Poll: Articles of Impeachment against President Trump

[2A_Tom]

For your perusal.
https://trueconservativepundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Federal-Workforce-Letter.pdf

 

[Ziggidy]

Could the senate subpoena the impeachment papers? If so, think of the reactions it may create with Pelosi and friends!

 

[DoggyDaddy]

For your perusal.
https://trueconservativepundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Federal-Workforce-Letter.pdf

Sweet! As a federal employee that has been used to maybe a 0.5% cost of living raise for the past 10 years (if that), I'm pretty happy to hear about this.

 

[Brad69]

It’s like the President actually cares about people and the economy must be rocking along?

 

[d.kaufman]

Just hope the raise doesn't include Congress. They sure as hell don't deserve it!

 

[paddywonka]

We elected him, Congress rejected him & now are trying their very best to eject him. We must remember this come election time.

 

[wtburnette]

We elected him, Congress rejected him & now are trying their very best to eject him. We must remember this come election time.

Exactly.

 

[chipbennett]

Yes. It's reasonable. Maybe not rational.

Seriously though, the idea is that it's not so much who Ukrainians thought would help their nation more. The idea is that corrupt politicians in Ukraine favoring the Democrats and Clinton's because of their corrupt deals. There's Biden's son having a job at a firm making money doing something he has no qualifications for. There's Kerry's involvement. Clinton's are implicated in some stuff. There's circumstantial evidence and reasons to believe that Ukraine may have meddled. There are selective reasons to believe one way if you're a Trumper. There are selective reasons to suspect other things if you're an anti-Trumper (nevertrumper sounds retarded so I prefer not to use that). I think it's possible. I wouldn't mind seeing it investigated objectively, if that's possible.

I still think this is silly navel-gazing. If it's not rational, it cannot be reasonable.

 

[chipbennett]

This is the weirdest point I keep hearing about Hunter Biden. He definitely does have the qualifications to sit on the Board of Directors of an energy company.

He's a Yale Law School graduate. He was appointed to the Board of Directors of Amtrak by George W. Bush, and he served at the Vice Chairman of that board. Experience serving on the board of a giant company is the best possible qualification for serving on the board of another giant company.

If George W. Bush wasn't corrupt to appoint Hunter Biden to the Amtrak board, why was Bursima Holdings corrupt to appoint the same person--only now with an even better resume--to their board? Are we supposed to hold a private company in Ukraine to a higher standard than the President of the United States?

The Bushes are part of the Uniparty. They are part of the "deep state". Why would anyone assume that George W. Bush wasn't just as much corrupt - especially with respect to such crony capitalism as board appointments - as anyone else?

 

[chipbennett]

For your perusal.
https://trueconservativepundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Federal-Workforce-Letter.pdf

12 weeks of paid paternal leave, funded by my tax dollars?

I want my personal vacation time back that I used for both of my kids.

 

[chipbennett]

Could the senate subpoena the impeachment papers? If so, think of the reactions it may create with Pelosi and friends!

I'm of the opinion that the Senate should just change their rules, and take up the articles unilaterally. Then let the House democrats go crying to SCOTUS.

But, the Senate doesn't really even want to take up the articles, so they'll let them languish for however long.

 

[Ziggidy]

I'm of the opinion that the Senate should just change their rules, and take up the articles unilaterally. Then let the House democrats go crying to SCOTUS.

But, the Senate doesn't really even want to take up the articles, so they'll let them languish for however long.

I think would be fun for them to subpoena them and then say, nah - nothing here.

Regardless of what happens today, if we the people do not change the House, I suspect we will be seeing this for the next 5 years and who knows how many impeachment attempts.

 

[jamil]

I still think this is silly navel-gazing. If it's not rational, it cannot be reasonable.

Naval gazing?

Galileo was unreasonable at the time, but rational. The two words don’t mean the same thing.

 

[2A_Tom]

There is a spacial dimension where Trump is currently being guillotined for the egregious crime of tweeting.

Please go there.

 

[chipbennett]

Naval gazing?

Galileo was unreasonable at the time, but rational. The two words don’t mean the same thing.

A = Rational
B = Reasonable

I said, "If Not A, then Not B." You saying, "A, but Not B" does not disprove what I said. I'm not arguing whether B is a precondition for A; rather, I am arguing that A is a precondition for B.

That said: I'm not sure you can really parse the two at all. In fact, the two are synonyms.

 

[SSGSAD]

It took years, to impeach Nixon, and he quit .....

It took years to impeach clinton, and he survived .....

I was listening to WIBC, and they had democrats, saying that they KNEW clinton lied under oath .....

BUT, they say no one is above the law ?????

 

[phylodog]

It took years, to impeach Nixon, and he quit .....

It took years to impeach clinton, and he survived .....

I was listening to WIBC, and they had democrats, saying that they KNEW clinton lied under oath .....

BUT, they say no one is above the law ?????

Hypocrisy is a prerequisite to becoming a democrat.

 

[2A_Tom]

It did not used to be nearly as bad. I am talking about the rank and file, many of whom have walked away.

 

[jamil]

A = Rational
B = Reasonable

I said, "If Not A, then Not B." You saying, "A, but Not B" does not disprove what I said. I'm not arguing whether B is a precondition for A; rather, I am arguing that A is a precondition for B.

That said: I'm not sure you can really parse the two at all. In fact, the two are synonyms.

Wow. So then, logically, because your link "proves" that rational is a synonym of reasonable, "sober" means the same thing too. Can be. That's not the same as is. You have not made the case that A is a precondition of B. A can be, depending on the standards applied to "reasonable". They're similar words, but they're not exactly synonyms, just like sober isn't really a synonym.

The following is about the clearest example that illustrates the point. But please don't go off on this tangent. It's just an example. It isn't the point. It's reasonable to believe in god. However, it's not rational. One can reasonably believe that god exists, but short of having the necessary facts from which a logical conclusion of such would follow, one can't rationally believe. So that's not to say I think anyone is necessarily wrong to believe in god; again, that's a reasonable belief. And again, please don't think the point is god existing or not existing. The point is, something can be reasonable to believe without having a conclusion that logically follows from the facts. And like the Galileo example, something can be rational to believe, but not necessarily "reasonable" depending on the standards you're applying. Galileo wasn't reasonable compared with the consensus belief.

So maybe we're hung up on language. There is a distinction that exists between two standards of belief and I am assigning what I think are the appropriate words for both. Reasonable, what one might be able to believe because it's reasoned from logic, or intuition, or faith, or life experience, or worldview, or expert opinion, or consensus, and so on. Reasoned from logic is the standard I'm applying to "rational": A rational belief would be the most one could logically conclude from known facts and circumstances. But you're constraining the standard for "reasonable" only to include reasoning from facts/logic.

With that explanation in mind, one could read the transcript, listen to all the testimony, know all the facts that are knowable by the general public, and based on intuition, or life experience, or worldview, or whatever, one could reasonably believe either way. But, one can no more rationally conclude that Trump is guilty or innocent, because there aren't sufficient facts from which either of those conclusions would logically follow.

The people who *know* he's guilty, or *know* he's innocent based on no more evidence than what we all have available, are at best just running available information against instinct and making conclusions from that. The reason I strongly suspect that is that if we know someone's worldview, especially if it's not moderate, the outcome is deterministic. It's that predictable. It's reasonable. It's not rational.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

why do most disagreements here have to devolve into semantics

it's boring

even dull, humdrum, lifeless, monotonous, mundane, stale, stodgy, stuffy, stupid, tame, tedious, tiresome, tiring, trite, and uninteresting. Might even say bomb, bummer, cloying, commonplace, dead, drab, drag, drudging, flat, nothing, nowhere, plebeian, routine, stereotyped, zero. Less commonly, you could say arid, bomidic, characterless, colorless, ho hum, insipid, interminable, irksome, moth-eaten, platitudinous, prosaic, repetitious, spiritless, threadbare, unexciting, unvaried, vapid, wearisome, and well-worn.


... My point being, when we're pissing around about literal meanings of words to re-enforce an argument, we're no longer talking about the argument and just focusing on how many points we can score with technicalities