So is the principle that in ordinary conversation, we need proof of guilt before we comment on it? I think we need good evidence, but there is rightly a different standard for criminal convictions.
Yes. It's a normal, day-to-day part of life. I'm sure you're aware of US attempts to influence political outcomes in other countries. That's not an endorsement, but an acknowledgement of reality.
Yes, I've heard this pathetic defense before. If North Korea dropped an atomic bomb on us, I'm sure you'd just say, "oh well, we dropped two on Japan so we shouldn't criticize," right?
No. My view is that it's going to happen and the best response is to secure your systems.
And Americans who aid the attack are inevitable. "Oh well, it is human nature to commit some crimes. We should just try to protect ourselves and not hold it against the criminals."
Trump already imposed those sanctions, and I never wrote in opposition to them. So please stop the dishonesty.
"Trump imposed those sanctions." LOL. You're just trolling now.
My view of impeachment is that it requires an actual crime. So far Trump has not been found guilty of a crime. This is a deeper consitutional issue that I don't think you want to delve into.
But you also don't think he can be tried for a crime, right? So how can he be found guilty? Combining your positions on this issue, you're saying that impeachment is impossible.
My understanding of the founding is that the framers intended impeachment/removal to be a stand-in for prosecution. The idea was that the populace (through their representatives) should make that determination and not merely a jury or judge.
So why is it not appropriate now?
I don't think the act of paying off a mistress is morally reprehensible. I don't like it when men sleep around on their wives, but that's a different topic.
You were just attacking Strok's morality on the exact grounds. This is just blatant tribalism.
Jack, you know full well that the offering of a bet is not an "expression of certainty". It's an expression of confidence. You expressed confidence on the opposite side of the bet, but then you ran. Why is that?
I didn't run. I'm just anticipating a difficult adjudication process. I offered you a chance to clarify. Where on Earth does your confidence come from here if not tribalism?
I like Trump's dedication to strengthening the porous southern border, nominating textualist-originalists to the federal judiciary, and his being wary of sending troops overseas. I don't like Trump on military spending and belligerence toward Russia. I feel Pence would not be as effective on the southern border.
I'll ignore the blatant trolling with the Russia stuff. What's the evidence that Trump has been effective on the Southern border? And is Trump really the only the guy who can do what he's doing? I don't see why you can't find a non-corrupt champion of your views.
Lol, Jack is just making up insults now.
For some people in this world, the less attention you give them, the more they desperately desire it.
I live rent free in someone's head.
Weird thing to say from someone who mentions me constantly while lacking the confidence to defend his own points against counter arguments I make. And I'm not making it up. You want me to dredge up the quote? You've made it perfectly clear that you consider politics to be a war and that things like personal decency and integrity are for suckers. You've also described the abuse at the hands of your father on multiple occasions.
