[Big Steve-3]

Trump only goes negative on days that end in y... Do you ever watch the news???

I actually don't watch much television.

You've never directly participated. It gets nasty. And they have no way to control the dark money pacs.

To be fair, you don't know what I've done. I'll simply leave it, and your off-base conclusions, at that.

IOW, you've just said you never vote for anybody.

Actually, what I said was quite clear, and nothing remotely like what you wish I'd said.

See, this is what I actually said:

"I have a rule that I steadfastly adhere to: The first candidate from whom I see a negative ad will not get my vote. Period."

This is obviously what you wish I'd said:

"I have a rule that I steadfastly adhere to: Any candidate from whom I see a negative ad will not get my vote. Period."

Do you see the difference?

Like I said, Bloomberg's out. He was the first candidate from whom I saw a negative ad. In keeping with what I said earlier, he will not get my vote. He could promise to give every American family $10,000 and I still wouldn't vote for him.

It comes as no great surprise to me that the first negative ad I saw came from a liberal Democrat.

[Hindsite]

"The first candidate from whom I see a negative ad

I've actually not seen a Trump ad yet.

I saw a negative ad from Tom Steyer before he or any of the democrats became candidates for President. It was about impeaching President Trump, which seem negative to me.

[b]Tom Steyer defends $20M ad campaign calling to impeach Trump
Caroline Kenny
By Caroline Kenny, CNN

Updated 12:16 PM ET, Mon November 27, 2017

Democratic mega-donor and billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer on Sunday defended his $20 million national television and digital ad campaign calling for Congress to impeach President Donald Trump, saying "it's very important and urgent that we get him out of office."

"The fact of the matter is this President has performed in a lawless way throughout the campaign and throughout his presidency and he is an urgent threat to the American people," Steyer told CNN anchor Dana Bash on Sunday morning's "State of the Union." "So to sit here and wait doing absolutely nothing is the wrong thing to do. The American people want this man impeached."

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/26/politics ... index.html

[Big Steve-3]

I saw a negative ad from Tom Steyer before he or any of the democrats became candidates for President. It was about impeaching President Trump, which seem negative to me.

Absolutely it is.

[Godstud]

Impeaching Trump is a positive, unless you don't want to deal with corruption in your politics...

[Hindsite]

Impeaching Trump is a positive, unless you don't want to deal with corruption in your politics...

It appears that the Democrats do not want to deal with corruption in politics when it deals with Democrats, like Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, and Joe Biden. To them it is an impeachable offense for the President to ask for investigations into Democrat corruption.

[Godstud]

To them it is an impeachable offense for the President to ask for investigations into Democrat corruption.

That's patently false. The impeachment has to do with Trump, not the Democrats. Nice try. You really don't care what Trump does, even if it's illegal, because you are an idolator of Trump.

[Hindsite]

:roll: That's patently false. The impeachment has to do with Trump, not the Democrats. Nice try. You really don't care what Trump does, even if it's illegal, because you are an idolator of Trump.

The Democrats don't care about the Hillary Clinton corruption and lies as well as what happened to her cover ups and 30,000 missing emails. They only want to cover up the Democrat corruption, like Joe Biden and Hunter Biden sweet deal from an Ukraine oligarch for political favors and protection from prosecution, by attacking the only person, President Trump, who had the courage to call it out. They are not interested in what happened to the DNC server that was supposed to be hacked by the Russians, but was refused to be turned over to the FBI to investigate. The Democrats are not interested in looking into anything they know looks bad politically for them. By the way, no one has proven President Trump did anything illegal by asking Ukraine to look into the Biden's corruption.

[Godstud]

What does Hillary Clinton have to do with what is happening now?

Clinton was not guilty of any crime. That is why she was not charged with anything, and did not have to go to court. When Trump came into power, that didn't change the fact that Clinton was not guilty of anything.

It's as valid to what Trump is doing now, as the Benghazi BS was.

By the way, no one has proven President Trump did anything illegal by asking Ukraine to look into the Biden's corruption.

That, in itself, is illegal. How he did it was certainly illegal as he did it by with-holding aid. That's called BLACKMAIL.

Trump administration broke law in withholding Ukraine aid, watchdog says as Senate prepares for impeachment trial
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/16/trump-a ... e-aid.html

Trump’s Hold on Ukrainian Military Aid was Illegal
https://www.justsecurity.org/67489/trum ... s-illegal/

[Hindsite]

What does Hillary Clinton have to do with what is happening now?

Clinton was not guilty of any crime. That is why she was not charged with anything, and did not have to go to court. When Trump came into power, that didn't change the fact that Clinton was not guilty of anything.

It's as valid to what Trump is doing now, as the Benghazi BS was.

That, in itself, is illegal. How he did it was certainly illegal as he did it by with-holding aid. That's called BLACKMAIL.

Trump administration broke law in withholding Ukraine aid, watchdog says as Senate prepares for impeachment trial
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/16/trump-a ... e-aid.html

Trump’s Hold on Ukrainian Military Aid was Illegal
https://www.justsecurity.org/67489/trum ... s-illegal/

Again, you forget that I am a near genius and you can't fool me with your nonsense.
Praise the Lord.

[Patrickov]

Again, you forget that I am a near genius and you can't fool me with your nonsense.
Praise the Lord.

IMHO the following link might help us interpreting the above statement:
Lesson 9: The Damnable Sin of Self-Righteousness (Romans 2:1-5)

[Godstud]

Again, you forget that I am a near genius and you can't fool me with your nonsense.

You aren't anything near a genius. Blathering on about it makes you seem as simple as Trump, the "Stable genius". Mr. Ed is a stable genius.


By nonsense, you mean FACTS. I know your moronic double-speak for what it is.

Had Clinton been doing anything illegal, and she was not(questionable, and unethical, though it may have been), she'd be in jail now. She's not. That's not because Trump didn't scream like a little bitch, "Lock her up!", either. You can't throw people in jail who are not guilty of crimes.

[Rich]

I was 100% against the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Kavanagh's fascistic role in that is not forgotten or forgiven.
I was 100% against the prosecution of Hilary.
Hence I'm being totally consistent when I say I'm 100% against the impeachment of Trump.

Believe it or not, there's some people who are so stupid they have called for Blair to be tried for War Crimes. It was trying politicians in the courts that brought down the Roman Republic. Politicians should be removed and punished through elections not through the courts.

[Big Steve-3]

Had Clinton been doing anything illegal, and she was not(questionable, and unethical, though it may have been), she'd be in jail now. She's not. That's not because Trump didn't scream like a little bitch, "Lock her up!", either. You can't throw people in jail who are not guilty of crimes.

This is untrue.

The only reason Hillary wasn't prosecuted is because Comey said he could find no "intent". Comey acknowledged that Clinton acted wrongly. She illegally transmitted top secret information on her personal server at least eight times.

It's pretty pathetic that those who are screaming that Trump has committed a crime by asking someone for a favor are often the same people who say that Hillary Clinton did not commit a crime, despite the undeniable fact that there is very definite evidence which shows she did.

Intent needn't be a component of a criminal act.

[Godstud]

Intent needn't be a component of a criminal act.

It is an important component. You are also incorrect, as that's not the only thing required to find guilt. What Clinton did was mainly unethical and something the party should have punished her for. As it was, it would have been counter-productive to do so, at the time.

Comey never once said she should be charged with a criminal offense.

[Big Steve-3]

It is an important component.

No, it's really not.

If someone is killed in an accidental shooting, the person holding the gun will likely face serious charges which, upon conviction, would land that person in prison. But, by definition, an accidental shooting is a shooting completely devoid of intent.

Intent is not a factor at all.

In all 50 States and the District of Columbia, a person who kills someone in an car accident while driving drunk can (and usually is) charged with a crime which, upon conviction, could put someone in prison for the rest of their life (North Dakota). But I don't know of anyone who's killed someone while driving drunk who intended to do that.

Intent is not a factor at all.

Intent is nice for a prosecutor to have, but it's hardly a requirement for a successful prosecution.

Comey never once said she should be charged with a criminal offense.

Of course not. If he had, he probably would've ended up committing suicide.

[Patrickov]

No, it's really not.

If someone is killed in an accidental shooting, the person holding the gun will likely face serious charges which, upon conviction, would land that person in prison. But, by definition, an accidental shooting is a shooting completely devoid of intent.

Intent is not a factor at all.

In all 50 States and the District of Columbia, a person who kills someone in an car accident while driving drunk can (and usually is) charged with a crime which, upon conviction, could put someone in prison for the rest of their life (North Dakota). But I don't know of anyone who's killed someone while driving drunk who intended to do that.

Intent is not a factor at all.

Intent is nice for a prosecutor to have, but it's hardly a requirement for a successful prosecution.

With all due respect, drunk driving and manslaughter are crimes that do not necessarily require decision ability to impact others (more often it's the lack of such decision ability that caused such crime to be committed). Commercial crimes and intellectual crimes are the opposite. IMHO what we are debating is the latter type, so intent is important.

Hilary Clinton's deed was probably negligence at worst. It was probably hard to prove she committed that mistake in order to politically destroy someone else (other than herself), or to purposefully leak something. Trump, on the other hand, was rather honest that he targeted the Bidens specifically in his urge to Ukraine for their investigation. It is not surprising that some would see it as abuse of power.

If I were Trump and I knew the Bidens actually committed something against the common good, I might instead find some independent entity to do that for me. As much as Trump supporters accusing the Democrats being partisan, it's probably a good idea to avoid doing the same if alternatives are available.

[Big Steve-3]

With all due respect, drunk driving and manslaughter are crimes that do not necessarily require decision ability to impact others (more often it's the lack of such decision ability that caused such crime to be committed). Commercial crimes and intellectual crimes are the opposite. IMHO what we are debating is the latter type, so intent is important.

It's not. The law allows for no distinction. Intent is either a relevant component for the commission of a crime or it's not.

[Godstud]

The law allows for no distinction. Intent is either a relevant component for the commission of a crime or it's not.

But it does allow a distinction, so you are absolutely incorrect. That is why an accidental death is Manslaughter and a person who plans a premeditated murder is charged with 1st Degree Murder.

The charges and the penalties are very different from someone who had intent. This applies to most laws.

intent
n. mental desire and will to act in a particular way, including wishing not to participate. Intent is a crucial element in determining if certain acts were criminal.Occasionally a judge or jury may find that "there was no criminal intent." Example: lack of intent may reduce a charge of manslaughter to a finding of reckless homicide or other lesser crime.
https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=995

[Hindsite]

IMHO the following link might help us interpreting the above statement:
Lesson 9: The Damnable Sin of Self-Righteousness (Romans 2:1-5)

It will not help at all unless you realize that there in no self-righteousness in me. If there were, I would not have said "near genius" but simply "genius". Based on logic and information and the "near-genius" I may possess, I predict and acquittal of President Trump by this weekend.

[Patrickov]

It will not help at all unless you realize that there in no self-righteousness in me. If there were, I would not have said "near genius" but simply "genius". Based on logic and information and my "near-genius", I predict and acquittal of President Trump by this weekend.

The "near" here does not change the fact that "genius" is the real self-perception, and is therefore fake humility.