Huskerzoo

Or it would help people like me who got their PhD, are ~200,000 in debt, did so under the understanding that there was public loan forgiveness, have had that loan forgiveness potentially taken away from me, work hard at a job but still have to pay an extra mortgage for my education. Yes, there are people who do dumb things, but some of those pretend universities are run by the POTUS. And no, the money is not free money. It's coming out of a tax levied on Wall street that is projected to make .2 trillion dollars more than forgiveness of loans would cost. This is without a doubt wealth redistribution of sorts. And there are a chunk of people who would be hit hardest by it who support it: https://www.businessinsider.com/billionaires-asking-for-wealth-tax-americans-disney-soros-buffett-dalio This isn't pretend free college.

Whats next? A living wage? Food for the starving? The right to clean water? Oh the humanity!

I agree on both points, but I think point 2 is a symptom of the effectiveness of the obstruction. The Republican strategy was to force a limitation/flaw/error and then point out how that limitation means the processes was flawed and political. This allowed for a ton of legal wiggle room. Because this was a mechanism of the senate and could by and large be done behind closed doors, it didn't come from the president. In essence if I told you in a private conversation to harm someone and you did it and never told on me, it's never going to come back to me. The senate can't obstruct a senate trial when the majority agrees that what they're doing is fine, as such by the letter of the law they're likely right for crossing the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt. It's absurd, but I can get it.

Just a shout out. Thanks for participating in the election. Cluster F or not, I'm glad you're engaged.

It does reflect the country right now. It ignores all logic and disproportionately benefits some people. What more could you ask for?

Not quite. It's only if you win the election that this works. I don't understand the nuances of why, but I am clear that this is the logic. So, if a person did that and didn't win the election, it would be illegal. If they did it and won, then it would be something that every president has done that doesn't rise to the level of impeachment.

So the question then becomes, why is there a law against accepting foreign aid? Is this only about money? In my opinion, it's the changing definitions that become problematic. The corruption here is absurd, it should be open, shut, and obvious. However, they had to do the equivalent of choosing the starting point on a circle. At some point they had to choose where to start and the Ukraine issue was the first thing that happened that was obvious beyond a reasonable doubt AND that had enough public support behind it.

Glad I could help. What you brought up in really the crux of the issue here. People who are pro impeachment and removal are baffled by this. I think the vast majority of people posting in this topic fall into this camp. It feels very clear that a clear line was crossed and that this is bad and dangerous. You have to think about your own values and come to your conclusion about if this breaks a law as well as how serious it is. Further, you have to identify if you think the president can break laws. One of the assertions is that it's not possible for the president to do this. Unfortunately, the goal posts here have shifted over time. I won't go into too much detail about that, but there's concerns that people keep introducing new finish lines, democrats cross it, then they're moved. I know where I fall on this. Where do you fall? What are you concerned about one way or another? What are you going to do about it?

The current argument (and there have been many) is this: He did what the democrats say he did. It's not good, It's just not so bad that removing him from office is worth it.

Wait, are you trying to imply that Joe is the Zodiac Killer?

Not a good look at 36 seconds. I would get extremely upset if someone grabbed me by the jacket like that. It was fairly gentle, but I would be very close to walking away. Also, not a great way to garner votes for the primary or general.

More and more I get the impression that hands are dirty all over the place. I've got to believe on some level that some of the Republicans care deeply about the country and what's happening and that would compel them to break with the party. However, if breaking with the party means going to prison or having their own shady dealings brought to light that changes how people would play it.

The logic is just going to go in circles, It's a he says (Bolton) he says (Trump) with Trump saying there's a transcript that supports his side, but, to my knowledge, no full transcript having been released yet, so we go back to he says he says.

There's a really interesting dynamic in play that I'm not sure will show up or not in a meaningful way. Judge Roberts is supposedly really concerned about his legacy. Given there's a somewhat limited role, I don't know how much he can do. However, given that he is presiding and that this process is making a mockery of any semblance of a fair trial, I wonder if he might be research things to do. There was an interesting article in the Atlantic the other day that may be relevant sooner rather than later: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/impeachment-trial-without-witnesses-would-be-unconstitutional/605332/ This is further backed up by this politico article: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/22/founders-wanted-john-roberts-assert-himself-impeachment-trial-101727 Now here's the thing, Roberts doesn't love activist judges. So it turns into a bit of a question of will he turn activist judge in order to prevent his legacy being that he presided over one of the most absurd instances in American history. Or will he want his legacy to be something else (who knows what). If Roberts doesn't get involved, we know the outcome already, Trump will be able to do whatever he wants. If Roberts takes actions, even if it's viewed as a problem, it would likely go to the Supreme Court and come back a 4-3 decision favoring whatever he chooses to do.

That's never going to be an option. Talk about their behaviors instead of your interpretation of their behaviors.

The problem with this analysis is that for psychologists, you can't make this analysis without an interview of sorts. As someone in the field, even if I think his behavior is bizarre, I would not feel comfortable making any statements about competence or ability to function. Below from the American Psychological Association ethics code. " 9.01 Bases for Assessments (a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.) (b) Except as noted in 9.01c, psychologists provide opinions of the psychological characteristics of individuals only after they have conducted an examination of the individuals adequate to support their statements or conclusions. When, despite reasonable efforts, such an examination is not practical, psychologists document the efforts they made and the result of those efforts, clarify the probable impact of their limited information on the reliability and validity of their opinions, and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations. (See also Standards 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, and 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results.) (c) When psychologists conduct a record review or provide consultation or supervision and an individual examination is not warranted or necessary for the opinion, psychologists explain this and the sources of information on which they based their conclusions and recommendations." You're hearing a lot more about the diagnosis stuff from psychiatrists who have (arguably) less expertise in diagnosis. Their training focuses more on the biological influences of behavior.

Sorry, evidence isn't allowed into this conversation. Impeachment rules in this thread.

Unfortunately the rules really favor Mitch doing what he wants. I think it would be much more interesting if Roberts got to be like hey, people are leaving, you can't be unbiased if you don't hear all the information in the trial.

Agree, there's a little smoke and his career trajectory would make sense.

We could knight him and he could be Sir Held of Recruitment. Honorary Doctor? My guess is that they'll add some words to his title such as director of Juco Recruitment that don't mean a ton, but can be used to justify the pay bump.

2011 was such a weird class.

I got one I thought you'd like.

Yeah some interesting moves here. 300+ of them were for drug charges only which I'm in support of, but not sure I need many of the other folks he pardoned back in the community.