The president is a criminal

[fskimospy]

So it falls back to Trumps reason for paying her.

1.) To keep it quiet for the campaign sake. (Campaign contribution)
or
2.) Keep it quiet for his family. (Private Business)

Still kind of a gray area... I'm sure it will sort itself out one way or the other.

I mean kind of grey except literally every other person involved said it wasn’t grey.

How do you feel now?

 

[ImpulsE69]

The reality is this guy won't go to jail, even with evidence. He's rich and he's (will be) an ex president. At most he'll get a fine and slap on the wrist.

 

[pcgeek11]

1. The source of the funding is irrelevant. If the money is spent on the campaign and is over a certain amount, disclosure is required. If what Cohen plead to is true, then his statement that Trump directed him to make concealed payments of $140k and $150k for the principle purpose of winning an election constitutes with no uncertainty whatsoever that Trump has committed a felony.

2. This is a separate investigation not under the scope of the Mueller probe.

3. I am asking what would convince you that Trump deserves to be removed, not what the Constitution says.

OK.
Any illegal bargains with foreign dictators etc.
Any of the obvious reasons, such as treason as defined by the constitution.
Proof that he has broken serious law(s) of the USA. By serious I mean like jaywalking and littering don't count.
Conspiracy against the US or its people.

 

[pcgeek11]

I mean kind of grey except literally every other person involved said it wasn’t grey.

How do you feel now?

I feel fine.
How are you?

If they process it out where they consider it an illegal campaign contribution. Then he should pay the price.

 

[mikeymikec]

OK.
Any illegal bargains with foreign dictators etc.
Any of the obvious reasons, such as treason as defined by the constitution.
Proof that he has broken serious law(s) of the USA. By serious I mean like jaywalking and littering don't count.
Conspiracy against the US or its people.

You might want to read @interchange 's question more carefully.

Hint: It's about what level of evidence you would be convinced by, not what the evidence suggests.

 

[pcgeek11]

Then I would have to say that it would have to meet the same requirements as in a court of law as in a preponderance of the evidence. I also do not include rumor or hearsay as evidence. An impeachment should not be taken lightly.

 

[dank69]

How do you figure goalposts were shifted? I clearly said the following.

"Well, past examples of when Civility has failed when not in the context of incredible hardship such as huge amounts of people becoming destitute through hyper inflation. I think its pretty reasonable to think that Civility can be nullified when positioned against extreme situations. I do not think the US is anywhere close to a situation like that though."

All of his listed examples after that did not adhere to what I asked for. The reason I asked for what I did, was because the situations that arise from that is going to be far too extreme for just civility to play a major role. You clearly got that wrong.

You will need to point to where I dismissed opinions of dems trying to play nice. What I remember saying is that Dems playing nice was in my opinion a big reason why things were better when they did. I even disagreed with Spy saying that I thought Obama being classy and civil is him holding the nation together. That to me seems like a compliment, but, that is what I remember.

As for dismissing people as angry as a way to dismiss them, you got that wrong too. I presume you are talking about the posts made to ecogen. Seems weird you think I dismissed him considering how many posts were made addressing his points and clearly not dismissing him. That said, he clearly indicates he is angry, and defends being angry as he enjoys being angry and directing it at people. I think that is a useless thing to do, but, to say I dismissed him while making multiple posts and responses to his points seems factually inaccurate.

If you are telling me that conversations should not grow in P&N then I do not know what to tell you. I'm sure it would be pretty easy to find when you fork a topic to another road. The OP of this thread and I were seemingly having a productive conversation. You also seem to be in disagreement with the OP as to the point of his thread, given how he posted this question.

"At what point is enough enough? At what point do you refuse to ever vote for another Republican until they do their job?"

That seems to very much indicate that you got the point of this wrong. That is where I started in this thread, and that was what I have been talking about sense.

How about a little event we call the American Civil War? Were those people destitute?

 

[dank69]

Then I would have to say that it would have to meet the same requirements as in a court of law as in a preponderance of the evidence. I also do not include rumor or hearsay as evidence. An impeachment should not be taken lightly.

Like the preponderance of evidence suggesting Hillary did Benghazi and Uranium One?

Also, the standard in a court of law isn't a preponderance of evidence, it is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Can you give a reasonable explanation other than what the evidence suggests?

Witness testimony qualifies as evidence and is not the same as hearsay.

 

[realibrad]

How about a little event we call the American Civil War? Were those people destitute?

Nope, but, the Civil War actually supports what I was saying. If you took a US history class that included this subject, you would like that the hostility and incivility were building up to the Civil War. Further, while they were not financially destitute, freeing the slaves would have made them so. The obvious argument against that is "so what, people should not be slaves". That is the right answer, but, it was well understood that there was a massive financial issue to deal with. You can validate by looking at Jefferson's letters on this subject.

So, you had a society that was highly hostel toward each other. You had the thread that the North would uses its power to ban slavery and thus destroy all of their "wealth" (sadly that means money spent on slaves).

The goal of many before the war was to constrain and eventually make slavery end. There was compromise early on, but, that quickly died out as incivility built. The cause of that incivility was the fear of losing their wealth as a primary reason. The way around the moral issue was for them to dehumanize the slaves as subhuman.

So to sum up, your example exemplifies that civility and compromise was not used to try and end this in a civil way. Slavery was an immoral and dehumanizing system that should be ended. War to stop it was needed as the south would not give up their slaves. The reason discussion stopped (diplomacy) was because people were too angry to try and work things out.

 

[zinfamous]

The point was to show that civility was able to work given conditions and people far worse off. jhhnn was trying to say that it would not work, yet clearly it did.

I also want to note that when I say that the Right sold its soul to win, I am talking about things like what Gingrich did.

Citing MLK as an example for comparison, works.

When you actually say, as you did, "Man black people didn't have it as bad as liberals!" (sarcastically) that is exactly a strawman. It is the perfect example of this well-defined argumentative fallacy.

It is pedestrian to counter someone's argument of "class x has difficulties because of y" with "well class b from c years ago had it way worse than class x, so class x shouldn't complain!"

That is as strawman as strawman can be.

The existence of problem y isn't logically analogous to the existence of problem x. Also, it's kinda funny (sad funny, not ha-ha funny) that while many things improved for black americans because of MLK, there is still a very real society-defined 2nd-tier status enforced upon them. For example, this country very clearly believes, in the majority, that black people do not have equal value to their lives as do white people. The data doesn't lie.

 

[realibrad]

Citing MLK as an example for comparison, works.

When you actually say, as you did, "Man black people didn't have it as bad as liberals!" (sarcastically) that is exactly a strawman. It is the perfect example of this well-defined argumentative fallacy.

It is pedestrian to counter someone's argument of "class x has difficulties because of y" with "well class b from c years ago had it way worse than class x, so class x shouldn't complain!"

That is as strawman as strawman can be.

The existence of problem y isn't logically analogous to the existence of problem x. Also, it's kinda funny (sad funny, not ha-ha funny) that while many things improved for black americans because of MLK, there is still a very real society-defined 2nd-tier status enforced upon them. For example, this country very clearly believes, in the majority, that black people do not have equal value to their lives as do white people. The data doesn't lie.

The argument that jhhnn made was that this is not the time for civility. Given the situation, I think that is wrong. The reason I brought up MLK is because he was confronted with the same argument. Prominent people like Malcolm X were making the argument that civility would not get anything done. Yet, Malcolm X eventually was a convert because the right call was civility.

In this context, it seems reasonable to say that if civility could work for something like Civil Rights, and the current situation is not worse than then, then I think it can work here. Its not a strawman argument, its a past example of how civility worked during a much worse situation. If jhhnn thinks that we have crossed the line of civility, and yet we are not at times equal or worse, how can his position be correct?

 

[Jhhnn]

The argument that jhhnn made was that this is not the time for civility.

I didn't say that. I said Libs have been civil for decades in the face of mindless tribalism from the GOP. It hasn't done us much good, given that GOP voters lost their fucking marbles & elected Trump as President despite ample evidence that he's a liar, a cheat, a thief & a con man. It's been right under their noses the whole time.

When owning the Libs is more important than good govt, we're dealing with some extremely fucked up people. The amount of disinformation swirling in their heads is absolutely astounding. We actually thought we were dealing with reasonable people so when that turns out not to be true of course some people will get angry.

 

[cytg111]

You need to treat Murdoch and kin as god damn natural security riscs.
You dont get to deal with these people via. peaceful marches in the streets, its another threat vector than that of the days of MLK and Malcolm-X

 

[hal2kilo]

Playing to emotion was the only reason it worked. It's all about playing on people's hopes & fears & pointing them at an "enemy". You know, the rest of America. Like we're persecuting them or something.

Yea, where's the caravan?

 

[interchange]

Then I would have to say that it would have to meet the same requirements as in a court of law as in a preponderance of the evidence. I also do not include rumor or hearsay as evidence. An impeachment should not be taken lightly.

Are you willing to comment on your analysis of the evidence available to you? That is what I am hoping for -- and not your legal definition of the task at Congress' hands. We are two individuals who I presume are neither members of Congress nor people with direct access to them. I wish to have a discussion as citizens, and I do not think because we are only citizens we should punt this analysis to our representatives. In fact, I would say that our entire system of government is based on ordinary citizens embracing that task.

More directly, do you think that the evidence against Trump in this matter currently warrants removal? If not, can you contribute to the criteria that might be required to convince you?

I'll start. Michael Cohen plead guilty to federal campaign finance felony, and this plea was accepted by federal judge, indicating that yes what he plead to meets the statutory requirements for the crime. Michael Cohen explicitly stated that this crime was committed by the direction of a candidate for office for the principle purpose of influencing an election. While Trump was not directly named, he is the only person who could possibly fit the description for the unindicted co-conspirator.

Assertions:
1. If a person is found guilty (by plea or trial) of a crime that was committed at the direction of another individual, then that other individual is automatically guilty of the crime as a co-conspirator and no elements of the crime itself need to be proven so long as the co-conspirator's account that the crime was directed by the other individual is proven. By direction, I mean explicit direction is proven (e.g. that the directing individual knew the method of carrying out the crime and reasonably expected their direction would be acted upon).
2. Felony campaign finance violation to influence a presidential candidate's own election is an offense, if proven, that warrants without exception the removal of the President.

Unless you can refute those assertions, I think the only thing we need to discuss is what it takes to substantiate that what Cohen plead to in federal court is true.

 

[cytg111]

What happens to your brain if you are bombarded with this shit day in day out?

- It rots!

 

[realibrad]

I didn't say that. I said Libs have been civil for decades in the face of mindless tribalism from the GOP. It hasn't done us much good, given that GOP voters lost their fucking marbles & elected Trump as President despite ample evidence that he's a liar, a cheat, a thief & a con man. It's been right under their noses the whole time.

When owning the Libs is more important than good govt, we're dealing with some extremely fucked up people. The amount of disinformation swirling in their heads is absolutely astounding. We actually thought we were dealing with reasonable people so when that turns out not to be true of course some people will get angry.

I disagree that it has not done much good. As I have said multiple times now, I believe it likely kept a lid on what we are seeing today. The fact that one side was not hysterical was probably a very good thing.

Your argument now is that we need to cast aside that civility because its time to fight back against the Right. I think that is wrong now as it was wrong then. It was right then and things are not as bad now as they were then.

 

[fskimospy]

The argument that jhhnn made was that this is not the time for civility. Given the situation, I think that is wrong. The reason I brought up MLK is because he was confronted with the same argument. Prominent people like Malcolm X were making the argument that civility would not get anything done. Yet, Malcolm X eventually was a convert because the right call was civility.

In this context, it seems reasonable to say that if civility could work for something like Civil Rights, and the current situation is not worse than then, then I think it can work here. Its not a strawman argument, its a past example of how civility worked during a much worse situation. If jhhnn thinks that we have crossed the line of civility, and yet we are not at times equal or worse, how can his position be correct?

This is inaccurate. MLK’s civil message is not what prompted federal action on civil rights. Riots did.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_riot_of_1963

It was the black-on-white violence of May 11 - not the publication of the startling photograph a week earlier – that represented the real watershed in Kennedy's thinking, and the turning point in administration policy. Kennedy had grown used to segregationist attacks against civil rights protesters. But he – along with his brother and other administration officials – was far more troubled by black mobs running amok.

If anything MLK is a counter-example to your point because where civility failed incivility succeeded.

 

[realibrad]

This is inaccurate. MLK’s civil message is not what prompted federal action on civil rights. Riots did.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_riot_of_1963



If anything MLK is a counter-example to your point because where civility failed incivility succeeded.

That is a deeply warped sense of what happened. You are saying that MLK did not get things done, but violence did. You seem to cast aside any possibility that MLK made huge changes to society. How could it not be that things were mostly changed by MLK and that the riots were the last part of a very complex puzzle?

But maybe you are right. Maybe the only way to get things done is death and destruction. How could that go wrong?

 

[fskimospy]

That is a deeply warped sense of what happened. You are saying that MLK did not get things done, but violence did. You seem to cast aside any possibility that MLK made huge changes to society. How could it not be that things were mostly changed by MLK and that the riots were the last part of a very complex puzzle?

But maybe you are right. Maybe the only way to get things done is death and destruction. How could that go wrong?

If it’s deeply warped take it up with the professional historians who think so. The quote is very clear, JFK didn’t give a shit about nonviolent protesters and was perfectly fine with them being beaten and mauled for the foreseeable future. It was violence that changed his mind.

Your MLK example is bad and runs counter to your point. You will need to find a new one.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is inaccurate. MLK’s civil message is not what prompted federal action on civil rights. Riots did.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_riot_of_1963



If anything MLK is a counter-example to your point because where civility failed incivility succeeded.

What succeeded was that the incivility at its core had a profoundly human moral basis. No matter what lies you may tell yourself, God loves each of us equally, and that is what we all know and feel even if unconsciously. It is the truth of being. Do not build your alternate universe on sand if you don't want it to collapse around you.

The same thing applies today as in the civil war. The egotistical self interest in wealth by say the fossil fuel endowed 1% has created intentionally, the notion that climate change is a hoax, creating a danger to the rest of the human race, and they and all who believe their lies must, for the sake of human survival, be utterly removed from power and the opportunity to maintain such lies. Nobody in their right mind will allow the insane or the selfish to run the human show because many delusions can lead to human extinction. Violence is permitted for self defense where no other solution is present. The ignorant can't justify taking the lives of innocents where they, the ignorant, prefer death to awakening. It's a violation of common sense regardless of how regrettable it may be where it comes to that.

 

[ivwshane]

That is a deeply warped sense of what happened. You are saying that MLK did not get things done, but violence did. You seem to cast aside any possibility that MLK made huge changes to society. How could it not be that things were mostly changed by MLK and that the riots were the last part of a very complex puzzle?

But maybe you are right. Maybe the only way to get things done is death and destruction. How could that go wrong?

You continue to straw man. No one is advocating for death and destruction. People are however doing exactly what MLK was doing that you supposedly supported.

Non violent protests? Check
Boycotts? Check
Marches? Check
Sit-ins? Check

 

[Jhhnn]

I disagree that it has not done much good. As I have said multiple times now, I believe it likely kept a lid on what we are seeing today. The fact that one side was not hysterical was probably a very good thing.

Your argument now is that we need to cast aside that civility because its time to fight back against the Right. I think that is wrong now as it was wrong then. It was right then and things are not as bad now as they were then.

Except it didn't keep a lid on it at all, seeing as how Trump is President. You know, the most uncivil President in our lifetimes & probably our entire History. And he was elected largely on the basis of a giant "Fuck You!" to the rest of America & the world.

Expecting everybody to remain perfectly calm & civil in the face of that isn't remotely realistic.

 

[realibrad]

You continue to straw man. No one is advocating for death and destruction. People are however doing exactly what MLK was doing that you supposedly supported.

Non violent protests? Check
Boycotts? Check
Marches? Check
Sit-ins? Check

Some people are doing what MLK did, and that is perfectly fine with me. Further, I think it is likely to get more done so long as others do not escalate.

I think is also quite wrong to say that is what "IS" happening as if that is the only thing happening. Look at post 188. Do you think he is talking about civil disobedience? What about this from jhhnn " I said Libs have been civil for decades in the face of mindless tribalism from the GOP. It hasn't done us much good, given that GOP voters lost their fucking marbles & elected Trump as President despite ample evidence that he's a liar, a cheat, a thief & a con man."? Or this "Dems were being civil all along until our fellow Americans lost their fucking marbles over Trump. "

His language is using civility in a past tense to indicate that things have/are changing. He goes on to explain how civility was tried and did not work. The logical implications of what he is saying, is that tried, failed, do something different than civility.

 

[ivwshane]

Some people are doing what MLK did, and that is perfectly fine with me. Further, I think it is likely to get more done so long as others do not escalate.

I think is also quite wrong to say that is what "IS" happening as if that is the only thing happening. Look at post 188. Do you think he is talking about civil disobedience? What about this from jhhnn " I said Libs have been civil for decades in the face of mindless tribalism from the GOP. It hasn't done us much good, given that GOP voters lost their fucking marbles & elected Trump as President despite ample evidence that he's a liar, a cheat, a thief & a con man."? Or this "Dems were being civil all along until our fellow Americans lost their fucking marbles over Trump. "

His language is using civility in a past tense to indicate that things have/are changing. He goes on to explain how civility was tried and did not work. The logical implications of what he is saying, is that tried, failed, do something different than civility.

I think the issue is that you have a different definition of what civility is than everyone else both in its current context and in its historical context.

Making politicians, who support bad policy, feel uncomfortable and forcing them out from public spaces (as in places where anyone can go) is a form of civil disobedience and something MLK did and would approve of. I doubt you would consider that as being civil.