US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You leave the sentence to the accomplices. If you reject to admit that this turns any jury and court session into a joke, then you cannot be helped.

Yes impeachment is a political process. And that is the problem. The decision to kick a president is left to people with highly selfish agendas who must not and do not care for evidence, truth and state reason and law and order. Many Republicans, incoduing the speaker, said clearly that they will block any impeachement in the senate

Again you seem to misunderstand the American system of government, or you choose to ignore it. I understand your idealism but that does not carry the day. There is a very good reason why a sitting President cannot be indicted. Can you imagine the endless charges that would be brought against the chief executive. No Presidency would be able to function. So the system is set up so that the President can carry out his duties and still be held accountable by the electorate. Those Senators are part of that electorate and are only going vote to convict Trump if the majority of their constituents are in favor of it. Can you think of a better system? One that does not place the fate of a President in the hands of non elected officials. Or judges who were appointed by a polititian. Tell me how you would assure anyone that they would make an impartial decision not based on their political loyalties.

[Catfish]

Priceless.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

Again you seem to misunderstand the American system of government, or you choose to ignore it. I understand your idealism but that does not carry the day. There is a very good reason why a sitting President cannot be indicted. Can you imagine the endless charges that would be brought against the chief executive. No Presidency would be able to function. So the system is set up so that the President can carry out his duties and still be held accountable by the electorate. Those Senators are part of that electorate and are only going vote to convict Trump if the majority of their constituents are in favor of it. Can you think of a better system? One that does not place the fate of a President in the hands of non elected officials. Or judges who were appointed by a polititian. Tell me how you would assure anyone that they would make an impartial decision not based on their political loyalties.

Whatever it is that you put into your coffee - try to go without it and see if it helps.

I state again, for the repeated time: the criterions for launching an impeachment process, should be high, yes, right for the reason you gave, there you are totally correct: to prevent that impehcments gets launched by routine every year. But once started, the inquiry and the finding of the verdict must be left to a neutral authority that is independent from party interests and name loyalties, and individual career interests of senators, of congressmen, of interests of the president's accomplices. It is called: independence of justice. The accused, and people who have own interests at stake, cannot sit on a judges chair, nor can they sit in a jury, nor shall they be allowed to sit in an impeachment voting. Because they are not neutral, are not obliged to truth and law and justice and evidence, and have own interests

You ask if I could imagine a better system? Sure I can. Easily. Practically almost everything is better than the porked mechanism you have right now. Every idea forbidding that it is senators and congressmen deciding in a vote whether a president is impeached or not, is already a better system. Even flipping a coin is a better replacement already,. because probability, over several impeachment processes, will level out hits and misses. You should not leave the verdict to the accused or to people having own interests at stake. As it is now, it makes mockery of the intention behind having the impeachment mechnaism in the first, it is pointless, you could as well scrap it, it would be more honest. Right now its like letting an Al Capone and his accomplices sitting trial as judges over their own deeds and charges brought up against them. How can the accused be his own judge...? How can his accomplices be the jury...???

Either you understand the point there, or you don't, but stop wasting our time with this nonsense.

[August]

Anonymous partisan whistleblowers, secret proceedings, Republican committee members excluded during secret interviews, pressuring officials to lie under oath, deliberate mis-characterizations of events. Yeah the Dems have nothing, again.

In a secret interview, Rep. Adam Schiff, leader of the House Democratic effort to impeach President Trump, pressed former United States special representative to Ukraine Kurt Volker to testify that Ukrainian officials felt pressured to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter as a result of Trump withholding U.S. military aid to Ukraine.
Volker denied that was the case, noting that Ukrainian leaders did not even know the aid was being withheld and that they believed their relationship with the U.S. was moving along satisfactorily, without them having done anything Trump mentioned in his notorious July 25 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
When Volker repeatedly declined to agree to Schiff's characterization of events, Schiff said, "Ambassador, you're making this much more complicated than it has to be."
The interview took place Oct. 3 in a secure room in the U.S. Capitol. While the session covered several topics, the issue of an alleged quid pro quo — U.S. military aid in exchange for a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens and a public announcement that such an investigation was underway — was a significant part of the discussion.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ure-from-trump

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You ask if I could imagine a better system? Sure I can. Easily. Practically almost everything is better than the porked mechanism you have right now. Every idea forbidding that it is senators and congressmen deciding in a vote whether a president is impeached or not, is already a better system. Even flipping a coin is a better replacement already,. because probability, over several impeachment processes, will level out hits and misses. You should not leave the verdict to the accused or to people having own interests at stake. As it is now, it makes mockery of the intention behind having the impeachment mechnaism in the first, it is pointless, you could as well scrap it, it would be more honest. Right now its like letting an Al Capone and his accomplices sitting trial as judges over their own deeds and charges brought up against them. How can the accused be his own judge...? How can his accomplices be the jury...???

So are all 63 million people that voted for Trump also accomplices comparable to Al Capone and his gang, or just the Republican senators? Your arguments are getting ridiculous Skybird, just like the Democrats impeachment witch hunt.

[Skybird]

Ah, its the hour of the day again when you turn pathetic, eh?


I say this: if you KNOW that you are going to vote for a criminal, then you are indeed kind of an accomplice, and I say you even shall be held legally accountable.



But as I say since years: everybody voting should know by now what kind of breed he is dealing with when legitimising career politicians that made it their living model to run term after term after term. I am strictly against this, and always have said that. Two terms, for exmaple - then the perosn has to leave politics once and forever. A caste of professional, life-long career politicians should not be allowed at all in a preventive step against right this problem showing up right now: that dozens of Republican senators support their speaker when he told the public that they do not care for evidence against Trump but will stop his impeachment anyway, NO MATTER WHAT. They say by this: we do not care for the truth, we do not care for justice, we do not care for evidence, we do not care for law and order, we do not care for state reason - our own selfish interest weighs heavier than this. And this should be the jury deciding whether Trump gets impeached or not...??? Have you guys lost your marbles...???



These senators indeed are what the accomplices of Al Capone's gang were.

Accomplices and accused suspects shall not be allowed to head court sessions as their own judges. A suspect cannot be a juryman or the judge at the same time, nor can his accomplices be. How is it called when a judge is suspected of not being neutral? In German law temrinology, its called Befangenheit, English calls it I think conflicting interests, such a judge can be recused - for good reason. Because he is biased. All party members, congressmen and senators must be recused in an impeashcment trial, becasue they all have own interests. Thats why the decision, the verdict, must be left to somebody else. And yes, that includes the Democrats as well.



You guys are certain thty you indeed understand what the function of a court is and what a judge is? Your blind rage in defending Trump NO MATTER WHAT, with the most hilarious intellectual distortions, raises serious doubts in me that you even understood the very basics of the justice system, the separation of powers, the checks and balances - why all this was implemented the way it was, and what they tried toi achieve with that. It does not matter whether Trump was elected or not. If he breaks the laws and constitution, what he has and has done right in front of thre world and with running mikes and camera, he is an offender. And beign elected should not make somebody immune to be held repsonsible by the law for that.


I advocate for years and years that pltlicianbs must be liable for their acts, deeds and decisions. Right now they are almost not at all, and whatever damasge they do, they must not fear being held responsib ole for it. That is a desaster that explains a lot of what is runnign bad in polticla culuter and why it is as rotten as it is. Thes epeople miust not take perosnal risks, but can always put the people'ÄS money at risk instead. It shall not be allowed that politicians can save themaselves form t eh cosnequences of what they rule and decide.



Corporation managers and bankers alike, for that matter.



Its absurd, Americans often boast with wanting to be such a great and wonderful democracy, and how historically important it was, and being the cradle of it (wrong, btw, but okay) - and here I sit and must defend the very basics, the most profound principles of the Western legal tradition and justice systems against you and must explain to you why there is (or should I alkready say: was?) somethign like the separation of the three powers. Its absurd. And shows how bad the polarization of politics in America already have become. Some of you defend implicitly: arbitrary justice, and even tyranny - and you do not even realise it!


You must have gone nuts over there, totally nuts.



Enough on this from me, I'm out. Later days, other fights.

[mapuc]

Each country have their type of political system

It is the people in those countries who shall demand a change if so wanted or needed.

I myself respect this.
(To remove any doubt-I'm talking about democracy where people can vote)

I do hope if an American President in the furture is accused of having commit a crime before he or she became President is prosecuted for this crime and not being protected just because he or she is a elected President.

But again this is up to the American people to decide or the politicians elected by the people.

Markus

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Each country have their type of political system

It is the people in those countries who shall demand a change if so wanted or needed.

I myself respect this.
(To remove any doubt-I'm talking about democracy where people can vote)

I do hope if an American President in the furture is accused of having commit a crime before he or she became President is prosecuted for this crime and not being protected just because he or she is a elected President.

But again this is up to the American people to decide or the politicians elected by the people.

Markus

Thank God the same was not said 80 years ago. You want to be moderate and kind, mapuc. But think a moment on whether really everything deserves this kind intention of yours.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

But once started, the inquiry and the finding of the verdict must be left to a neutral authority that is independent from party interests and name loyalties, and individual career interests of senators, of congressmen, of interests of the president's accomplices.

In the United States just who would that be? To my knowledge no such authority exists. Do you know of one? Would you like to invent one?

I think you need to do some homework. You obviously do not understand the American system of government. Or you do understand it and you just don't like it. I really don't care which it is but it gets tiresome discussing a subject with people who lack the basics.

Either you understand the point there, or you don't...

I think I understand your point all too well. It is not based on any real knowledge or understanding of the subject matter. Instead you are trying to invent some quasi idealistic justice system that doesn't exist. I have no idea why except that you don't like certain outcomes and this is just complaining about the outcome.

..but stop wasting our time with this nonsense.

Priceless.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Its absurd, Americans often boast with wanting to be such a great and wonderful democracy, and how historically important it was, and being the cradle of it (wrong, btw, but okay) - and here I sit and must defend the very basics, the most profound principles of the Western legal tradition and justice systems against you and must explain to you why there is (or should I already say: was?) something like the separation of the three powers. Its absurd. And shows how bad the polarization of politics in America already have become. Some of you defend implicitly: arbitrary justice, and even tyranny - and you do not even realize it!

Well, it certainly is becoming hard to boast of American greatness with a straight face these days. Bill Cosby is a rapist, Bruce Jenner is a chick, and Donald Trump is the President of the United States. We're in an episode of Lost!

[August]

Originally Posted by u crank

I think I understand your point all too well. It is not based on any real knowledge or understanding of the subject matter. Instead you are trying to invent some quasi idealistic justice system that doesn't exist. I have no idea why except that you don't like certain outcomes and this is just complaining about the outcome.

Ask him about his policy for deliberately targeting (with missiles and bombs) the families of government officials that he doesn't like in order to discourage corruption.

[Skybird]

Ach, Donald...



https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...orse-than-isis


People have tatoos, brandings, and piercings. Maybe you want to consider to have your lips sewed up so that no stupid babble can escape your noise hatch anymore, and tell them to have you also wearing mittens so that you also must not twitter anymore.


Seriously - what a deeply confused mind on display, just parroting what Erdoghan puts in his mouth (or in the past: Putin), and telling bull back and forth over the Syrian story. I mean when not being busy lambasting Pelosi.



Most sad is that he actually seems to believe all that drivel he produces. Well, Messiah syndrome. What should one say.

[Mr Quatro]

How's your stomach acid doing Sky?

[Dowly]

Trump's letter to Erdogan:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHBmdVLW4AIk3IT.jpg

[Catfish]

^ Don't tell me this is real. This is a bad joke?