|
Yeah, if there’s one person who I could say for sure that Joe Biden hates, it would be Donald Trump. And Joe Biden strikes me as the kind of guy who can’t bring himself to legitimately hate anyone. Except Donald Trump.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 12:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:Yeah, if there’s one person who I could say for sure that Joe Biden hates, it would be Donald Trump. And Joe Biden strikes me as the kind of guy who can’t bring himself to legitimately hate anyone. Except Donald Trump. Considering the astounding levels of violence he authorised against Iraqi children who he presumably doesn't "hate", I wouldn't want to be his enemy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 12:32
|
|
|
human garbage bag posted:The worst possible outcome is Trump gets convicted in the impeachment, convicted in all the state and federal indictments, and then before he sees a single day in prison Biden pardons him, so that's what's going to happen. Okay QAnon
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 13:09
|
|
|
human garbage bag posted:The worst possible outcome is Trump gets convicted in the impeachment, convicted in all the state and federal indictments, and then before he sees a single day in prison Biden pardons him, so that's what's going to happen. There’s no way the senate will convict him and Biden is powerless to pardon state crimes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 13:17
|
|
|
human garbage bag posted:The worst possible outcome is Trump gets convicted in the impeachment, convicted in all the state and federal indictments, and then before he sees a single day in prison Biden pardons him, so that's what's going to happen. What exactly are you basing this on
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 14:02
|
|
|
McCloud posted:What exactly are you basing this on pattern recognition
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 14:07
|
|
|
Gulping Again posted:pattern recognition Pattern recognition off a datum of one is a poor basis for success.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 14:16
|
|
|
Like we all know it's very unlikely that Trump will ever see the inside of a cell or ever face any actual responsibility for... well, anything he's done/enabled, but I'm fairly certain Biden is still probably more than a little raw that Trump is partly responsible for thrusting his one surviving son into the spotlight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 14:24
|
|
|
alf_pogs posted:i don't really expect this, but the MTG vote didn't go the way i thought it would so who knows That was a secret ballot though. I don't see how anyone can look at only 6 GOP members even calling this constitutional and somehow so much as dream that 10 or 11 of them will vote to convict.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 14:56
|
|
|
"Well, it's all totally unconstitutional.. just so unconstitutionalist and full of unconstitutionalisms and all that stuff... but he's still guilty so sure why not." 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 15:00
|
|
|
Gulping Again posted:pattern recognition Isn't our pattern recognition the reason that we as a species keep falling for otherwise really stupid conspiracy theories by seeing connections where they are none?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
Gulping Again posted:pattern recognition I'm pretty sure there's no history of Biden going out of his way to pardon criminals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 15:50
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:"Well, it's all totally unconstitutional.. just so unconstitutionalist and full of unconstitutionalisms and all that stuff... but he's still guilty so sure why not." I mean, you are right that they won't convict because they never would. But in the ideal, liberal fantasy world where everything can be reasoned out and people are rational and have integrity, that wouldn't necessarily be contradictory. If this were a normal trial, I am sure the jury would get instructions that would define the question pretty tightly, if you believe Trump incited the mob you must vote guilty, if you do not believe you must vote not guilty, leaving aside the question of the constitutionality itself. I don't know why I am typing this. It doesn't matter. They would never convict. But yeah, there isn't actually a logical fallacy in voting the trial is constitutional and voting he is guilty of what is being alleged.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 16:30
|
|
|
A good book on why humans are primed for conspiracy theories is a book called Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer. It's basically that the ones who were curious/concerned about what lived in the dark cave out-survived the ones who camped next to the strange growling noises.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 17:45
|
|
|
Today's show has started: https://www.c-span.org/video/?508741-1/impeachment-trial
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
Speaking of unconstitutional, it'd be unconstitutional for Biden to pardon Trump's impeachment! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
Jamie Raskin is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Jamie Eason is fantastic. quote:Jamie Eason is an American fitness model and writer. She is also a former NFL cheerleader and winner of the World's Fittest Model competition. She has been the featured subject and cover girl on many fitness and women's magazines. Wikipedia
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
gently caress, thought I could ninja edit that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
When you're right you're right
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
Snowflakes and their trigger warnings. Libs are running wild. That is a joke obviously. The warnings are good, it is just its own indictment that they are necessary. Edit: Ehh... the ideological content is exactly the problem imo, but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:19
|
|
|
Ooh, multimedia presentation. Fancy. Raskin's opening was really solid, shame about the, y'know, foregone conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
Echophonic posted:Ooh, multimedia presentation. Fancy. I wonder if Trumps dudes will have any powerpoints to show.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
We can only hope. Maybe they'll show Lindell's documentary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
Being as objective as possible, can someone explain to me why this trial would be unconstitutional?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:35
|
|
|
Kirios posted:Being as objective as possible, can someone explain to me why this trial would be unconstitutional? There is literally nothing in precedent or law to show that it is unconstitutional. The best they've got is it's never happened to a former president before - but it's happened to other former federal officers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
Kirios posted:Being as objective as possible, can someone explain to me why this trial would be unconstitutional? there is no 'objective' argument, it relies on purposefully pretending that some words in the Constitution don't exist and pretending that 300 years of precedent never happened
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
I caught that part of the defense argument was that you had to remove from office and bar from further office, and since you can't do the former, the latter isn't an applicable penalty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
Echophonic posted:I caught that part of the defense argument was that you had to remove from office and bar from further office, and since you can't do the former, the latter isn't an applicable penalty. yeah the reason this is a bad argument is that you have to pretend a list of 2 possible penalties, removal and bar from office, is actually a command that the latter is only possible if you do the former and you have to pretend that the people who wrote this weren't actively considering British precedents which allowed for barring people from office that'd already resigned, which we know because those people wrote it in the Federalist Papers and said it at the Constitutional Convention
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:40
|
|
|
Kirios posted:Being as objective as possible, can someone explain to me why this trial would be unconstitutional? Because Trump is paying you to say it is. That's about the only reason anybody has.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Because Trump is paying you to say it is. It's more likely Trump's lawyers are sending him invoices that will never be paid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
Okay my immediate thought it was y'all are saying - it sounded like bullshit. I was just curious if there was anything that could be considered a legitimate argument towards that statement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
eke out posted:yeah the reason this is a bad argument is that you have to pretend a list of 2 possible penalties, removal and bar from office, is actually a command that the latter is only possible if you do the former Yeah, them saying "you can't use British precedent, this is America and the Framers wouldn't have done that" after Raskin just up and quoted the framers doing exactly that was really, really stupid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
The "you're very special, we love you" thing is still so bizarre hahaha. What a wild loving thing to say. You're very special. What a weird thing to say!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:51
|
|
|
alpha_destroy posted:The "you're very special, we love you" thing is still so bizarre hahaha. What a wild loving thing to say. You're very special. What a weird thing to say! It's all pitched very specifically at the fifth-grader language level. Not that Trump is much more sophisticated than that himself, but he either istinctively or intentionally knows to dumb it down a shade further to fully vibe on the same wavelength as the chuds he despises but desperately needs
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
Echophonic posted:Yeah, them saying "you can't use British precedent, this is America and the Framers wouldn't have done that" after Raskin just up and quoted the framers doing exactly that was really, really stupid. it was very funny that Raskin prebutted their talking points and they didn't alter them in any way whatsoever to accommodate that he'd debunked them already
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:It's all pitched very specifically at the fifth-grader language level. Not that Trump is much more sophisticated than that himself, but he either istinctively or intentionally knows to dumb it down a shade further to fully vibe on the same wavelength as the chuds he despises but desperately needs I think Trump seemingly had a big cognitive decline between 2016 and 2020 you have to factor in too. He lapses into borderline baby talk a lot now even when it doesn't make sense as a rhetorical gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
Raskin and Neguse have a good balance, I'm impressed. Both are on-point, but having Raskin talk more pointedly about legality and Neguse explain circumstances in his softer-spoken approach plays well to their presentation styles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
I'm not used to listening to that fuckwad again
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
alpha_destroy posted:The "you're very special, we love you" thing is still so bizarre hahaha. What a wild loving thing to say. You're very special. What a weird thing to say! Everything he says is so stupid and weird. He's a colossal idiot. Somebody said he had like a 200 word vocabulary awhile ago and it feels about right. sean10mm posted:I think Trump seemingly had a big cognitive decline between 2016 and 2020 you have to factor in too. He lapses into borderline baby talk a lot now even when it doesn't make sense as a rhetorical gimmick. How much of that was having control of the message? No doubt he said a ton of colossally stupid poo poo while filming The Apprentice but they worked for him and so edited it out to make him look good. I don't buy the "mental decline" argument, he's always been dumb as a box of rocks. Rich people can get really far with that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2021 19:11
|
|