• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
I'm done when you're done, probably.

The axiom is a definition. It's terminology. Call it "removing an elected official from office", and the logic still holds: impeachment, assassination, and a coup are all methods of "removing an elected official from office".

Change the terminology, the logic remains the same. But I'm happy to drop the term in favor of one you prefer, if that will help. I'm also happy to keep arguing the point, at least for a little bit, if you are. It's up to you.
Click to expand...
But “removing” is not “overturning.” Jesus Christ on the uneven parallel bars, words mean things.
 
Belz... said:
That's exactly what we've been doing: pointing out that impeachment isn't overturning the election by explaining what we mean by overturning. Did you miss those posts?
Click to expand...

No, I didn't. But you can't solve definitional differences that way. It's pointless to say he's wrong, because he isn't. He's just using a different definition than you. You can have reasons to prefer your definition, and those reasons may even be good reasons, but they don't make him wrong, which is what you've been claiming. You can't really do more than say that you don't accept his definition.
 
Ziggurat said:
But you can't solve definitional differences that way.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. You can make a case why the definition is not useful in context, or why it doesn't match usage, or the facts.

It's pointless to say he's wrong, because he isn't.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Zig, but if I say a cow is defined as a motor vehicle with four wheels, I'm wrong. You can't axiom your way out of an error. It's a way to distract from the error.
 
Belz... said:
I don't know about that. You can make a case why the definition is not useful in context, or why it doesn't match usage, or the facts.
Click to expand...

Sure, but this isn't a dispute about facts. Claiming it is will just get people to dig in their heels. Usefulness can be relevant, and Paul2 and Dr. Keith gave reasons to prefer not using theprestige's definition, but they're still ultimately subjective reasons. They aren't a matter of theprestige's facts being wrong.
 
Belz... said:
I don't know about that. You can make a case why the definition is not useful in context, or why it doesn't match usage, or the facts.

Sorry, Zig, but if I say a cow is defined as a motor vehicle with four wheels, I'm wrong. You can't axiom your way out of an error. It's a way to distract from the error.
Click to expand...

Hi, welcome to "alternative facts" land. Words can mean whatever you'd like to define them as. Please, have a seat.

Ziggurat said:
Sure, but this isn't a dispute about facts. Claiming it is will just get people to dig in their heels. Usefulness can be relevant, and Paul2 and Dr. Keith gave reasons to prefer not using theprestige's definition, but they're still ultimately subjective reasons. They aren't a matter of theprestige's facts being wrong.
Click to expand...

:dl:
 
Any argument about impeaching Trump equals overturning the 2016 election runs bang into NOT impeaching him equalling overturning the 2018 election.
 
theprestige said:
Okay. What thing does "Jesus Christ on the uneven parallel bars" mean, in this context?
Click to expand...
I don't care, it was hilarious no matter.


ETA: Perhaps it's a riff on "Jesus Christ on a pogo stick," which is a riff on the cruxifiction.
 
Belz... said:
Of course it is. It's an attempt to frame the impeachment as a coup rather than an attempt to hold another branch of government to account for their actions.
Click to expand...

You're contradicting yourself here. Framing isn't about facts, but about subjective interpretation of what's important.
 
Ziggurat said:
You're contradicting yourself here. Framing isn't about facts, but about subjective interpretation of what's important.
Click to expand...

Wait a second. You're confusing the two parties of the discussion, here. Theprestige is the one framing, and then pretending that it's about definitions. It isn't, is my point.
 
Belz... said:
Wait a second. You're confusing the two parties of the discussion, here. Theprestige is the one framing, and then pretending that it's about definitions. It isn't, is my point.
Click to expand...

I was framing impeachment as a serious matter. Then everybody freaked out about definitions.

I'm happy to return to the framing any time. I've suggested it more than once, but for whatever reason JoeMorgue didn't like that.
 
theprestige said:
Noted. I will try not to underestimate the stupidity of your mother.

More seriously, does this motherly advice mean there's a risk you're underestimating the stupidity of the Democrats who are pushing for impeachment?
Click to expand...

We can talk about the argument for Impeachment once the Republicans are willing to face the evidence: so far, they keep claiming that there is no issue whatsoever.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
I am sorry. I don't seem to remember any aid being withheld. In fact I seem to remember the aid being boosted.

Am I wrong? Did the Ukrainians get the aid they needed or not?
Click to expand...

Yeah, after Trump and the Trumptrash around him got caught. That disgusting little Mulvaney creature told us all that in a press conference.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
I am sorry. I don't seem to remember any aid being withheld. In fact I seem to remember the aid being boosted.

Am I wrong? Did the Ukrainians get the aid they needed or not?
Click to expand...

It was withheld until Zelensky agreed to make a public statement involving Trump’s political opposition that would profit Trump.

When the above threatened to become public knowledge Trump began a massive cover-up of his crime. After all this the aid was released.
 
autumn1971 said:
It was withheld until Zelensky agreed to make a public statement involving Trump’s political opposition that would profit Trump.

When the above threatened to become public knowledge Trump began a massive cover-up of his crime. After all this the aid was released.
Click to expand...

No.
It was withheld until the Whistleblower complaint leaked to the House.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I was thinking maybe someone who did testify was the whistleblower.
Click to expand...

I had hope that one of the witness would own up during the Inquiry when one of the Reps went off on their "Where is the whistleblower???" rants.

"I... am the whistleblower."

In the style of Darth Vader at the end of The Empire Strikes Back.

Jaw- and mic-drop moment at the same time.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
We can talk about the argument for Impeachment once the Republicans are willing to face the evidence: so far, they keep claiming that there is no issue whatsoever.
Click to expand...

It's probably a mistake to make the discussion you want to have contingent on the cooperation of people you can't control and who are unlikely to cooperate.

The phrase, "rent free in people's heads" gets thrown around a lot, but this is a clear example of the phenomenon. House Republicans can't control what you talk about. But you're letting them live in your head, taking control, anyway.

(It's also not even really true. You've been talking about the argument for impeachment for months, without Republican cooperation. Why introduce it as a requirement now?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom