ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Not irrational so much as hypocritical
They are perfectly happy with the fact that foreign nationals stumped for Hillary in Florida, for example
Mueller turns up the heat on impeachment
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
Not irrational so much as hypocritical
They are perfectly happy with the fact that foreign nationals stumped for Hillary in Florida, for example
Hypocrisy is a violation of the law of non-contradiction for the hypocrite says he thinks one way when in fact he thinks another way. It's the holding of two ideas that are mutually exclusive. The left constantly says they want non-citizens to vote. Their leader push this philosophy on a daily basis. They do everything they can to encourage illegal aliens to vote including registering illegals knowing they are illegals. They run ads telling illegals that it is a good thing if they vote in our elections. Yet they say that the Russians are trying to corrupt our elections when they try to influence the elections. What's the difference between a Russian and Latino from South America? Nothing besides ethnicity. Their citizenship status is exactly alike. Yet the left screams about anyone saying we need to deport non-citizens, or that the non-citizens shouldn't vote. What's the difference between a Russian and a illegal alien affecting our elections? There is no difference. Thus their arguments are irrational because, according to them, non-citizens must and must not affect our elections.
The position you and I hold is that no non-citizen must be able to affect our elections. It is thus coherent and rational.
Almost no one says that, let along some unified voice of the left. I have heard it advanced though. Read an article the other day on it that noted early in American life it wasn't citizenship that determined your right to vote, but your race, gender and property. That women and others were denied the vote, though they were citizens. Citizenship was largely a limiter on who could assume office, if that.
In fact, the S.Ct. once held, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875) that, "citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote."
It's an old idea and one with history that wasn't stridently attacked until the turn of the last century. My current state of residence, Alabama, was among the first to process an anti-immigrant feeling into laws denying the non-citizen the vote (so if you like the idea you can blame the Irish), in 1901. It wasn't until the late 20s that no foreigner was allowed to cast a vote anywhere in the U.S.
The Russians don't live here, pay taxes, produce goods and provide services, aren't impacted by the success of our enterprise and could benefit from its failure. . . So, a lot of important differences, when you consider it.
No, supra.
Again neither of those statements is actually true except among some on the left, though you can make arguments for both propositions.
Asked and answered.
Wrong again then, supra.
And again, no. The argument first isn't being advanced by the left, but by some and those advancing it understand the distinction that you do not and which was set out prior, but to be generous on the point: there are fundamental differences between individuals working, living, contributing, and being impacted by laws here having a voice in those laws and an alien nation, a government, outside of out boundaries, with an arguable interest in undermining our efforts and success as a nation, trying to influence our laws and leadership.
They're so fundamentally different that it's staggering you haven't seen it...or perhaps you simply never thought about it seriously enough.
And you're entitled to it, even though, historically, many did for a very long period of national success and advancement.
As is a contrary position, when and if you really think about it, no matter what your ultimate conclusion on the better course.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Nailed it again!:thumb:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Looks like you're giving up on thoughts of impeachment and just thrashing about in anger, giving vent to your uncontrollable feelings about the president and those who support him
How embarrassing it must be for you, not to be able to control those feelings.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
140 days left until Nadler decides whether or not to vote on whether or not to impeach
Or not - Nadler left himself some wiggle room - end of the year was, apparently, a moving target to mollify the insane leftists demanding impeachment
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
118 days left until Nadler decides whether or not to vote on whether or not to impeach
Or not - Nadler left himself some wiggle room - end of the year was, apparently, a moving target to mollify the insane leftists demanding impeachment
We're getting closer! :banana:
Or not - Nadler left himself some wiggle room - end of the year was, apparently, a moving target to mollify the insane leftists demanding impeachment
We're getting closer! :banana:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
and the answer is yes, Pelosi, in a staggeringly ignorant blunder, has put party before country in a move that will inevitably lead to the total disintegration of the democrat party
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Sorry, trying to switch up my words isn't very creative, and smacks of desperation.
Your president has already admitted to it: "That call was perfect. It couldn't have been nicer. Even the Ukrainian government put out a statement that that was a perfect call. There was no pressure put on them whatsoever. But there was pressure put on with respect to Joe Biden. What Joe Biden did for his son, that's something they should be looking at."
You and every MAGA have put Trump over country. When you look at that clearly admitted abuse of power and see only "Witch Hunt!" "Pelosi bad!" "Deep State!" "Hillary was worse!" you're too far gone to reason with.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
nice to see that you noticed it and are desperate enough to comment on it :thumb:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Prosecutors: Mueller Witness Whose Testimony Doomed Manafort Was Offered Money Not to Cooperate
Former Trump campaign deputy chairman Rick Gates, the former Paul Manafort associate who flipped and cooperated with the Mueller investigation, was offered “monetary assistance” not to cooperate with the government, federal prosecutors said on Tuesday.
From the government’s motion for downward departure and memo in aid of sentencing (you can read the rest of the filing below):
Former Trump campaign deputy chairman Rick Gates, the former Paul Manafort associate who flipped and cooperated with the Mueller investigation, was offered “monetary assistance” not to cooperate with the government, federal prosecutors said on Tuesday.
From the government’s motion for downward departure and memo in aid of sentencing (you can read the rest of the filing below):
Finally, is important to note that the public nature of this case has made Gates and Gates’ family the subject of intense media scrutiny. Gates’ cooperation has been steadfast despite the fact that the government has asked for his assistance in high profile matters, against powerful individuals, in the midst of a particularly turbulent environment. Gates received pressure not to cooperate with the government, including assurances of monetary assistance. He should be commended for standing up to provide information and public testimony against individuals such as Manafort, Craig, and Stone, knowing well that they enjoy support from the upper echelons of American politics and society. Based on his substantial assistance, the government recommends a downward departure and does not oppose Gates’ request for a probationary sentence.
