More false equivalency. The impeachment process was conducted according to the US Constitution.
Yup, they only care about power, not principle.
That’s a good idea, maybe the supreme court could determine if there’s sufficient evidence to impeach a president.
It may’ve been constitutional, but the impeachment was baseless, and immoral, they did it out of spite.
Okay but you understand the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate source of process. They intentionally attempted to disrupt a Constitutional process on, at best, extremely poor evidence (hearsay, no process to come up with legitimate affidavits, etc.).
If all Americans thought the election was fraudulent, there would have been more than 10,000 marching on the Capitol. But the truth is, most believe this minority to be confused about the facts and reality. If Trump’s premise is false, there’s no more moral rationale for what occurred. Pretty big stakes, and the evidence is extremely underwhelming for fraud at the level that would change an election.
Perhaps your residence of Canada limits your understanding of U.S. process, history, and culture?
That’s all dems tried to do for the last 4 years, disrupt Trump’s constitutional presidency based on wild speculation and hearsay.
Looked more like hundreds of thousands to me.
From what I gather, a majority of republican congressmen and voters, tens of millions of people, and over 20 states believe the election in swing states Michigan, Wisconsin and so on was illegitimate, yet the supreme court dismissed their charge, largely offhand, without giving it a chance.
Not sure about independents and democrat voters.
In light of the last two American elections, I don’t really trust pollsters to give accurate info about what Americans believe, especially on highly controversial, divisive and partisan issues, they’ve been wildly inaccurate time after time.
I haven’t looked into the evidence enough to comment much on it.
Well your perception always has been a bit…odd…when it comes to statistical analysis and personal anecdote. Sorry, but your perception is no replacement for facts.
You say they were dismissed “offhand” by the courts. That clearly is evidence for your next statement.
There are no facts, only interpretations.
Some may be better than others, some may come from better places than others, but there is no absolute.
The MSM has proven to be extremely biased, hyper-partisan.
We oughta supplement it with independent experience, research and thinking, or vice versa.
I’m not sure, but I think it was even admitted in the MSM they dismissed it largely offhand, without giving it much, if any chance, despite how much support it had from republicans.
That’s the issue, you’re unsure of a lot of things, you admittedly “haven’t looked into it much.”
It’s not a very interesting foundation on which to engage.
But you’re not sure the contrary is true, are you?
How thoroughly have you examined the evidence for yourself?
Are you sure the supreme court did a thorough investigation of the matter before ruling it out?
Or did they barely give it the time of day?
Perhaps they feared civil war and being hunted down by the establishment and their goons, maybe that’s the real reason they rejected it.
I’m sure the contrary is very unlikely. You speak from ignorance, then project it onto others.
I’m not here to think for you. I have done the research, I have looked at the evidence. Part of that process involved me gaining a better understanding of the U.S. Constitution, reading the court decisions, listening to the “testimony” of those who claim there was wrongdoing, and the various responses from GOP Congressmen and Trump & associates.
Meanwhile, I suspect you sit on your flabby pancake ass, drinking in bitchute videos and OANN, thinking you’re forming an educated opinion after looking exclusively at propaganda and rhetoric, putting your trust in others to have done the research before sharing their opinion with you.
How close does that come to reality?
That’s how these things always seem to unfold.
Were those who stormed the Capitol terrorists or patriots?
Well, we are all in the same boat here.
First, we have to acknowledge the gap between what we think that we know about it and all that there is to be known about it. The gap between an omniscient understanding of it and that more or less tiny fraction of knowledge that we have of it “here and now”. Going back to all there is to be known about the existence of existence itself. How does our own infinitesimally puny speck of existence here figure into the really, really, [b]really[/b] Big Questions.
Now my argument is that we take out of questions like this what we first put into them: our “self”.
If the existential trajectory of our lives went in one direction we call them terrorists, if in another direction we call them patriots. But for those of an authoritarian bent, what matters is not so much what they are but that they are either one or the other. They need to believe that the answer is within our reach.
After all, that’s where, psychologically, the comfort and the consolation lie. In knowing that we are right and they are wrong. Thus, even if the bad guys win, it doesn’t make them less wrong.
And we will never know for sure.
To say “we are all in the same boat here” demonstrates a blatant disregard, or at least disparate treatment, of what should be considered “facts” and “evidence” for most of us.
What is your statement exactly, the assertion that no commonly shared facts or knowledge about the universe is possible?
I suppose in some obscure philosophical realm that is an interesting discussion, but IMO has little practical relevance to the reality most of us have to co-exist in.
What, like those who call them terrorists or those who call them patriots don’t have their own collections of facts and evidence to “prove” their point?
No, instead, what I focus on is what I construe to be the fact that there is a “gap between what we think that we know about it and all that there is to be known about it.”
And the fact that “if the existential trajectory of our lives went in one direction we call them terrorists, if in another direction we call them patriots.”
And that, “for those of an authoritarian bent, what matters is not so much what they are but that they are either one or the other. They need to believe that the answer [itself] is within our reach.”
Finally, I broach the extent to which this…
…is or is not a reasonable assessment of what transpires when those I deem to be political objectivists attempt to establish if in fact they are either terrorists or patriots.
Based on the arguments that I make in my signature threads.
If you are claiming is that an individual who is raised as a child in Iraq has the same kind of facts to establish that the U.S. is a terrorist country, from their perspective, as Americans had to establish Iraq as a terrorist country, then I agree. I don’t find that claim to be very interesting, or controversial, except perhaps to the dimwitted.
But your argument also seems to be ad ignorantiam: there are limits to how close we can come to “reality;” therefore, “those who call them terrorists or those who call them patriots…have their own collections of facts and evidence to “prove” their point?”
If one places any importance to defining terms before engaging in an earnest argument, and I would argue one should, the one cannot have “their own collection of facts,” in this scenario.