Yes, just like a defendant in a trial in which the evidence is overwhelmingly against him has the right not to call witnesses he knows will strengthen the case against him. We're still waiting to hear why Trump would tell people who have inside information that would vindicate him if he did nothing wrong not to testify.The President has Executive Privilege. He has a right to exercise it. He did. Co-equal branches of Government means one does not have greater power than another. The House says ‘obstruction.’ The President says FU. In cases such as these the courts decide. For example see: Obama, fast and furious, Holder, contempt
As I've said before, I think they should have. But again, the House indicted, they don't get to try Trump. If Trump is really upset that the House didn't follow precedent (has he been ranting that they didn't challenge his refusal of subpoenas? Not that I've heard), all he has to do is instruct McConnell to allow witnesses. If you want to talk about impeachment precedent, other Presidents cooperated.Why didn’t the House pursue a 230 year old precedent? Because House Dems are corrupt is the correct answer.
It was released after the whistle blower called the President on it. You know, the guy that Trump has been calling a traitor.The aid was released. The President also has an obligation to be a steward of tax dollars. The President is also the chief law enforcement officer of the Country.
So you , a Trump supporter, still can't provide any evidence supporting MAGA. I didn't ask you to provide examples of American flaws. I'm still waiting for you to name a specific time when you think America was greater than now. I'm quite sure MAGA does not refer to MLB or the NBA.Greater how? Yours is a subjective question. Liberating Europe from Nazi aggression? Of course we had to get in bed with Stalin to do it. Americans going to war with each other over States rights? Women’s suffrage? Civil rights movement? Industrial Revolution? Constitutional Convention? Baseball? Basketball?
Then why did you post that the President wasn't given a chance to test the judiciary? He clearly didn't want the judiciary to enter into the picture, so there's nothing to complain about.It’s not up to POTUS to ask the House to sue him.
After the whistleblower. Put you in jail after you threaten not to pay the mortgage unless someone at the bank does you a "favour".It's a crime for the President to withhold aid voted on by Congress. He doesn't have that constitutional power. Says MI.
Released 19 days before Congress mandated it be release. Put me in jail for paying off my mortgage early.
Yes, and most of the people you are constantly arguing with on this forum fall into that category, unlike you yourself.One does not have to be pro-Trump to be anti-Dem Coup d'etat attempt or anti-Dem corruption.
Conveniently leaving out the fact that Pelosi constantly resisted impeachment, never wanted to go that way, until Trump finally went too far.Pelosi admits it’s been her party’s plan to impeach President Trump for at least the last “two and half years.”
You were the one who brought it up declaring you have a PhD. Now you run and hide when you're called out on it likely having no relation at all to science...Nunya. Nunya business.
You wouldn't believe me if I told you. And I don't want to give you anything that you could use to dox me. I don't want to get Sayoc'ed.
first falsehoodWhat reasoned argument can one make when the other person doesn't value reason? It feels better to imagine that the entire scientific community is conspiring to take away our cars. It gives them an enemy. Never mind no one has ever come up with a reason why scientists would conspire to lie about this all over the world.
I know a lot of scientists. They like their cars, their big homes, their animal products. No one anywhere wants these facts to be true. But you can't tell the wingnuts that, because they need someone to scream at and vent their frustrations that the world has changed.
Extend same to economic transitions, migration and immigration of populations, evolution, etc. Change and dealing with ambiguity seem to be out of the reach of a great portion of the populace. The gnashing of teeth is cognitive dissonance defined.
consensus is politics, not scienceBecause the only source you have that says otherwise is an open forum where any jacka$$ can claim to be a scientist and disagree with the overwhelming consensus of people ACTUALLY STUDYING CLIMATE, who say that man is responsible.
The science contained in the peer reviewed articles that study the actual data on a variety of levels, all say it is man made. That isn't politics, that is reading all of the articles (see my link) and determining that they overwhelmingly indicate a man made cause to climate change. Twist yourself into whatever pretzel you need to, but you can't be taken seriously.consensus is politics, not science
its opinion, its not proven fact
Click the link and then synthesize a response that addresses the specific conclusions and counters the actual data, and get back to me. You aren't providing anything that is of value, and pretending you win debates on it...you don't win anything but the confirmation bias in your head.he has no response but to tell me to shut up, should tell you something...
any 'scientist' can produce a paper that is approved by some colleagues collecting lucrative grants based on their agreeable positionThe science contained in the peer reviewed articles that study the actual data on a variety of levels, all say it is man made. That isn't politics, that is reading all of the articles (see my link) and determining that they overwhelmingly indicate a man made cause to climate change. Twist yourself into whatever pretzel you need to, but you can't be taken seriously.
you're the cultist here and its sad you don't even realize itAnd I'm out on this topic, I refuse to debate against a moronic position, supported by horses**t. Your only proof is to stick your fingers in your ears and yell "NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH!!!"...it ain't science, but it is the default of MAGA.
And any moron can write a post about it, without actually addressing the abject fact that the people studying the actual data agree that it is man made. You're probably too young to do anything but stick your fingers in your ears and yell that the other side has conducted the most massive conspiracy in the history of mankind...but it still snows, so no way climate change is real...just as your idiotic leader...any 'scientist' can produce a paper that is approved by some colleagues collecting lucrative grants based on their agreeable position
not all scientists or all climate scientists agree and 97% is a total lie
you're probably too young to remember climate-gate and the deliberate manipulation of data that was exposed in that case
Two textbook examples of scientific ignorance here.HWSNBN said:consensus is politics, not science
its opinion, its not proven fact
Using climate gate as evidence against the reality of climate change is like using academic arguments over the processes of evolution as evidence for creationism. Most of the "deliberate manipulation" was done by the hackers, who didn't even freaking understand some of the text they were quoting out of context. But you're welcome to post specific examples that you believe show manipulation of data. If you were more honest, you'd admit that you desperately want to believe that ACC is a hoax, not because the evidence points in that direction, but because it implies political changes that you don't like.HWSNBN said:you're probably too young to remember climate-gate and the deliberate manipulation of data that was exposed in that case
absolute poppycockTwo textbook examples of scientific ignorance here.
1) Of course, science is based on consensus. One scientist's or one experiment's claim is not accepted until it's repeated multiple times. We have no way of knowing what we call a fact, what we say exists objectively outside of our own heads, except through repeating the experiments of others, which forms a consensus. If there is no repeatability, no consensus, then any observation could be fraudulent, hallucinatory, or whatever. Everything that we call fact, that we assume is independent of any one person's mind, is only what many minds can all agree on.
It's not difficult to understand. The legal system works the same way. Why do we want multiple witnesses? Because even an honest observer could be mistaken, have a false memory. or whatever. We only build a firm belief in facts when many observers validate those observations.
The difference between scientific consensus and political consensus is that scientific consensus is based on observations following very strict rules, such as running a particular experiment under particular conditions. Political consensus is based on similar beliefs, not necessarily similar empirical observations.
2) Science is based on probability, not certainty. A very high probability of climate change in a certain range over a certain period of time is a scientific conclusion, not an opinion. Just as a certain gel pattern indicates with high probability, not necessarily certainty, that an athlete took EPO.
And not that it matters, but I will freely state that I have a Ph.D., in neuroscience.
Using climate gate as evidence against the reality of climate change is like using academic arguments over the processes of evolution as evidence for creationism. Most of the "deliberate manipulation" was done by the hackers, who didn't even freaking understand some of the text they were quoting out of context. But you're welcome to post specific examples that you believe show manipulation of data. If you were more honest, you'd admit that you desperately want to believe that ACC is a hoax, not because the evidence points in that direction, but because it implies political changes that you don't like.
And the irony is that, yes, scientists occasionally practice fraud, manipulate data to support some pet theory, and that's a major reason why consensus is so important. Have there been instances of scientists manipulating data to support their view of climate change? Maybe. But the entire scientific community? I know climate skeptics like to say that they all do this to get grant money, but there is huge money available to anyone who can seriously challenge the consensus in any scientific field. Every day there are new theories coming out in all varieties of scientific areas, by researchers hoping to make a major breakthrough. Anyone who can seriously challenge the prevailing views of climate change will have no problem getting funded.
Yes, there are a few scientists that challenge the prevailing view on climate change. There are also a few, very qualified, scientists who claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Are you going to believe them? Are you going to risk exposure to the virus because they might be right? Are blood banks going to stop screening for the virus, to save some money?