Trump impeachment,would witnesses have made a difference?

[Subduction Zone]

But the college chooses the POTUS and it seems regardless of the popular vote.

It is a bit complicated. The electoral college is chosen based upon the results of an election in each state. So if one wins a several states by just a hair and loses others by quite a lot a person that got less votes than the other candidate can still win. In the U.S. it can be compared to football, but that won't work with your version.

Okay, must run for a while.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then don't make so many separate points which require response.



the price of gas.
The pipeline
USDA rules

there is, you realize, a reason most of middle America is called 'flyover country"

All of those examples affect all of us. When you burn fossils fuels like it or not you are actually affecting the climate on a global scale. You are complaining about not your ability to harm others being limited. That is fail on your part. The USDA rules affect the safety of the food that we all eat. Again, you are complaining about your ability to harm others being limited. And the pipeline is the same thing.

Oh....here's a beauty, though it's more local than most...

A California farmer was fined and had his tractor impounded because he plowed a field and accidentally killed a kangaroo mouse.

The rules were made in urban LA, Sacramento and San Francisco, and had NO relationship to the way people had to deal with farmland in central California.

Here's another one, also more local than most.

a desert community has a BUNCH of desert tortoises, that it takes care of very well through local rules; tunnels for migration, rules regarding off road vacationers, etc.,

They got shut down and had to eliminate most of the methods that they used to protect the tortoise because urban (Sacramento, San Francisco and LA) declared that the town had to do things THEIR way....and their way cut the desert tortoise population down by 30%.

Because they didn't pay attention to the needs of the people who don't live in the big cities.

If you want to see a real attempt to nail rural america by the coastal regions, take a good look at the "Green New Deal," which would make life 'in the middle' darned near impossible.

Please find links for your supposed stories. They may be true they may not be. As the saying goes in debates, "links or it didn't happen". If you want I can support any of my claims as well. I am not immune from my own rules. I

 

[Milton Platt]

Anybody whom Trump were to shoot on Fifth Avenue, would likely be somebody who'd deserve to be shot.

And with that statement, you have proved my point.....Thank you. You have decided that a man with poor morals and a complete lack of understanding of the constitution should be both judge and jury.

 

[Revoltingest]

We appear to be having a profound miscommunication! What you ignored, wasn't personal criticism. It was criticism of actions taken by a political party. (For treating obstruction of Congress differently from how it's historically been treated; I cited the example of George Washington; etc., etc.) I am not sure how this can be interpreted as "personal criticism".

You criticize the party (ie, people in it) for political conduct you dislike.
That is not about public policy....just wrangling for advantage.

On the other hand, what you raised in post #224, was personal criticism. You said:

I'm beginning to form an impression that you
dislike Trump & any who don't oppose him.​

So, you ignored the criticism I made of a political party, and raised criticism of me.

In the post you quoted, I didn't criticize you...just noted our differences.

I'm not complaining. I don't mind. But you may want to re-read how our discussion has progressed. Because you seem to have had a different discussion in your mind, than we actually had on-screen. Either that, or I am just missing something. Please let me know if that is the case.

Well, I wouldn't reply to your post, and then when you raise evidence / logic to support your argument, ignore all that, and instead raise criticism of you personally ... at least not intentionally. If I do that, feel free to call me out on it, when it happens. I welcome constructive criticism.

I think this stems from our very different perspectives on leaders & governance.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You criticize the party (ie, people in it) for political conduct you dislike.
That is not about public policy....just wrangling for advantage.

The Senate voted 51-49 not to hear witnesses in an impeachment trial of the President. That feels like something, on a debate forum, that I should be allowed to either praise or criticize, without worrying about hurting your feelings. As long as I back it up with my reasoning, and relevant evidence and/or historical examples - which I did.

You ignored that reasoning, and those examples. You chose to change the subject and speculate that I "dislike" certain people, instead. So, with all due respect, I do not know what the heck you are complaining about.

What if we just try this: would you have voted in favor of hearing witnesses? Why, or why not?

 

[England my lionheart]

It is a bit complicated. The electoral college is chosen based upon the results of an election in each state. So if one wins a several states by just a hair and loses others by quite a lot a person that got less votes than the other candidate can still win. In the U.S. it can be compared to football, but that won't work with your version.

Okay, must run for a while.

Yep complicated.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Senate voted 51-49 not to hear witnesses in an impeachment trial of the President. That feels like something, on a debate forum, that I should be allowed to either praise or criticize, without worrying about hurting your feelings. As long as I back it up with my reasoning, and relevant evidence and/or historical examples - which I did.

It doesn't matter to me in the least whether witnesses are called.
An analogy...
It would be like watching scorpions have sex....how it all proceeds
is a process I don't know of or care about. And I know in advance
how it ends....baby scorpions.

You ignored that reasoning, and those examples. You chose to change the subject and speculate that I "dislike" certain people, instead. So, with all due respect, I do not know what the heck you are complaining about.

It's not a complaint, but rather an attempt to explain how we see
things very differently. Thus things which matter greatly to you
mean little to me. Then it might be less vexing for you.

What if we just try this: would you have voted in favor of hearing witnesses? Why, or why not?

Were I a Senator, I'd have determined already whether I want to replace
Trump with Pence, so calling witnesses would be a waste of time.
Personally though, I don't see any advantage for the country to convict
or not. (It's important that no Prez during this term will have time to
appoint any USSC justices.) It's all political theater now, so I have no
horse in that race.

 

[dianaiad]

All of those examples affect all of us. When you burn fossils fuels like it or not you are actually affecting the climate on a global scale. You are complaining about not your ability to harm others being limited. That is fail on your part. The USDA rules affect the safety of the food that we all eat. Again, you are complaining about your ability to harm others being limited. And the pipeline is the same thing.

That's the problem...it is not the ability to harm others that is being limited. That is, the coastal insistence upon untenable laws that affect ONLY the folks in the middle negatively is the issue.

It does not affect the average New Yorker to have to pay 4 bucks a gallon for gas. Their subway fair may go up a tiny bit, but that's about it. They already walk or use bikes.

Now consider the farmer in the midwest who must buy that gas to operate his farm machinery, or who has to drive thirty or forty miles to get to a grocery store or, heaven forbid, a WalMart to do any shopping whatsoever; who generally puts (as I have been known to do) 200 miles per day on her car just doing what an inhabitant of a major city can do in a mile's walk. It doesn't matter to them what the folks in the middle have to do.

The irony is, I live in a city myself that is larger than most state capitols. I still have to drive long distances to do any shopping. For instance, this morning I have to get into my car and drive sixty miles round trip to pick up the groceries that I ordered on line. Do you think ANYBODY on the coast has to do that? Nobody in LA does, and the folks over there are known for long commutes.

It isn't a bit unusual, for instance, for people who live here to have to drive 200 miles a day just to get to work and back. So....who is harming whom, here? The folks who live in the coastal cities of California don't care. They are like the folks on the east coast. They only care about what won't interfere with THEM.

Please find links for your supposed stories. They may be true they may not be. As the saying goes in debates, "links or it didn't happen". If you want I can support any of my claims as well. I am not immune from my own rules. I

Of course. I try rather hard not to make claims of fact where I can't provide links.

Here's the one about the farmer (one of many...btw, the feds dismissed the charges against Lin, but far too late to save him or his farm)

Taiwanese Farmer Targeted For Violating Endangered Species Act

The California City example actually comes from my sister and daughter, who lived there at the time. I wasn't able to find a newspaper link to that story, but I have several separate accounts from people who actually live there and who have been involved in the situation.

You can read the "Green New Deal" yourself, but if you want the text of it, I can provide it...Here's a pdf:

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf

As for the way the coastal folks do not understand or care about the problems of the folks in fly over country (which seems to begin about sixty miles inland) I freely admit that this is my personal, hard won, opinion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You want to think it has. You are wrong.



Where were they 'shown to be wrong,' precisely?

By me. More than once. In more than one thread.
You've completely ignored it every time.

 

[dianaiad]

By me. More than once. In more than one thread.
You've completely ignored it every time.

Call it chemo brain or something. Please either show me where you have refuted me, provide links...something?

BTW, differing opinions is NOT the same thing as refutation.

 

[columbus]

Yep complicated.

It's even more complicated than that.
Voters in some states, predominately white conservative states, get more voting power than the larger, more diverse, states. A vote in Wyoming is worth about 3.5 Californian votes. As a result, presidents tend to be noticably more conservative than the American people as a whole. And campaign promises that appeal to conservative, rural, white voters will tend to get more EC delegates than promises that appeal to less white urbanites.

It's kinda a relic from when the USA was "of rich white men, by rich white men, and for rich white men".
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's the problem...it is not the ability to harm others that is being limited. That is, the coastal insistence upon untenable laws that affect ONLY the folks in the middle negatively is the issue.

It does not affect the average New Yorker to have to pay 4 bucks a gallon for gas. Their subway fair may go up a tiny bit, but that's about it. They already walk or use bikes.

Now consider the farmer in the midwest who must buy that gas to operate his farm machinery, or who has to drive thirty or forty miles to get to a grocery store or, heaven forbid, a WalMart to do any shopping whatsoever; who generally puts (as I have been known to do) 200 miles per day on her car just doing what an inhabitant of a major city can do in a mile's walk. It doesn't matter to them what the folks in the middle have to do.

The irony is, I live in a city myself that is larger than most state capitols. I still have to drive long distances to do any shopping. For instance, this morning I have to get into my car and drive sixty miles round trip to pick up the groceries that I ordered on line. Do you think ANYBODY on the coast has to do that? Nobody in LA does, and the folks over there are known for long commutes.

It isn't a bit unusual, for instance, for people who live here to have to drive 200 miles a day just to get to work and back. So....who is harming whom, here? The folks who live in the coastal cities of California don't care. They are like the folks on the east coast. They only care about what won't interfere with THEM.

You do realize that gas is actually underpriced right now don't you? But from your example I can tell that you know very very little about farming. Though gas is an expense your complaints are not well founded. The only tax that could be said to be unfair are the parts that go to pay for road maintenance and farmers are exempt from that except in California:


What's Fueling Up Farm Fuel Prices

Of course. I try rather hard not to make claims of fact where I can't provide links.

Here's the one about the farmer (one of many...btw, the feds dismissed the charges against Lin, but far too late to save him or his farm)

Taiwanese Farmer Targeted For Violating Endangered Species Act

Your source is not exactly accurate. The chargers against the farmer were dropped. Those are the ones where he was accused of knowingly breaking the law. His corporation was still facing fines:


U.S. Dismisses Charges That Farmer Killed Rare Rats : Environment: Conservatives seeking to alter the Endangered Species Act praise the move. The case will be pursued only against the man's family corporation.

And he was not a "poor farmer". He was a wealthy owner of a book binding business that tired to start a farm. Supposedly the petroleum company that he bought the land from said it was fine to farm there, but the ultimate responsibility for that lies with the purchaser. When one buys land one must understand and follow the laws that affect his land. He obviously did not do so.
The California City example actually comes from my sister and daughter, who lived there at the time. I wasn't able to find a newspaper link to that story, but I have several separate accounts from people who actually live there and who have been involved in the situation. This claim of yours falls apart when looked at more closely. A person cannot just eradicate wildlife on one's farm. When one buys land there are always limitations on it. This is another bad example.

You can read the "Green New Deal" yourself, but if you want the text of it, I can provide it...Here's a pdf:

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf

As for the way the coastal folks do not understand or care about the problems of the folks in fly over country (which seems to begin about sixty miles inland) I freely admit that this is my personal, hard won, opinion.

The Green New Deal was merely a proposal. It did not even come close to being a law. They do have some legitimate concerns. As I said, we do not pay the proper price for fossil fuels currently. You do realize that AGW is a true thread I hope. One can't crap all over the world and pass the mess off for those to follow to clean up. Right now it looks as if you are complaining about people being force to act responsibly.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He was guilty of lying about that under oath. While he was assessed a huge fine for what happened with Paula, (sexual assault aka rape) he was DISBARRED for the lie. Which he admitted to and was found guilty of.



No he isn't. Even the articles of impeachment don't go to the extent of charging him with treason. You have your opinion, of course, but your opinion is not a legal finding.

For instance...how many people think that OJ Simpson was 'guilty of' killing his ex-wife? However, he was found not-guilty, and quite a few people still believe that he didn't do it. Your opinion is not a finding of fact.



Not nearly as much as Hillary and Schiff have.

See? Opinions are not findings of fact, or verdicts.




Simplicity of form. It's easier to say 'democracy' than 'representative republic,' and you only refer to TRUMP as not having been elected, when I'm quite certain you are fine with saying that Clinton and Obama were.

The same process got them all in the POTUS job.

How have Hillary and Schiff obstructed investigations and avoided testimony under oath?
I seem to recall Hillary sitting and answering questions for hours and hours in front of various Senate committees. How many hours has Trump put in testifying??

 

[SkepticThinker]

So...in your view the people in New York who live in 800 sq ft apartments that cost a couple thousand a month, have never owned a car and don't have a license to drive one, get to where they want to go by either walking a mile or taking the subway, who think that eggs come from the supermarket and steaks come from the butchershop, who think that polyester/cotton is better for the enviornment should absolutely have the right to tell the folks in middle America who make it possible for them to HAVE all those goodies how to live, how to raise produce and cattle, how to drive and when, and get all upset when they are told that a 30 mile trip to the grocery store is pretty average?

I'm sorry, but no. What you are suggesting is JUST like saying that China, because she has so many people, can dictate to the rest of us what our cultures should be and how we should live, simply because there are more of them.

I don't want the idiots who live on the coast of California to tell ME how to drive, live and think, and they are only 60 miles from me. They are sixty very important miles.

I CAN'T live my life the way they do in New York...or in LA. L.A. scares me, quite frankly.

but your way would have them tell the farmer in the middle of the nation that he can't drive to the store, can't do what he needs to do to live and provide for the 'endpapers', and can't have representation to let those 'endpapers' know just how ludicrous their demands are.

It's not at all like China dictating to the US what cultures should be and how to live. Whether a person lives in New York or Arkansas, they're still American citizens, living in the USA.
The comparison doesn't make any sense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Call it chemo brain or something. Please either show me where you have refuted me, provide links...something?

BTW, differing opinions is NOT the same thing as refutation.

Excuse me for not jumping out to grab you the links for like the third or fourth time now.
We're talking facts, not opinions. There were Republicans in those committee hearings that you keep saying were held in secret so that no Republicans could attend. Those Republicans asked questions of the witnesses, which you claim they were not allowed to do. I provided transcripts for you from those hearings showing how the Republicans indeed did question the witnesses.
Those Republicans who stormed the depositions were already invited to be there. The whole thing was a big show for Trump supporters to latch onto, and apparently it worked, given that you keep repeating erroneous claims about it.

 

[England my lionheart]

It's even more complicated than that.
Voters in some states, predominately white conservative states, get more voting power than the larger, more diverse, states. A vote in Wyoming is worth about 3.5 Californian votes. As a result, presidents tend to be noticably more conservative than the American people as a whole. And campaign promises that appeal to conservative, rural, white voters will tend to get more EC delegates than promises that appeal to less white urbanites.

It's kinda a relic from when the USA was "of rich white men, by rich white men, and for rich white men".
Tom

Doesn't sound very democratic if it's like that but it does seem loaded from the outside.

 

[columbus]

Doesn't sound very democratic if it's like that but it does seem loaded from the outside.

It isn't.
And it's not that state legislatures can't choose a different method. There's a national organization trying to get state legislatures to vote for a more democratic method.
National Popular Vote
But the current system benefits people with clout, including the Dems and Reps.
Tom

 

[SoyLeche]

Doesn't sound very democratic if it's like that but it does seem loaded from the outside.

It is a bit worse since most states are "winner take all" with the electors. If all of the states divided their electors proportionally it would be a bit more reasonable.

Overall, though, it's an antiquated system that should be modernized.

 

[England my lionheart]

It is a bit worse since most states are "winner take all" with the electors. If all of the states divided their electors proportionally it would be a bit more reasonable.

Overall, though, it's an antiquated system that should be modernized.

It seems so,we have actual antiques sitting in our house of Lord's which also requires modernising.

 

[columbus]

It is a bit worse since most states are "winner take all" with the electors.

But this benefits the-powers-that-be. Like the Demopublicans and the Republicrats.
In any given state, the party that holds a majority in the legislature can usually expect at least 51% of the vote to go to their presidential preference. By making it a winner take all system, the presidential candidate can ignore the voters who probably won't have any impact on the election.
There are a few "swing" states. But mostly the results are determined, in favor of whichever party holds the legislature. That totally works for partisan leadership.
Tom