• 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:
The guy is 70 years old. Whatever he was going to become, he became long ago. If his ego really were fragile, it would have shattered in 2000, if not before. I think the more likely problem is that Trump's ego is more or less impervious to damage.
Click to expand...


Wow, you're still spreading this fallacy??

"He was going to become President in 2017, therefore he became President long ago!"

"He is now senile and suffering from dementia, therefore he became senile and started suffering from dementia long ago!"

Not to mention it is well known that dementia can change a person's personality.

Some people are incapable of learning.

LMFAO!!!
 
Marcus said:
Also unlikely that he did any money laundering.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that? It's pretty obvious he's been engaged in shady financial practices for decades, including close dealings with an organization (Duetsche Bank) that's been shown to engage in massive amounts of money laundering.
 
ArchSas said:
Why do you think that? It's pretty obvious he's been engaged in shady financial practices for decades, including close dealings with an organization (Duetsche Bank) that's been shown to engage in massive amounts of money laundering.
Click to expand...
I think Trump, personally, really wasn't on the ball enough to notice where the money was coming from. Or you could say he "turned a blind eye". Probably enough to establish plausible deniability.
 
We can't use his current lack of awareness of anything happening around him as a sign that he wasn't aware of stuff his company did years ago. He wasn't always like this.
 
Delvo said:
We can't use his current lack of awareness of anything happening around him as a sign that he wasn't aware of stuff his company did years ago. He wasn't always like this.
Click to expand...

I'm reminded of the moment from one of the presidential debate a few years ago, when Hillary Clinton pointed out that it was possible Trump hadn't paid taxes in years and tried to shame him. His response was "that makes me smart."

I've always seen him as clearly a guy that's aware of the possibility of financial shenanigans, knows he's been involved in such activities for some time, and sees it as necessary and good. Yes, he's probably always been somewhat clueless as to what people he hires to manage his money do with it (after all, that's why he pays them), but he knows enough to know that keeping it requires some shady things. Which is why he hires them in the first place; that's something people that rich just do - hire people to figure out how to maximize the amount of money they can hoard. If that happens through laundering, it doesn't really matter if he didn't do it personally, it was still done in his interest, and with his say-so.
 
ArchSas said:
I'm reminded of the moment from one of the presidential debate a few years ago, when Hillary Clinton pointed out that it was possible Trump hadn't paid taxes in years and tried to shame him. His response was "that makes me smart."

I've always seen him as clearly a guy that's aware of the possibility of financial shenanigans, knows he's been involved in such activities for some time, and sees it as necessary and good. Yes, he's probably always been somewhat clueless as to what people he hires to manage his money do with it (after all, that's why he pays them), but he knows enough to know that keeping it requires some shady things. Which is why he hires them in the first place; that's something people that rich just do - hire people to figure out how to maximize the amount of money they can hoard. If that happens through laundering, it doesn't really matter if he didn't do it personally, it was still done in his interest, and with his say-so.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by "doesn't really matter". If the question is will he end up in prison for it ( after his term or terms are over) the answer is probably not.
 
Delvo said:
We can't use his current lack of awareness of anything happening around him as a sign that he wasn't aware of stuff his company did years ago. He wasn't always like this.
Click to expand...

Laundering money with a wilful blindness that that's what you're doing is just as illegal as laundering money knowingly. Companies in the US have to take steps to ensure that they're not laundering money.
 
theprestige said:
Exactly in the way I intended, actually.
Click to expand...

You intended to mean that some people never seem to learn the fact that other people can change who they are in old age??? Nonsense. Indeed, you were the specific one claiming people don't change who they are in old age. I've instructed you on how you were wrong on this before, yet obviously you never learned that in spite of my teaching you. That's what my words intended; your words obviously intended something quite different (and wrong).
 
And let's also be sure to note the difference in quantifiers between what I intended versus what theprestige intended:

theprestige said:
The guy is 70 years old. Whatever he was going to become, he became long ago. If his ego really were fragile, it would have shattered in 2000, if not before. I think the more likely problem is that Trump's ego is more or less impervious to damage.
Click to expand...

It seems rather clear to me there is an implicit universal quantifier in the highlighted portion, which can be paraphrased as follows: Anybody that is 70 years old became what they are long ago.

In fact, it's specifically the quantifier that I quibble with: It's quite clearly not universally true, as I explained in a previous post. I would agree it's true of some people, certainly. Indeed, in the quote of mine that is being focused on I explicitly used an existential quantifier:

Cabbage said:
Some people are incapable of learning.
Click to expand...


So, in addition to the distinction between my intended meaning and theprestige's intended meaning that I've already covered we also have a distinction in our use of quantifiers: I correctly used an existential quantifier, as opposed to the improper use of the universal by theprestige.

LOL!
 
It's still too early. There's a risk of scandal fatigue and the hearings losing impact before the election. They should have started after the Christmas recess. That way they could time it so the trial in the Senate would be held by the post election congress.
 
Craig4 said:
It's still too early. There's a risk of scandal fatigue and the hearings losing impact before the election. They should have started after the Christmas recess. That way they could time it so the trial in the Senate would be held by the post election congress.
Click to expand...

Which "post-election congress"? There's a session between the election and the new term starting on Jan. 2 (or thereabouts) which is termed the "lame duck" session because members who won't be in place later are still there. That would mean it's constituted the same as today.
Or if it's the new congress in January, why bother? Either Trump will have been defeated and will be gone in three weeks; or if he's won he'll undoubtedly have continued control of the House of McConnell.

Or did you mean last year's Christmas recess? I'm confused.
 
Craig4 said:
It's still too early. There's a risk of scandal fatigue and the hearings losing impact before the election. They should have started after the Christmas recess. That way they could time it so the trial in the Senate would be held by the post election congress.
Click to expand...
That puts paid to any notion that an impeachment hearing is about justice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom