I am more than willing to debate in good faith, but if I think you're wrong, I'll tell you that I think you're wrong, and I would expect the same of you.
I didn't dodge any of your questions. I responded to your comment about Pelosi saying that a glass of water with a "D" on it could get elected by agreeing with you - that's how partisanship works for BOTH parties. That doesn't excuse what she said and had nothing to do with "what about". You dodged the question about what exactly she's supposed to do to improve conditions in her district.
And this statement: "Does your argument change the fact that the woman leading these proceedings is a career politician whose views on the electoral process is that people like her don't need to perform in order to justify being in charge because they are in safe districts? No. And it doesn't change my main point that we should not trust people like this with the immense level of power that she and people like her posses."
I never said that wasn't a fact; I happen to be in favor of term limits for members of both Houses of Congress. As for "the people like her": we both know who these people are, but if I name them, you'll accuse me again of playing "what about", so why don't YOU name them? I'll get you started - the first guy's name begins with "M"...
The Biden video lacks context because it was not the complete video. His words were taken out of context because of the way it was edited. The part you DON'T see is him talking about how the US, the EU, and the international financial community wanted that prosecutor removed because the prosecutor was corrupt. The part you DID see was Biden talking about how he delivered the news that there would be no aid provided unless the prosecutor was removed, and it had to be done before he got on the plane back home. He was the messenger, not the guy who instigated it. There's no reason to invesigate him because he didn't do anything wrong - and the Ukrainians agree that there's nothing there.
Ukraine is the ONLY country where Trump has made corruption an issue and personally asked for an investigation into it. Show me some evidence that he has the same concerns about corruption in China. I realize you lived in China for years and you understand better than most of us what goes on there, but show me some evidence that Trump has specifically addressed corruption in China to the point that he has asked them to begin an investigation.
"Without transmission of the articles, the whole thing is an exercise in attempted political character assassination."
That's one way of looking at it. Another way would be that it's an attempt to insure that what the House has done is taken seriously by the Senate. There is no Constitutional requirement that the Senate has to receive the Articles in order for the impeachment to be "official". He's been impeached. Period. Get over it. That fact can't be erased. Stop trying to find reasons why he hasn't really been impeached yet. He WILL be recorded in history as the third American President to have been impeached, regardless of what the Senate does or doesn't do.
"It's also somewhat disingenuous that you completely disregard my appeal to the fact that this impeachment taking place in the way that it has is dangerous for our republic."
I don't disregard it, I simply reject it. I'm not old enough to remember Andrew Johnson's impeachment, but I lived through both Nixon and Clinton and there is nothing about this impeachment process that is any more dangerous to our republic than those they went through (and yes, I know Nixon wasn't impeached, but hearings were held and articles drawn up before he resigned) other than the fact that the Senate might not take it seriously. The rules the House operated under during the inquiry are the exact same rules the Republicans wrote in 2015 when they were going to investigate what happened at Benghazi - so is your argument that those same rules are now somehow unfair and a threat to our republic?
"I can see your argument that "High crimes and misdimeanors" can be interpretted to include character flaws, but once again, your comment does absolutely nothing to address the point that I made and instead attempts to deflect away from it"
Your point was that there was no statutory crime committed. I did not not deflect - what I did was point out that it has never been a a requirement for impeachment. You seem to really like the terms "deflection" and "disingenuous"; here's one you might consider embracing - "fact".
|
