Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah I think the information age has in and off itself made it impossible for the President to not meet the Article II, Section 3 requirements.
 
theprestige said:
Obvious theatrics is probably not the best impeachment play for the Democrats right now.
Click to expand...
Theatrics, obvious or not, is the only thing that affects Trumpites. And Trumpty. He is that shallow that the simple threat of something bad happening to him is enough to unsettle him greatly. And when unsettled, he does dumb...well, dumber things.
 
Stacyhs said:
I certainly don't watch it now. I can't watch Trump for more that a minute or two before wanting to put my fist through the TV. Besides, he'll probably make it the State of Trump Address or How Trump Has Made America Great Again.
Click to expand...

With copious whining.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Theatrics, obvious or not, is the only thing that affects Trumpites. And Trumpty. He is that shallow that the simple threat of something bad happening to him is enough to unsettle him greatly. And when unsettled, he does dumb...well, dumber things.
Click to expand...
I will just quote myself to note i wrote the above post before I heard about the Iran leader assassination by US forces as ordered by Trump. Tell us about Democrat theatrics again please someone? Surely everyone will agree that using US military to kill someone is WAY up there as a staged distraction.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. If you think slaves aren't people at all, then you don't think slaves are 3/5ths of a person. 0 =/= 3/5
Click to expand...


It is absolutely consistent to believe that slaves aren't people at all and yet believe they should be counted as 3/5ths of a person for political representation purposes. The two are not mutually exclusive.


ETA: Which, on a reread, agrees with what you were saying.

Nevermind. :D
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Suppose that if your model is correct, there's still a 1% chance your prediction will be wrong. If your prediction is wrong, should you still believe in your model? No, you shouldn't. You should suspect that your model is probably wrong, because it's more likely that your model is wrong than you've hit the statistical anomaly. Yes, it's possible your model could still be right, but you're making a bad bet by sticking to it under those circumstances.

Note also that concluding your model is wrong doesn't obligate you to default to any specific alternative model, so it's not like you even need to give up hating Trump.
Click to expand...

When considering the psychological complexity of a person, saying that any one prediction of a specific event which has failed and therefore invalidates 'the model' is carrying pedantry to a high standard indeed.

If we were to have access to examination of 100 alternate universe Trumps and found just *one* instance of his not having a meltdown at the SOTU, are you positing that this would demonstrate his stability?

I would say that a 50% rate would arguably be indicative of instability. Indeed, just a 10% rate should be concerning. I mean, if a trusted professional told you that in future public settings *you* would wig out one time out of ten, I'd bet you'd find that alarming.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Ah more perfectly concrete evidence that the President is obstructing the Congressional investigate into abuse of power while he is being impeached for, let me check my notes here... ah yes obstructing of Congress and Abuse of Power.

I swear to God if Trump goes to trial for pit-pocketing he will steal the foreman of the Jury's wallet at some point during the trial.
Click to expand...

9879Io1.gif
 
Norman Alexander said:
Theatrics, obvious or not, is the only thing that affects Trumpites. And Trumpty. He is that shallow that the simple threat of something bad happening to him is enough to unsettle him greatly. And when unsettled, he does dumb...well, dumber things.
Click to expand...

People have been saying this for three years now. I believe you when you say you see a pattern to these things. But this idea of finding The One Thing That Will Finally Make a Difference doesn't seem to be working out for you.
 
Norman Alexander said:
I will just quote myself to note i wrote the above post before I heard about the Iran leader assassination by US forces as ordered by Trump. Tell us about Democrat theatrics again please someone? Surely everyone will agree that using US military to kill someone is WAY up there as a staged distraction.
Click to expand...

The guy needed killing. The opportunity came up, and Trump took it. There's a whole thread about it. Go discuss it there if you have an opinion.
 
theprestige said:
The guy needed killing. The opportunity came up, and Trump took it. There's a whole thread about it. Go discuss it there if you have an opinion.
Click to expand...

Circumspection seems to be a rare commodity among Rightists. Sure, a bad guy deserved death. Many Iranians like yourself might feel that a high up American like, say, Pompeo merits taking out. Suppose that on a visit to Iraq by Pompeo Iran saw an opportunity and took it. Would that balance the sheet for you?

Assassinating a prominent individual of a foreign government against whom one is not at war is a mighty step indeed. Has Trumpy thought through the ramifications? The wider world highly doubts it.
 
Belz... said:
I hate to side with Zig but he's right on this one.



The 3/5ths argument is a red herring.
Click to expand...
And zero fifths would have been vastly less unfair, considering the compromise allowed slave states to count residents who were not granted the franchise.
 
Last word on this particular side topic and then we can spin it off it anyone thinks it's worth a discussion...

Even know I don't think non-voters should count for measuring population for the soul purpose of granting political power.

You shouldn't get EC votes or Senators based on Felons or Children who can't vote.
 
Lurch said:
Circumspection seems to be a rare commodity among Rightists. Sure, a bad guy deserved death. Many Iranians like yourself might feel that a high up American like, say, Pompeo merits taking out. Suppose that on a visit to Iraq by Pompeo Iran saw an opportunity and took it. Would that balance the sheet for you?

Assassinating a prominent individual of a foreign government against whom one is not at war is a mighty step indeed. Has Trumpy thought through the ramifications? The wider world highly doubts it.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to debate it here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom