U.S. Judges Call Emergency Meeting Over Fears About William Barr And Trump

@oralloy,

Quote:

But that's not what you have been doing. You've been acting as if Mr. Trump is committing some sort of impropriety under the law as it currently stands.

By impropriety, do you mean something that was wrong? Of course that's what I've been arguing.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

- It's quite amazing that oralloy doesn't appear to realise that to create the constitution, they had to develop, argue, and refine the concepts before they could write it.
- It's how all laws are formed (they conceptualise, argue the concept, refine the concept, and enact the concept)
- It's also how all policy is formed
- It's how roles are formed, particularly in government (what is needed by X role in this country), or any written roles.
- It's how the separation of powers (itself a concept) is implemented(conceptualising how to implement it, refining it, and enacting it)
- it's why laws are changed (the concept wasn't quite right, or it was found to have a flaw, or it was no longer relevant as a concept - eg for this last - giving way to a horse on a road)
etc
etc
etc

All his (law/role) 'facts' are based on concepts. The right and wrong of them are argued before they are enacted, and can still be argued after they are enacted (as seen by debates in parliaments/congress over laws, and the changing or repealing of laws)

Odd that by his standards, he wouldn't have argued against slavery, because it was a fact that they could have slaves.

Sadly, too many Americans are treating political leadership as if it were a home team versus a rival. This is total madness and rank hypocrisy. The rules and punishments and favors they clamor for would be anathema to their sensibilities if all this illegality were foisted upon them. I find it shameful, and I worry because I have grandchildren and nephews who will have to navigate this mafia system if the traitors prevail.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

So, how do you feel about toddlers in cages? That's terribly evil, right?

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

On the grounds that it is unjust to harm innocent people.

And brutally forcing people to do brutal work is most definitely harm.

(the argument if this was back then, and using your own rules)
- the harming of people is illegal, and shouldn't be done. There's laws for that. That's not grounds for ignoring reality that slavery is legal. It is a fact that one can own slaves. Deal with reality.

- forcing people to work. Do you mean forcing people to do what slaves are legally bound to do?

So far your arguments ignore the fact that slavery is (remember this is if as back then, using your own use of 'facts') legal.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

The question of whether slavery is legal is not relevant to my opposition to slavery.

I would support changing the law to make it illegal.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

Oh for Christ's sake, now...... you are just being obstinate....of course we can,

No you can't.

And don't try to place yourself in vikorr's league. He can write intelligently. You couldn't out-think a chimpanzee.

glitterbag wrote:

of course we can, but you are so welded to the Breitbart and Infowars crap, you refuse to even consider it...

Why do progressives babble about obscure conservative news sources when they can't post anything intelligent?

glitterbag wrote:

if you actually did consider the facts you would probably blow your brains out...with a thimble full of old gunpowder.

I consider facts all the time. Note the highly factual nature of all my posts.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

So, how do you feel about toddlers in cages? That's terribly evil, right?

You mean when those progressives threw that kid in a cage just so they could falsely blame it on Mr. Trump?

I can see the argument for calling progressives evil.

Progressives are bad news, that's for sure.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The question of whether slavery is legal is not relevant to my opposition to slavery.

I would support changing the law to make it illegal.

So you are all for ignoring the fact that slavery is legal, and changing it (spoken of course, as if you were debating the rights and wrong of slavery back then).

Good to know that you are happy to ignore such 'facts'

Of course you didn't put much effort into your argument (there are HEAPS against slavery)...because you would have had to argue in concepts as to the right or wrong of slavery.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Since the fact of slavery being legal back then is irrelevant to my opposition to it, why shouldn't I ignore the legality when I make my arguments?

I suppose that my reply was brief and low effort, but I did in fact argue the concept that slavery is wrong.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

By impropriety, do you mean something that was wrong? Of course that's what I've been arguing.

Yes. And that's quite a bit different from arguing that "the law is wrong and should be changed".

If your complaint is that the law is wrong and should be changed, then that is what you should be arguing, instead of claiming that Mr. Trump is wrong for using his legal powers.

I doubt that I'd be swayed by your argument for changing the law, but it would at least be a reasonable position to take.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

Sadly, too many Americans are treating political leadership as if it were a home team versus a rival. This is total madness and rank hypocrisy. The rules and punishments and favors they clamor for would be anathema to their sensibilities if all this illegality were foisted upon them.

What illegality? Are you referring to when the Democrats let Bill Clinton commit all those felonies?

Mr. Trump certainly isn't doing anything illegal.

glitterbag wrote:

I find it shameful, and I worry because I have grandchildren and nephews who will have to navigate this mafia system if the traitors prevail.

The traitors have failed. The witch hunt has ended in acquittal. Mr. Trump is cleaning all those deep-staters out of our intelligence agencies as we speak.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Yes. And that's quite a bit different from arguing that "the law is wrong and should be changed".

It's no different at all. Laws are formed on the same basis&process (concepts, argument, and refinement) as constitutions (your argument that its legal), and the same basis as job roles in government.

What a president can and can't do (historic comparison as already used - whether slavery is legal or not, and what slave owners are able to do) is one argument, and whether it is right or wrong (historic comparison, whether or not slavery is right or wrong)is another.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

It's no different at all.

That is incorrect.

"The law is wrong and should be changed."

"That person is committing an offense."

Those are two different arguments.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Actually, my argument has always been 'the president was interfering'. No where in that did I say it was illegal. Every argument has been about the right and wrong of it, hence the need to talk with your about the basis for your support (your 'facts')

So they were no different at all.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Your claim of interference is factually wrong. How does someone interfere with their own decision?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

It strikes me that someone somewhere has to make the prosecutorial decision of whether or not to charge someone of a crime, and what crime to charge them of.

Whoever it is that is making these decisions, whether it is the President or some other person, how would you propose preventing them from deciding not to bring charges against someone that they are fond of?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

The term 'interference' is conceptual. The way it is used is about right and wrong. Right and wrong itself is conceptual (with a wider scope of course, than just interference).

Just as your claim that slavery was wrong denied factual reality (that it was legal)...your only possible argument against it is conceptual.

My argument that what the president did was wrong, is conceptual.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Whoever it is that is making these decisions, whether it is the President or some other person, how would you propose preventing them from deciding not to bring charges against someone that they are fond of?

Keh - this concept has existed for decades (probably longer). It's called 'conflict of interest'. Those with a conflict of interest excuse themselves from the decision making process.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

They decide for themselves whether to excuse themselves?

What if they decide not to excuse themselves?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Just as your claim that slavery was wrong denied factual reality (that it was legal)...your only possible argument against it is conceptual.

I did not deny the reality. I just ignored it as irrelevant to my argument.

vikorr wrote:

My argument that what the president did was wrong, is conceptual.

I do not agree that it is wrong for the President to be in charge of prosecutorial decisions. I see no reason for placing this authority in the hands of some other government position.

1 Reply

U.S. Judges Call Emergency Meeting Over Fears About William Barr And Trump

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know