The Impeachment of President Trump

“You people with this phony emoluments clause”

Good example of how the simple-minded don't utilize the principle of charity in understanding rhetoric. The clause is not phony, the accusation it has been violated is what's phony.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Guess who is paying into his bank account?
You can't be that naive surely?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, you actually disagree with Trump on this one?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Aside from the fact Trump "exaggerates and pushes rhetoric to the hilt", something a sitting President should never do in the first place, most are no longer concerned of stuff he says, because we all know he's an uneducated, childish moron. It's the insane stuff he does which we are far more concerned.

 

Trump is so drunk with power that he now resembles the insane Generals of WWI who kept sending tens of thousands of men over the top to die in front of German Gatling guns. I have no reason to believe Trump wouldn't do something similar.

 

LOL

It seems likely, Q, that you are one of those foreign agents who wants to interfere in our elections by spreading discontent.
Congratulations!
Your anti-American handlers must be pleased with your constant efforts.

 

I suppose that when you're ignorant about so many things, making up conspiracy theories helps to support the facade of pretending to be smart.

 

Where do you call home?

 

Definitely, not Iowa. I prefer living where people still have all their teeth, where yogurt has a more active living culture and where drool is not the only thing university students get on their SAT's.

 

i generally don't argue with people who have lost their grip on reality like you have. make fun of yes argue no

 

We have a President whose only defense is that he should have been granted charity rather than careful attention - as if he were a small child who didn't know what they were saying - over and over and over again.

And we are supposed to grant you charity as well, apparently - rearrange your posting so that it makes some kind of sense.

The observation that Trump has been in violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution since the moment he took the oath of office (just a few blocks away from a hotel he was profiting from via his office as President) is hardly "phony", whatever that means - it's right there to be made, right now, simply by recording the people coming in and out of the front gate of Mar A Lago.

 

That's not why they voted against impeachment - at least, not the one from my State, and he (Peterson) seems typical.

Here is his statement - https://collinpeterson.house.gov/me...t-house-vote-impeach-president-donald-j-trump
Note that Constitutional duty appears nowhere in it, nor does any other consideration of the Constitution;
principles and honor appear nowhere in it, nor do any other matters of reason and ethics;
the matter of Trump's guilt or innocence, whether or not Trump did in fact betray his country and violate his oath of office etc, appears nowhere - Peterson is clearly unwilling to be accountable for any clear assessment of Trump's behavior, as he refuses to take any position of his own or make any declarative statement about it;

and despite having taken an oath to protect and defend and enforce the Constitution Peterson is full willing to declare in public that he didn't know what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are and hasn't bothered to find out, justifying his incompetence and incomprehension and sloth by declaring that he isn't a lawyer;

so that instead of a performance of Constitutional duty we are presented with political calculation and considerations of expediency, "bipartisan" requirements, appeals to the attitudes of poorly informed voters whose reliance on sound and informed representation has been betrayed by their representative's poll-sniffing, and similar rhetorical manifestations of political cowardice.

After all, any Democratic Congressman (at least) who lacks the ability and background knowledge to read the Constitution for themself has immediate access to a well-educated and pragmatically experienced expert in Constitutional law who is also politically engaged and informed in their very arena - Barack Obama.

Takehome: They apparently voted against impeachment because they represent districts in which a vote for impeachment might cost them their seats in Congress. That is also the major visible reason for the Republican votes against impeachment - Constitutional duty abandoned long ago, in their case.

 

LOL we had/have out of touch politicians like that in Australia on both sides for ages, 'duh, I don't have to know anything, I have experts who tell me how to think, duh'. It's no wonder that we have had minority governments for 10 years with a split senate.

 

I love the Trump apologists who pop up every time Trump says something asinine, and attempt to claim he didn't really say what he said.

 

Our neighbor is still trying to figure out how the Principle of Charity works; see, "The Mueller Investigation" (Oct. 2019), #843↗—

It's easy to make certain arguments within a pretense of tabula rasa, as if nothing is defined. Part of the problem with your perpetual thoughtless partisan toeing of lines is that you don't seem to know what you're on about; it's not so much that your understanding of history is awry, but, rather, that you don't seem to have any substantial comprehension of the history your arguments pretend to address.

There is a rhetorical rule called the Principle of Charity, in which one is to seek the least condemning explanation for what someone else says. In more functional discourse, this can be very important in understanding what other people are saying; in more particular politics, though, it's part of what people are appealing to when begging sympathy for those who require harm unto others. In your case, though, it's more a lack of anything to sympathize with. When measuring dysfunctional discourse presented nearly enough to on cue, and very nearly hitting its marks, finding that charitable pathway is tricky, because the most part of the range is occupied by a dualistic proposition of willful versus accidental wrongness, and after enough repetitions we're up to that razor insult people like to brandish from time to time about criminality and stupidity. Or, scaled to the moment, it becomes a question of how you are so well and thoroughly uninformed and misinformed you turn out to be. And if you're not just going out of your way to be a poo-flinging troll, then please understand that striking, pointed ignorance isn't much better an option. In either case, you diminish yourself.​

—and subsequent discussion in #856↗, #871-872↗; also, "The Trump Presidency" (Dec. 2019), #3885-3887↗:

Briefly, since we've covered the Principle of Charity, before: First↗, finding the charitable pathway is sometimes tricky when the most part of the range is occupied by a dualistic proposition of willful versus accidental wrongness. It's not necessarily that there isn't anything to talk about; rather, the ignorance required to attend some discussions means some disproportionate share of the effort will be given to bringing the ostensibly uninformed up to par. Furthermore↗, as I suggested last month, it's long past funny watching antisocial know-nothing rightism get all self-righteous only to embarrass itself in the same breath. Moreover, it's one thing to be so far behind, but you're not even trying to catch up.

(#3609242/3885↗)

†​

There comes a point at which a lack of culpability is ascribed to extraordinary circumstance. It doesn't mean a behavior isn't dangerous or wrong or inappropriate, as such, but sometimes people just can't help themselves.

When the Principle of Charity must entertain questions of competency, the particular ignorance Trump defenders seem to require in order to make their cases ranges well beyond unbelievable.

(#3609350/3887↗)​

It's been on his mind, lately. #461↑ above—

Good example of how the simple-minded don't utilize the principle of charity in understanding rhetoric. The clause is not phony, the accusation it has been violated is what's phony.​

—doesn't actually work. We have other indicators of Trump's meaning, and, in the end, the coin toss becomes one between ignorance of or contempt toward the law. In terms of the Principle of Charity vis à vis Donald Trump, 'tis true there isn't much for redemption in the choice 'twixt stupidity and guilt.

This actually falls approximately in line with our neighbor's prior behavior, including misapplication of the names of fallacies. But, yes, the Principle of Charity has been on his mind in recent months.

 

If Obama had remained in office your bank account and that of most other Americans would have probably doubled by now...

 

Apparently you haven't read the actual emoluments clause, instead letting partisans misinform you. There's a reason he leads that with "you people". It's because only certain people mischaracterize the emoluments clause for their own political ends. But then, I don't really expect you to have read the actual clause nor, question your leftist sources, nor even just read simple English.

Many presidents have been rich business men, the emoluments clause has never been challenged in court, and all emolument cases against Trump have failed.

Just stop. It's bad enough that you don't have the nerve to quote/address me directly, but that you're still spinning arm-waving webs of supposed errors you've never managed to actually refute in the first place. You just continue to rely on the ignorance of readers who won't bother to untangle your incomprehensible web of linked posts and arm-waving accusations without any substance whatsoever. I can only guess that this is some form of saving face, or maybe deluded ego gratification.

The only ignorance is presuming any profit must be due to office, rather than just normal business operation. Again, all such cases have failed. The courts have repeatedly ruled.

 

i have . you are full of shit just like all your posts. you are little more than mewling partisan hack

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

this is the the emoluments clause also known as the title of nobility clause. operative word here is emolument which is defined by merriam webster: as the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites

trump has flagrantly violated this by actively encouraging foreign

while you are correct in noting they failed. you failed to mention they were dismissed because of standing. the courts have never ruled on whether or not he violated them, which he has. you are grossly misrepresenting facts to suit your own partisan purposes of defending trump for who knows why. clearly not because you care about america cause if you are defending trump you dont

 

The operative words there being "returns arising from office", where Trump's businesses have, before he took office, and do regularly earn returns that have nothing to do with him being in office.

Again, no one has ever challenged the emoluments clause before, so questions of who is harmed, to establish standing, are new precedents. If he has violated that clause, why haven't they found anyone with proper standing? And you live in a little leftist bubble if you think defending the President of the United States is, de facto, not in the best interests of America.

 

insider trading is quite profitable I hear...