PeepinGoodArgs @ PeepinGoodArgs @reddthat.com

Check out my digital garden: [The Missing Premise](https://publish.obsidian

---

查看更多

帖子

64

评论

1,626

加入于

2 yr. ago

Do only older white conservative men do this?

No. An older Hispanic man almost did it to me. He stopped himself, though, thankfully.

Yeah, I conceded the point 🤷🏾

Well if Biden is such a liar for this repeated lie (according to you), then what about Trump? (Other premises of my argument are implied by the three sources above).

If Biden is such a liar, and Trump lied wa-ha-hey! more than Biden, then Trump must be like...an outrageously egregious liar!

So sure, Biden's a liar because he said he got arrested defending civil rights and didn't get photographed like Sanders (which, would make the argument that Biden is a liar a hasty conclusion...but I don't really care about pointing out fallacies as such, I'll just roll with it like so: )

But Trump is thousands of times worse.

I'm familiar with whataboutism. And what about it?

Biden is such a liar

Are.

You.

Sure?

Positive: I can learn a sorts of stuff!

Negative: There's so much to learn!

Ahh, I remember this in Plague: make it easily spreadable, and then mutate it to murder everyone. The classic Two-Step To The Apocalypse. Step 1 complete. Initiate Step 2...

Dang...that's a really good analysis of the arguments.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared sympathetic to the former president’s argument that criminal statutes do not apply to the president unless they say so specifically. He told Dreeben that it’s a “serious constitutional question whether a criminal statute can apply to the president’s criminal acts.”

Kavanaugh – who served as a deputy to Ken Starr during his investigation of then-President Bill Clinton – cited the Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Morrison v. Olson, upholding the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute, as “one of the Court’s biggest mistakes” because it “hampered” presidential administrations. When former presidents are subjected to prosecution, Kavanaugh said, “history tells us it’s not going to stop.”

I don't have anything better to do (yay for being off work today), so I want to dig into this because I don't really see the problem. Shouldn't presidential administrations being hampered in criminal activity?

Morrison v. Olson basically upheld the constitutionality of the Independent Counsel Act, which was used to appoint Alexia Morrison to investigate and prosecute any federal violations Theodore Olson, then Assistant Attorney General, had committed during an investigation of the EPA. Upholding it meant that Congress could appoint an independent counsel "to investigate and prosecute crimes by high-ranking members of the executive branch."^[TeachingAmericanHistory.org]. In other words, the judicial branch, via the Attorney General, could appoint someone with executive power to investigate and prosecute executive members.

In short, Kavanaugh thinks this ruling violates the separation of powers and, as a result, has reigned in the range of actions presidential administrations may have taken in the past. To be fair to him, the Independent Counsel act was used to prosecute government officials in the Watergate Scandal, the Iran-Contra affairs, and the Whitewater scandal^[The Efficacy of the Independent Counsel Law: Holding Presidents to Account from Nixon to Trump to Account from Nixon to Trump]. So, it's been used, and Kavanaugh's concern is legitimate.

And that concern is relevant to Trump's immunity cases because, if they say that Trump isn't immune from his allegedly criminal acts, then it further constrains presidential administrations. The reductio ab absurdum argument is that of course presidents should be held accountable for their criminal actions. Duh! The more intellectually honest consideration is that, while president's should indeed be held accountable for their criminal actions, allowing Trump to be held accountable would encourage investigating and prosecuting the criminal actions of future presidents as yet another tool for political dominance.

Fundamentally, I think Kavanaugh's concern is less about Trump's accountability specifically than the functioning of American democracy generally. Having worked through this myself, I better understand where he's coming from, but...Trump needs to face consequences for what he did as president. IMO, if American democracy can't function smoothly if it's highest political offices can't engage in criminal behavior, then American democracy shouldn't function smoothly. Better a dysfunctional democracy with accountability than it's illusion without.

(Also, the footnotes below are so cool! Definitely using them more often!)

No, I didn't Google because the link was on Fox News. Moreover, that link just goes to a headline sans article (unless I log in, I guess, which ain't happenin'). So, that's basically nothing. This link is probably the closest thing I found, but even still it just says:

Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian expressed support for those speaking ill of Israel and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

But if expressing support is actively inciting anything, then conservative support for Israel's genocide of Palestinians is incitement of genocide. So, I'm willing to accept that framing, as false as it is, but I have a very strong feeling you and other conservatives would reject it out of hand...

Then you'd be surprised without evidence because that link still goes to a collection of stories Fox News labels terrorism, but not to any evidence. Fox News is lying yet again.

Same link as above, click the link that cites "Iran-backed Iraqi militias"...lemme know what you get, if anything.

...yeah...it could potentially be a bit worse than that.

And it will definitely be worse the next election cycle. If Trump is defeated, his movement will still go on, and they will learn from his his literal trials and tribulations.

Rule of thirds was the first composition rule I learned when I began photography may years ago, and has stuck with me since.

It further betrays their manipulative relationship to language: it's not an exchange of ideas, but a way to frame reality. What is Republicanism anyway to the layman anyway? Because that meaning is left open for so many, they can being to build up its meaning however they'd like and certainly in opposition to democracy.

it sounds like this is just going to shoot themselves in the foot.

Well, when you follow in the footsteps of Florida man, you get what's coming to you

This is has been true for at least a decade, when they originally did the study.

Senate Pro Tem Greg Treat said. "The Oklahoma Legislature is taking the necessary action to protect our citizens. Doing nothing is unconscionable and this legislation is the appropriate measure to keep Oklahomans safe and uphold the rule of law.”

Some questions:

• What does Oklahoma do now with undocumented immigrants it finds?
• Seeing as how the U.S. Customs Border and Protection "Order of Release on Cognizance" legally releases an immigrant into the U.S. as part of removal proceedings, what more does this Oklahoma law do exactly?

Without the answers to those questions, this seems performative to me, so Republicans in Oklahoma can say, "See! We're doing something!" despite achieving nothing at all.

This is exactly what karma is in the Buddhist system: a universal force that determines the consequences of all moral actions.

So, anyway, you could actually take away that conservatives and...non-conservatives have some issues they agree are the problem and particular solutions to those problem...or not.

Wouldn’t it logically follow, then, that it’s fine for any person to choose to commit harmful actions on another person, since if those harms did happen to befall the person (even if it was as a consequence of our willful decision to cause them), it would be deserved due to bad karma they had from a previous life (even if they were a young child/baby in their current life for example)? And then couldn’t we use this to justify literally any harm we choose to do as being deserved due to assumed bad karma, making the idea of avoiding causing harm (ahimsa/nonviolence) meaningless or pointless?

Before I respond, I just want to clarify:

Are you asking if we can justify our committing harm based on our belief of another's state of karma and what they deserve?

It seems this is the crux of the your arguments.