you are willing to possibly kill yourself for!
Click to expand...

Every medicine advert in US lists possible side effects ranging from paralysis to heart attack. Maybe you were looking at an ad for a depressant.
 
I can't believe the questions of those Republicans today, they are as shameless as it gets.
James Risch with the "I hope" piece of crap, unbelievable.
 
RedStarUnited said:
When I lived there, I once heard an advert about a drug that stated one of its side effects is 'suicidal thoughts'. What kind of illness do you need to have that you are willing to possibly kill yourself for!
Click to expand...
Cluster headache has been known to make people suicidal, I believe.
 
Steven7290 said:
I can't believe the questions of those Republicans today, they are as shameless as it gets.
James Risch with the "I hope" piece of crap, unbelievable.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, they're not one half of an intelligence committee; they're acting as the defence attorney. They're trying to plant seeds of doubt and trying to establish that key evidence was illegally obtained and is therefore unsubmittable (I think the key evidence is proof of collusion gathered via unmasking of US Citizens).
 
JPRouve said:
I understand the point you are trying to make but you did argue about legal language when you talked about "abusing justice", "legalising bribe" and "corruption".

We should probably move on though.
Click to expand...

Unsurprisingly you are still missing the point. your logic would dictate that no matter what the immoral act is as long as it's legalised on paper there is no argument.

You can't be seriously trying to insinuate that I don't understand what is legal and what is not when it's clear it's not illegal.

I was arguing the very fact that it's wrong to legalise these acts in the first place. Rather than the perpetual race to the bottom by legalising immoral and unjust acts as permissible one or what you're suggesting can't be called unjust.

You need to realise that justice exists outside the law and legal system which are the tools to carry out justice and not justice in and of itself.

Now we can move on.
 
EyeInTheSky said:
That's exactly my point legalising bribes or dressing them up as "campaign donation" or some other whitewash does not make it right.
Click to expand...
There's a big difference. Campaign donations can be used by candidate to convince voters. Despite donations there's no guarantee of win. Bribes are different. You pay money and get a specific objective. No democracy in that.

Spending money to convince a vote is vastly differ from buying a vote.
 
Raoul said:
This should put the final nail into Sessions' coffin as AG.

Click to expand...


Yet more reason to attack the unmasking policy so they can declare it illegal and therefore ineligible for submission as evidence against them.
 
MrMarcello said:
Did the GOP try to coverup Nixon's actions? Or is the current GOP something never seen before?
Click to expand...

They were the minority party then, so it's all moot, but it also worth remembering that Nixon ran into some severe trouble fighting his own party on policy front, while Don is signing everything they manage to pass. Being an absolutely embarrassing moron aside, he's their wet dream, so they are protecting him.
 
By the way folks, while all this was going on in the Senate...

House republicans voted to repeal parts of Dodd-Frank today.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/house-votes-roll-back-parts-dodd-frank-reform-bill-n770076

The House of Representatives on Thursday approved a bill that would roll back key parts of the Dodd-Frank act aimed at Wall Street and financial industry regulatory reform which was passed in the wake of the mortgage meltdown.

The House voted 233-186 to approve the Financial CHOICE Act. The bill would give banks a choice between complying with Dodd-Frank or holding onto more capital.

Critics also say it would eliminate the independence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by Dodd-Frank, and greatly reduce its ability to regulate.
Click to expand...
 
MrMarcello said:
Did the GOP try to coverup Nixon's actions? Or is the current GOP something never seen before?
Click to expand...

I think the Dems had Senate/House majorities from FDR till 1994, so their actions weren't the deciding factor. AFAIK.
 
So Trump, let's hear the "tapes". Until then you'd have to believe Comey's recollection of the meetings.

Now, is that evidence enough to impeach the president? Not so much I think, but Comey's statements along with his subsequent firing; that does seem like obstruction of justice, imo.
 
utdalltheway said:
So Trump, let's hear the "tapes". Until then you'd have to believe Comey's recollection of the meetings.

Now, is that evidence enough to impeach the president? Not so much I think, but Comey's statements along with his subsequent firing; that does seem like obstruction of justice, imo.
Click to expand...


Building blocks for Mueller.
 
Raoul said:
This should put the final nail into Sessions' coffin as AG.

Click to expand...

It's quite obvious from the testimony Coney thought the Justice Department was corrupted.
Doesn't that concern the GOP.
 
I like how these committees spend ages patting themselves on the back for being bipartisan and above party but you can guess 30 seconds into a question which party the person belongs too.
 
EyeInTheSky said:
Unsurprisingly you are still missing the point. your logic would dictate that no matter what the immoral act is as long as it's legalised on paper there is no argument.

You can't be seriously trying to insinuate that I don't understand what is legal and what is not when it's clear it's not illegal.

I was arguing the very fact that it's wrong to legalise these acts in the first place. Rather than the perpetual race to the bottom by legalising immoral and unjust acts as permissible one or what you're suggesting can't be called unjust.

You need to realise that justice exists outside the law and legal system which are the tools to carry out justice and not justice in and of itself.

Now we can move on.
Click to expand...

Those acts aren't legalised.
 
JPRouve said:
Those acts aren't legalised.
Click to expand...

The definition of bribery doesn't necessarily imply illegality. In fact, by the strict definition of bribery in most law dictionaries, political donations by lobbyists is definitely bribery. It just isn't illegal in the US, but it is in many other countries.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
There's a big difference. Campaign donations can be used by candidate to convince voters. Despite donations there's no guarantee of win. Bribes are different. You pay money and get a specific objective. No democracy in that.

Spending money to convince a vote is vastly differ from buying a vote.
Click to expand...

By the power of grayskull!

Edgar Allan Pillow said:
There's a big difference. Campaign donations can be used by candidate to convince voters. Despite donations there's no guarantee of win. Bribes are different. You pay money and get a specific objective. No democracy in that.

Spending money to convince a vote is vastly differ from buying a vote.
Click to expand...

I understand the concept that if something is within the law it is legal. You can't possibly derive that I think otherwise.

What I have said repeatedly is that things that are morally wrong don't become right just because it is legalised. The banks don't just influence things by campaign donations but also after the fact where they come back to the members of the government to scratch their back in return. The corrupt Politician will offcourse give the group what they want if and when they are elected. A bribe is a bribe and it is irrelevant when the money exchanged hands.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.