TakeYouToTasker

Political parties are not part of the government. They are privately organized corporations which set their own rules, appoint their own leadership, and select whomever they want to represent their party in elections. There’s no requirement that they even hold primaries.

Looks like they’re rigging it for Mayor Pete.

The Democrat’s argument that there were no witnesses and no evidence is damning to Democrats, not to Republicans. If there was neither witnesses nor evidence, on what grounds, exactly, did the House vote to impeach?

This is the dumbest take in the history of takes. The OP literally just made the argument that it is unacceptable for elected officials to pursue or enact policy which is beneficial to the United States, and the citizens thereof, if doing so increases their chances of getting elected. This means that the only legal action such officials could take would be doing things they believe would harm the country, in the hopes that the harm is great enough that they are beaten at the ballot box by the next person, who will also have malfeasance on the agenda.

No, it’s illiberal. Liberalism =/ Leftism. Our system of jurisprudence is a liberal one.

Again, this is a complete perversion of justice. You are making demands that the defense prove their innocence against a backdrop of the assumption of guilt. It is the same thing that happened to Justice Kavanaugh, and it is wrong, dangerous, and illiberal. Individuals do not have to prove to the government, in any capacity, that they haven’t done what the government alleges. But rather, the government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused has done what they say he has. Full stop. That’s how it works.

Address my points.

I don’t do opinions, as you do. I don’t stake out my positions based on how I feel about circumstances or individuals. I do fact and consequence. Of course it’s possible; but it doesn’t matter if it’s possible. And you advocate undoing centuries of liberal governance and flinging is backwards into the days of politburo and monarchy, stripping away the fundamental right of the People to choose their form of government; all because you insist of reporting to your biases, and assume a man’s motives, in your desire to see him guilty of a crime for an act that isn’t otherwise criminal. That’s the reality.

Your supposition runs against the entire centuries old premise of liberal jurisprudence. You’re beginning with the assumption of guilt, that it’s possible that someone may have had corrupt intent, demanding that it be proven that the accused motives were pure, and insisting “because it’s possible, and hasn’t been proven otherwise” that it’s reasonable to report to your confirmation biases, which of course label the President a scoundrel and assume his guilt. That is backwards and dangerous. You’re proposing to remove a duly elected President from office, undoing the foundational principle that the very concept of democratic governance relies on in order to be just: self-determination, based on your own biases and feelings about possible motives for an act that in-and-of itself is not criminal. Think of how this sort of precedent will be used going forward: the party holding the majority in the House will always move to impeach on these grounds, and God forbid they get convicted in the Senate... the entire concept of representative government justified by free elections is undone.

Is this an argument that the President cannot take any policy position, no matter how good it is for the health of the country, if doing so would benefit his re-election?

There is a “John Roberts” on the Epstein flight logs.

Because perfection doesn’t matter. What matters is that the President conducting foreign policy pursuant to his Constitutional role, and to international treaties given the same weight, is not an impeachable offense. To the contrary, it is his directly prescribed Constitutional duty; and acting to impeach the President for something that is literally his job to do as determined by the High Law of our country is itself unConstitutional. The argument being made by Democrats, which you are apparently borrowing, is that the President doesn’t have the authority to set/conduct foreign policy; and that the entrenched bureaucracy should instead perform this function, subverting the President, with the oversight of Congress. That’s not how our government is designed to work.

The President is not only empowered, but rather required, to set and conduct foreign policy. Pursuant to that, the President followed, to the letter and spirit of the law, the authority permitted to him by the Ukraine treaty signed by President Clinton empowering the executive to work with the Ukraine to ferret out international corruption between the two nations. There is no Constitutional provision requiring this matter be handled/managed by the DOJ; and besides, the DOJ is part of the Executive Branch, which the President is the head of. There is no firewall of any sort between the DOJ and the President. Your argument is that the President does not have the right to conduct foreign policy, and that the President serves under the oversight of Congress. It is a bad argument.

It’s a sham article. I have linked to dozens of sources on this topic in the past. From international and government agency reports and websites, and from both from left leaning and right leaning outlets.

There is no “new evidence” that no one was aware of that has come to light. House Democrats had the full ability to attempt to compel testimony from any/all other requested witnesses, and they simply chose not to. In one instance they even rescinded a subpoena after it was contested in court. Again, House Democrats did a poor job.

It is the role of the House to gather evidence, and then to present that evidence to the Senate. It is the role of the Senate to hear the evidence gathered by the House, and to weigh it against the defense mounted by the Executive. It is not the role of the Senate to gather evidence. This is the trial phase. Investigations necessarily precede trials. They are, in fact, required to be complete in order to establish that there should even be a trial. No one is “blocking information”, rather they are following proper formatting. The truth is that House Democrats did a very bad job and are trying to make that the fault of Senate Republicans.

Any link’s to Giuliani’s podcast?

I think you’re underselling Gary’s ability to peddle counter-factual nonsense.

tHeRe wErE No LaWs iN AmErICa BeFoRe tHe CoNsTiTuTiOn!!!1!11one!1!!eleventy-one1!1!!

It’s a problem that can’t be solved under Chinese Communism. The people, the average people live in relative poverty.

The percentage of registered voters who vote has nothing to do with the percentage of those eligible to vote who register.

Different issue. This is referencing percentage of the eligible voters who register, and then vote. What’s being referenced in his argument is that in several counties the voter turnout has been larger than the population of registered voters.

It is the role of the House to compile evidence, and then bring their case to the Senate. It is the role of the Senate to hear the House’s fully established case, and render a verdict based on the evidence presented. New evidence is not introduced during the Senate proceedings. Witnesses are limited to those who testified during House proceedings in order to clarify, if necessary, existing evidence. The House broke with this tradition, and did not do their jobs because they sought to restrict the President from having due process, did not wish to present fact witnesses of their own in order to protect narrative, and wanted to rush the process for political reasons. Now they’re asking the Senate to break with tradition, and to do the job they failed to do in their rush to maximize political damage. The Senate is telling them to pound sand.

Well stated.

Consider: “The consent of the governed” This concept is what Lockeans and Jeffersonians would mandate In order that a government be considered legitimate. However, in order for this to be true it would require 100% consent and non-compelled participation in the democratic process. Here in America far less than 50% of the eligible population casts a ballot. The two major parties construct the law in such a manner to limit 3rd party participation in order to maintain a false choice paradigm. Given this the ruling class takes it’s “mandate for action” on the say so of maybe 1/4 of the population. It’s part of the matrix used to oppress.