Donald Trump impeachment investigation over Ukranian phone call...

[RationalityIsLost101]

I'm not trying to interfere with the hate Trump circle jerk. I was pointing out that as someone who has been abused your liberal use of the term gas lighting is offensive - just the same outrage you'd find from the Liberals who claim Trump using the word lynching is wrong. Except, they get a pass, right?

Just as a quick check, you don't even know what my political affiliations or beliefs are, so you don't know who I give a pass to or not. Or if I have an inconsistency in what I've said. I do know the people who bashed Trump for his lynching use also bashed Biden. The people who call out people who use 'black face' call out people who are both sides of the political spectrum. Those people are principled in their belief. You sir are not. That's the difference.

I've said what I've said. If you want anything else from me see my prior statement. There's nothing left for me to address.

 

[chrisrlink]

I'm sure when trump is out either by 2024 or forced out that memo stating "the president cant be criminally charged" will be thrown into a dumpster fire and new rules will be enacted to allow without a reasonable doubt 2/3's vote plus evidence to support criminal activity the president will be not immune to charges (also non self pardonable also if found guilty will be immediently removed from office even w/o impeachment of course safegards will be put in place to prevent abuse of that rule (without them the other side (mainly republicans) would falsely charge for removal (a d*ck move but could be a possible abuse scenario) also maybe force all elected candidates to release their tax returns or be disqualified to run

 

[Ev1l0rd]

I'm sure when trump is out either by 2024 or forced out that memo stating "the president cant be criminally charged" will be thrown into a dumpster fire and new rules will be enacted to allow without a reasonable doubt 2/3's vote plus evidence to support criminal activity the president will be not immune to charges (also non self pardonable also if found guilty will be immediently removed from office even w/o impeachment of course safegards will be put in place to prevent abuse of that rule (without them the other side (mainly republicans) would falsely charge for removal (a d*ck move but could be a possible abuse scenario) also maybe force all elected candidates to release their tax returns or be disqualified to run

Impeachment is a good process on it's own. There aren't issues there. "The president can't be criminally charged" is just a policy by the department of justice, who instead defers the criminal activities to Congress or sits on them until the term ends (happened with Clinton who got nailed on contempt of court charges the moment he left office).

 

[Taleweaver]

Are you suggesting the summaries of testimony are being leaked by Republican members of the committee?

It's certainly possible. Democrats have the majority, so on the basis I don't know anyone, chances are larger it's a Democrat. But I don't see why you'd rule out Republicans because of partisanship. Plenty of anonymous testifications of white house officials saying trumps ignorance knows no bound. And Republicans can probably guess that there's no reason to support a crook, so better to get it over with faster. In that aspect, they have more reasons to get this to the public than democrats.

The White House has acknowledged that. The House of Representatives has the power, i.e. the whole body, not the Speaker, not any individual committee. And a proper resolution would establish an impeachment committee, not designate the impeachment investigation to an existing committee which already has a job.

Sorry, but it's not up to you (or, probably, also the white house) to decide how a proper resolution looks like.

Thursday will be the fourth time since December 2017 that the Democrats have held a vote on whether to open an impeachment inquiry. At least the previous three times they did actually vote on it, instead of just going ahead with it without voting first as they did this time.

Also, as far as I know fewer than 40 members of the House can attend and have access to transcripts of Schiff's secret hearings, and are sworn to secrecy about the specifics (leaks notwithstanding). So everyone else in the House voting on Thursday, i.e. the other 400 members, will be doing so based on media reports and scuttlebutt, not actual evidence.

Okay... And? If it was up to the president, there 'd be no vote based on zero hearings. 40 still beats 0,right? Again : dirty, but I feel like bringing everything out in the open isn't so much a recipe for a better trial but an invitation for scrutiny.

 

[Lacius]

Well I'd say the most significant distinction, besides the fact that it has been the norm historically in developed nations for over a century, is that generally speaking secondary education covers until the age of adulthood. Once you're an adult, the direction you take and choices you make are yours, or should be.

Is the traditional separation of free public education through secondary school, but not for college, arbitrary? I guess to an extent it is, but when it comes to government provided services, the cutoff usually is to some extent.

If you agree the distinction is arbitrary, and we know that the financial barriers to higher education are contributing to the problems of social inequalities, why wouldn't we want higher education to be free?

 

[Hanafuda]

If you agree the distinction is arbitrary, and we know that the financial barriers to higher education are contributing to the problems of social inequalities, why wouldn't we want higher education to be free?

First of all, I’m generally disinclined to look to more government as the solution to all life’s problems. Second, social inequalities will exist, always. Some people — most people — are just too stupid to justify teaching beyond a certain point. And too many people are going to college already as it is. The kid who works the cash register at my dry cleaner has a bachelors in marketing.

Higher education should be reserved for higher intellects. But once you open the “free” barn door and call it a “right” every dumbass goes to college. And that doesn't make any sense.

 

[Lacius]

First of all, I’m generally disinclined to look to more government as the solution to all life’s problems. Second, social inequalities will exist, always. Some people — most people — are just to stupid to justify teaching beyond a certain point. And too many people are going to college already as it is. The kid who works the cash register at my dry cleaner has a bachelors in marketing.

Higher education should be reserved for higher intellects. But once you open the “free” barn door and call it a “right” every dumbass goes to college. And that doesn't make any sense.

Your ideology is, "Higher education should be reserved for higher incomes."

 

[Hanafuda]

Your ideology is, "Higher education should be reserved for higher incomes."

I didn't say that. But life does and always will work that way. First class air travel is reserved for higher incomes. Ferraris are reserved for higher incomes. Parking a yacht in the harbor at Monaco during the Grand Prix is reserved for higher incomes. If you were to get your dream of free college education made to reality, having a college diploma would be of no more value than having a high school diploma is now. (and we're getting close to that already)

What matters more nowadays is not whether you went to college, but which college you went to, and in what area of study. So, in your world of higher education being a right, does everyone have the right to the same education? Does everyone have the right to major in whatever subject they like? Will your local community college diploma be legally equivalent in value to one from Harvard/Yale/MIT? Does everyone have the right to go to Carnegie Mellon and major in Robotics if they want to, at taxpayer expense? I mean, it's their right.

 

[Lacius]

I didn't say that. But life does and always will work that way. First class air travel is reserved for higher incomes. Ferraris are reserved for higher incomes. Parking a yacht in the harbor at Monaco during the Grand Prix is reserved for higher incomes. If you were to get your dream of free college education made to reality, having a college diploma would be of no more value than having a high school diploma is now. (and we're getting close to that already)

What matters more nowadays is not whether you went to college, but which college you went to, and in what area of study. So, in your world of higher education being a right, does everyone have the right to the same education? Does everyone have the right to major in whatever subject they like? Will your local community college diploma be legally equivalent in value to one from Harvard/Yale/MIT? Does everyone have the right to go to Carnegie Mellon and major in Robotics if they want to, at taxpayer expense? I mean, it's their right.

I'm not going to substantively address your air travel analogy, since it's apples and oranges.

Everyone should have a right to a quality higher education in the form of public universities. Anything less than that is to continue the same cycles of rich families educating the rich and poor people largely not being able to earn the education needed for upwards social mobility.

 

[seany1990]

I didn't say that. But life does and always will work that way. First class air travel is reserved for higher incomes. Ferraris are reserved for higher incomes. Parking a yacht in the harbor at Monaco during the Grand Prix is reserved for higher incomes. If you were to get your dream of free college education made to reality, having a college diploma would be of no more value than having a high school diploma is now. (and we're getting close to that already)

What matters more nowadays is not whether you went to college, but which college you went to, and in what area of study. So, in your world of higher education being a right, does everyone have the right to the same education? Does everyone have the right to major in whatever subject they like? Will your local community college diploma be legally equivalent in value to one from Harvard/Yale/MIT? Does everyone have the right to go to Carnegie Mellon and major in Robotics if they want to, at taxpayer expense? I mean, it's their right.

Out of curiosity, do you have a university degree? If so who paid for it?

 

[morvoran]

Well, call me surprised. It seems ol' Shifty Schiff went and changed the rules of his secret impeachment plan again.

First, he tried to hold it in public which ended in disgrace, then he went and hid in the basement of the House away from the public like any troll would. Now, since the House Republicans that were allowed to sit in and ask questions of the witnesses kept proving there is still no reason to impeach Trump, Good old "I have concrete proof of Russian collusion" Schiff decided to block any future witness from answering any questions given by the House Minority Republicans.

The entire House of Representatives are in charge of impeachments, not just the Majority of the House.
He should be ashamed of himself as well as any Democrat that supports this new age lynching of our Great President Trump. This whole fiasco is what Hamilton was afraid of when the articles of impeachment were drafted.

Source: Here

 

[Xzi]

Well, call me surprised. It seems ol' Shifty Schiff went and changed the rules of his secret impeachment plan again.

Source: Here

Cool story. Missing a lot of context and a reliable source, however. Republicans cannot argue against the clear-cut evidence any more, so instead they're now spending all their time and effort trying to unmask the initial whistleblower to score some brown-nosing points (and potentially get a protected witness killed in the process). As the head of this investigation, it's Schiff's job to ensure the whistleblower's identity remains secret.

A resolution to "formalize" the impeachment inquiry was introduced today, with a vote scheduled for Thursday. Not that I expect Republicans to cooperate with the process either way, but they'll soon get what they want, or at least what they think they want, as far as making it public goes.

 

[SG854]

Those few things you state in relation to downward mobility are not things that would impact multigenerational data I presented. So I stand by my earlier statement. Those things could explain a temporary shift during a recession, but not the data I provided. And certainly not during economic booms like the .com boom. Please go back and review. I'm not going to debate math with someone who isn't understanding the data beyond a case by case interpretation to try and twist data to only suite their narrative.



I'm not opposed to women participating in the workforce. However, this is Dis-ingenious and such a fallacy to ignore the larger issue. You aren't digesting the facts provided. I keep stating them but it's hard to understand if you are genuinely trying to discuss but so confused on the actual state of reality or if you purposefully keep spouting things that are just demonstrably misleading to avoid addressing the points I have provided in a legitimate manner.

I never said Dual income is a negative thing. However, dual income has become a necessity to offset the lack of increase in wages for an increased proportion of families. Many families have the same purchasing power with two people working than back in the 70s when it was more common to have only a single income provider. We have the same purchasing power which means we are effectively being paid less. That can't be that hard to grasp, can it? We should have seen an increase of the middle class and the upper class by the increase in dual income families but the middle class has only decreased and worse the lower class has increased. This confirms that there is an issue w/ our economy and how it is currently structured.



'My chart' - label which one you are referencing. I'm presuming you mean the Productivity chart from Department of Labor.

Of course technology created this gap. No one is confused about this. That's not even worth mentioning. The productivity of workers increases. What goods and services we can provide in a given day with the same labor has increased. Our pay for our labor has not increased as it should. The profits of that productivity increase has not gone to the workforce in any rate that is remotely equivalent to the rate that goes to investors and owners. This is the point, you say you have to create a law to address this, however, we had unions that negotiated on behalf of the workers to ensure their labor was compensated. We've allowed laws (such as 'right to work' among a multitude of others) to cripple the bargaining power workers of a given industry have to ensure proper wages according to their labor.

You still have yet to provide relevant statistics and a proper analysis for us to discuss your point of view. I'm still waiting. If your intent is to merely question mine, then you are doing both of us a disservice.

One final note, 'all that extra money being generated by the owner's investment making him entitled to that money'. I don't think the owner is the one who generates all that extra money if we are talking about labor productivity of workers. Maybe you can clarify because if you think an owner who benefits from the fruits of his employees, from their ingenuity/resourcefulness in cutting costs or expanding client share by using automated tasks that they or another entity other than the owner created, that he should not provide a portion of the profits, to ensure fair compensation of wages that increase as his? Better yet. Don't answer or respond to this as well until you bring a relevant statistic and analysis. For clarity, I'm not talking about a small business owners. I'm talking about CEOs of large corporations and stock investors of publicly traded companies.

Even companies that invest in automation via robotics still have to have workers skilled in the installation, operation, and maintenance of those devices but are they being promptly rewarded at the same growth rate as the CEO and investors year after year? Workers that are undoubtedly essential to the growth and expansion of the business are not compensated on average with a growth rate that is anywhere near the +900% salary jump of CEOs or +%700 jump of stock investors.

I'm talking about growth rates of wages. I'm not sure you can view beyond a single snapshot but I'm discussing something that occurred during the span of my entire lifetime.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


What they are voting for, just to be clear, is procedural rules of the hearings, ie the format for how they will be conducted. This is not on any articles of impeachment or anything that would require an ounce of evidence. I'm not sure if you are misinformed about the vote or merely gas-lighting.

They agreed to those lower wages. The signed a Job Application agreeing to work for those wages. Why complain when you agreed to it? They knew what they were getting into.

Why would workers get the benefits of a very successful business when their work is based on Salaries not Investments or Sales. Of course the top 1% incomes grow 3 times faster then the rest of the country during a successful event.


Since their earnings are based on Investments and Sales it makes their incomes more volatile compared to the lower classes. Lower Class salary workers $50,000 or less during the recession in 2007-2009 incomes fell by 2%, incomes of the top 5% incomes fell by 50%. Less people are buying stuff during a recession so business owners are hit the hardest.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204346104576638981631627402




Worker output and Wages have been keeping pretty much in line with each other. Your chart doesn't include health care and social security. These things have increased faster then wages. When you take hourly pay and all the benefits into account, then wages have kept up. The stagnant wages is because you are getting it instead from your health care and social security.

It wasn't until after 2003 that workers weren't being compensated for their output. This could be because a relative raise in price of goods and services like housing and education, not a decrease in worker bargaining power, and rising Health Care costs and benefits costs which is the fault of the medical industry and not Business Owners. Why should business owners pay higher wages to pay for the corrupt shit other industries are doing? Go after the housing industry and not Business owners selling products.

https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime...gap-between-real-wages-and-labor-productivity

 

[morvoran]

Cool story. Missing a lot of context and a reliable source, however. Republicans cannot argue against the clear-cut evidence any more, so instead they're now spending all their time and effort trying to unmask the initial whistleblower to score some brown-nosing points

A House Republican is the source, so that's more reliable source than any of the lame stream media like MSDNC or CNN (communist news network). The whistleblower is not even important any more as even the lame House demonrats have given up on their testimony, whoever it may be, since the transcript was proof enough Trump did no wrong.

and potentially get a protected witness killed in the process)

Ha ha ha.. Keep it up, you'll get that stand up special on Netflix one day (since they are letting all the lamest comedians have specials now). The whistleblower isn't holding secrets on the Clintons, so they are safe. Republicans aren't the ones that kill people like Demonrats such as the Clintons, Joe Scarborough, and Obama.

As the head of this investigation, it's Schiff's job to ensure the whistleblower's identity remains secret.

No, it's Schiff's job to hold a fair and transparent impeachment hearing which he has not since Trump was elected. Trump should be allowed to face his accuser and have his legal team ask questions. It's also not his job to lie to the American people like reading off his own version of the Ukraine phone call transcript or lying about having concrete proof of Russian collusion.

A resolution to "formalize" the impeachment inquiry was introduced today, with a vote scheduled for Thursday. Not that I expect Republicans to cooperate with the process either way, but they'll soon get what they want, or at least what they think they want, as far as making it public goes.

Yeah, since the Demonrats are in charge of the process, I don't have any faith that it will be fair, formal, or what the Republicans want. I'm sure Schiff and Pelosi will add terms to the inquiry that will end up treating Trump as if he actually committed a crime (by the way, winning the 2016 election is not illegal).

 

[Xzi]

A House Republican is the source

Like I said, you're missing a reliable source.

Republicans aren't the ones that kill people

Talk about selective amnesia.

Yeah, since the Demonrats are in charge of the process, I don't have any faith that it will be fair, formal, or what the Republicans want.

Republicans (cuckservatives) set most of the rules on impeachment proceedings. The only reason for arguing process now is that they can't argue the evidence.

 

[morvoran]

Like I said, you're missing a reliable source.

I never said the source was Mitt Romney (the closet democrat) or any other Rino/never-Trumper. I'm talking about the House Republican Steve Scalise.

Talk about selective amnesia.

I guess so. I can't think of any Republicans that murdered anybody, unless you mean how Trump ordered the killing of Al-baghdadi (I hear a lot of liberals are not too happy about that) or GWB being responsible for the death of Saddam Hussein. Speaking of Scalise, hmm, what happened to him at that baseball practice back in 2017??? Hmmmmm

Spoiler

Scalise was shot by a far left activist[5][6] on June 14, 2017 at a baseball practice for the congressional baseball team in Virginia and was taken to the hospital in critical condition.[7][8] He returned to the House on September 28, where he gave a speech about his experience related to the traumatic events.[9]

Republicans (cuckservatives) set most of the rules on impeachment proceedings. The only reason for arguing process now is that they can't argue the evidence.

Um, do you live in a parallel world and only visit this one to post nonsense on GBAtemp? Since before Trump was elected, the Democrats have been working on this whole impeachment fiasco/nonsense/mess.
They have every right to argue about the process since they are being stonewalled by the "do-nothing" demonrats that can't pass or work on any legislation other than trying to undo the 2016 election that Trump won fair and square even with the Dems using Russia and Ukraine's help to influence the election. Just wait for the FISA abuse report to be released. I hope Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadsler get locked up for years.

 

[Hanafuda]

Out of curiosity, do you have a university degree? If so who paid for it?

I had a modest scholarship (I think it was about $500 a semester?, which was actually helpful since we're talking about 1985-89), but mostly my undergrad diploma was paid for by me working on the packing line in a factory that makes the top of a beer/soda can, during summers while I was in school. (The company is called Crown, Cork, & Seal) I worked 20 days in a row, then one shift off due to State law, then 20 days again, and took as much overtime as I could get. I did a lot of 12 and 16 hour shifts. I made enough each summer to cover my tuition, rent, books, etc. No debt.

I have a postgraduate degree as well, for which I did take student loans. Paid that off about 10 years after graduating. I didn't have to borrow too much ... I worked for 2 years as an English teacher in Japan after I got the bachelor's and made/saved some money. JET Program.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I'm not going to substantively address your air travel analogy, since it's apples and oranges.

Everyone should have a right to a quality higher education in the form of public universities. Anything less than that is to continue the same cycles of rich families educating the rich and poor people largely not being able to earn the education needed for upwards social mobility.

Actually you didn't substantively address anything from my post. What about the second paragraph ... you're saying the right applies to public universities?? So the rich people go to private universities, and a public college diploma counts for shit. Just like now, only more so.

You also didn't address my question about whether you get to major in anything you please, no matter how poorly you've done academically or behaviorally. I mean why not, it's my right! I'm 52 years old and tired of my career and want to go to engineering school now. It's my right! I want to stay in college forever and live the party student life while never finishing a diploma because I'm Peter Pan! It's my right!!

I know you want to say, well, there'll be these limits and conditions. But then it's not a right. That's a law/regulation. I don't support such a law, but you're free to vote for a candidate who's willing to buy your vote with such promises. Bread and circuses, until the fall.

 

[Xzi]

I guess so. I can't think of any Republicans that murdered anybody

2018 was full of right-wing terrorist/mass shooter killings almost exclusively. This year the most notable one was the El Paso shooter. I know you're not that dumb though, just playing dumb in a poor attempt to save face.

Since before Trump was elected, the Democrats have been working on this whole impeachment fiasco/nonsense/mess.

Tough argument to make considering he committed probably a hundred different impeachable offenses over the last three years before Pelosi finally had her hand forced. Violation of the emoluments clause on its own is definitely impeachable.

 

[Lacius]

I had a modest scholarship (I think it was about $500 a semester?, which was actually helpful since we're talking about 1985-89), but mostly my undergrad diploma was paid for by me working on the packing line in a factory that makes the top of a beer/soda can, during summers while I was in school. (The company is called Crown, Cork, & Seal) I worked 20 days in a row, then one shift off due to State law, then 20 days again, and took as much overtime as I could get. I did a lot of 12 and 16 hour shifts. I made enough each summer to cover my tuition, rent, books, etc. No debt.

I have a postgraduate degree as well, for which I did take student loans. Paid that off about 10 years after graduating. I didn't have to borrow too much ... I worked for 2 years as an English teacher in Japan after I got the bachelor's and made/saved some money. JET Program.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------




Actually you didn't substantively address anything from my post. What about the second paragraph ... you're saying the right applies to public universities?? So the rich people go to private universities, and a public college diploma counts for shit. Just like now, only more so.

You also didn't address my question about whether you get to major in anything you please, no matter how poorly you've done academically or behaviorally. I mean why not, it's my right! I'm 52 years old and tired of my career and want to go to engineering school now. It's my right! I want to stay in college forever and live the party student life while never finishing a diploma because I'm Peter Pan! It's my right!!

I know you want to say, well, there'll be these limits and conditions. But then it's not a right. That's a law/regulation. I don't support such a law, but you're free to vote for a candidate who's willing to buy your vote with such promises. Bread and circuses, until the fall.

The information regarding the relationship between income inequality and education inequality speaks for itself. I'm also not particularly interested in responding to your party strawman, since it's a distraction from the issue of unequal access to education.

Also, what you did in the 1980s isn't comparable to what things are like now.

 

[Hanafuda]

The information regarding the relationship between income inequality and education inequality speaks for itself. I'm also not particularly interested in responding to your party strawman, since it's a distraction from the issue of unequal access to education.

I think that's the most roundabout way of saying "no comment" I've ever seen.

Good night, Lacius. Just so you know, I enjoy discussing issues with you. I don't agree with you on much, and I know the feeling is mutual. But you know your position and advocate very well for it. :thumbsup:

Also, what you did in the 1980s isn't comparable to what things are like now.

Well, since you added to your post ....

Factories still make things and will hire temps in summer due to heavier demand. Construction jobs can be had just by walking onto a site and asking sometimes. Did that too, after I got back from Japan but before I went back to school. Worked with a crew pouring the concrete floors/ceilings for a Holiday Inn.

The JET Program still exists. It's a great deal.

I just don't see the attitude these days from many young people that they'll do whatever it takes. Instead I hear, "boo hoo, it's different now. You had it so easy back then." When I was in undergrad, because I made a finite amount at that summer job I was strictly budgeted through the school year. When I couldn't make the budget I sold blood plasma. I still have a scar I can show you on the inside of my right elbow from the regular needle insertions.