jakee

It is to do with asking for a favour. It's to do with asking for a personal benefit in return for state resources. It's not complicated or confusing, it's basic, straightforward and simple. You are being far to charitable to the right and unfair to the media. The media have explained the issue clearly. Almost the entirety of the Republican party have lied about it constantly. Any genuine confusion stems from the utter moral bankruptcy of every elected Republican who has stood up and lied about the proceedings, lied about Ukraine, lied about the witnesses, and lied about anything else they thought might help obfuscate the otherwise clear and obvious case. For the most part the 'base' believe them because they choose to. They're all easily capable of understanding the issue, and would if they hadn't willingly jumped on the 'MSM always lies' bandwagon years ago. That's really their own fault though. They've put partisanship over truth just like the elected branch of the party has put partisanship over patriotic duty. The MSM can't explain anything to people who refuse to listen.

How can you push the concept if you don't know the number? That is not a flippant one liner, by the way. It's a very, very serious question.

Doesn't mean they're always wrong. The army needs oversight just like everyone else. Anyway, detail on one of the officers Trump just pardoned for murder "At his trial in August 2013, nine members of his platoon testified against him." So in that case the lawyers and the soldiers were on the same wavelength.

Good. So can you leave the Jesus shit out of a thread about Impeaching Trump? You've hijacked enough already.

Very funny that today Nunes thought he was being clever by calling the impeachment proceedings a 'Democratic drug deal'. By which he presumably means something improper and very bad. Seems to me that only strengthens the impression that something really bad must have been going on in the Trump inner circle for Bolton to use the 'drug deal' phrase in the first place. Also Volker (presumably Trump's friendliest witness present) testifying that Giuliani was feedng Trump outdated information and conspiracy theories and creating significant problems for official diplomats trying to get Trump to understand the current situation in Ukraine. Sounds like the G-man is standing at the bus stop waiting for the push. I wonder what he'll have to say after that

Clinton was impeached partly for lying in a sworn deposition, and honestly so much shit has flown around that I can’t even remember if there were any provable lies in Trump’s written answers to Mueller. But Clinton was also impeached for soliciting false testimony from other witnesses, and Trump is certainly guilty of witness tampering too. As an aside, it still cracks me up that one of the main reasons Trump supporters have for backing him was “he tells it like it is”. If the guy told me the grass was green I’d have to go outside and check.

How did that Clinton extradition go for ya?

There's value in painting a full picture with a coherent narrative. And IMO the fact that Trump, Giuliani and their cabal were prepared to undermine official US diplomats to further their illegal back channel agenda is serious business in itself.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50438196 Goddamn. That's beyond the pale - you don't go after a man's dog. Whatever excuses our diehard right wing friends can make for perjury and corruption surely at least one of them can turn around at this point and say "that's not ok, this guy deserves to go to prison". If not the last vestige of bipartisanship is truly dead.

It’s an injustice that you’d need to compete with civilians in an election? Ok snowflake.

Only in America could the answer to the problem “nefarious corporations are trying to shape regulation to their benefit” be “get rid of regulation and let them do whatever they want”.

How is that the plan? 2% of wealth over $50M will make a person not rich? I don’t get it. What your thread title seems to me is a fundamental misunderstanding of how rich the rich are. You could feed all the poor with a tax on only the richest of the rich and it would make absolutely no difference to the fact that they’d still be ultra-ultra-rich.

So why the thread title?

Let them eat securities!

How does that equate to using the press as a weapon?

Dude, you’ve just spent the best part of a month accusing most other people here of being naive, biased, hypocritical idiots so I’d be genuinely surprised if ‘elitist’ was suddenly too much for your delicate sensibilities. And seriously - you’re even the guy who just said “If you always look for the bad you’re going to find it” yet here you assuming bad from the ground level guys for no reason, and ignoring the documented failings from higher up in the chain. If not for elitism why else would you be doing it?

I don't think being forced to work multiple shifts straight while covering more roles than any one person is capable of because the institution is that chronically understaffed and underresourced counts as an incentive. But hey, keep blaming the little guy. It's what you elitest righties love to do.

From what I hear though it's really easy to smuggle cell phones into prisons - so he'll be able to butt dial as many reporters as he wants.

At some point it's just the laziness that gets to you. They either couldn't be bothered to organise the prize that was advertised (most likely) or even if they did honour the prize it was so half arsed they couldn't be bothered to document it and cover themselves from allegations like this.

Thanks Nostradamus.

How's that Clinton extradition going for ya?

So...?

Ok, but the scenario where fully autonomous cars with no human in command driver are fully and freely permitted in the roads is probably a reasonable distance in the future. In that case the issue that autonomous cars aren’t very good in snow or fog now may well not be an issue anymore by the time the things are allowed to operate.

It would be. To Ben honest it’s so explosive I’d put it in the ‘Uranium One’ category for now unless or until there is any corroborating evidence. If it turned out to have any truth the blame would lie squarely with Trump and his nepotistic hiring practices. Who knew putting a failing businessman reliant on foreign investment whose only qualification was being a family member in charge of so much foreign policy and making him exempt from ethics oversight could be a bad idea? The other interesting thing though was Vindman saying there were important gaps in the official transcript/memorandum of the phone call. The R defence that Trump didn’t explicitly state he was asking for a personal quid pro quo may not even be accurate.

That’s actually exactly right. Lines are open ended. They go somewhere. One can travel along that line, learning and growing as they go. Spheres on the other hand are enclosed, limited. And you certainly do demonstrate quite regularly that you’re unwilling to comprehend anything outside of your bubble.