Global Warming A Back Door To Socialism - And Now Even The UN Admits It

So, saving one person over thirty years is a national emergency worth billions of dollars and millions of man hours? Is that what you are saying? And no matter how dire a foreigner's circumstances, as long as they are a foreigner, we should never offer them protection on the off chance that saving hundreds of thousands of humans from other countries might result in the death of one of ours?

 

You do realize we are a nation of law. Well, maybe not.

 

I mean I know what you mean. Rich white guy commits blatant perjury.... that's understandable, lets put him in one of the highest office available. Brown person commits a misdemeanor to try to save his family... NOW we need to stop at nothing to punish and throw that guy out. Rich white guy who had everything handed to him almost certainly defrauded my country? NOW, any attempt to even investigate or apply the law to him we will scream bloody murder.

 

So, what was the crime to investigate other than butthurt?

 

How about campaign finance violations?

 

That’s an FEC thing.

We didn’t appoint a special counsel, or the DOJ to look into Obama’s campaign finance violations(which those fines were one of the highest EVER for a presidential campaign). So no, not a reason.

 

But but but... I thought we were a nation of laws. Plus, this is the essence of whataboutism, "why are you being so hard on our team for hiring a goon to break the knees of the other team? They committed unsportsmanlike conduct once and were only penalized what the rule book says they should be. It's so unfair, this justifies even more cheating!"

 

The law would be for the FEC to handle it. That’s what they are there for.

You said the crime for this should’ve been campaign finance violations. Sorry, but those do not get special counsels and DOJ investigations and FISA warrants etc etc etc. They get slaps on the wrist and continue being in their elected position.

Educating you on something isn’t whataboutism. It’s explaining how it works. I’m also pretty sure you didn’t know about the 375,000 fine for Obama’s campaign violations or that he even had any! Using Obama was an example of how campaign violations are handled.

 

Yes, but the violations weren't remotely equivalent. What you guy's don't want is the investigation no matter how much suspicion there is. If the republicans could have justified any investigation into obama they 100% would have done it any way possible. The point is that you guys aren't really interested in rule of law.

 

The DNC funneling money to a foreign agent to dig up dirt is the only possible campaign violation I have heard of. No one associated with the Trump campaign has been charged with such, nor as far as I know, outside of pundits and the ignorant media, has even been accused of such.

 

Global warming is a crisis which affects everyone, like all such things, it can be manipulated politically. Regardless the evidence is clear, the effects occurring now and something must be done.

 

cohen

 

Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations but he was not charged by the SDNY US attorney for campaign finance illegalities, because there was none. He pled guilty to a non-crime because he thought he would get easier treatment in return for his own independent and separate finance, banking and tax law violations.

 

Obama: 1.8 million in unreported donations- oh just a paperwork snafu and one of the largest fines in presidential campaign history vs. Trump: maybe one 150,000 payment that he could legitimately claim he would have made regardless of the election, so special counsel, FISA, etc? Yeah ok lmao.

Btw, there is no you guys here. Unless you’re just including me a group of people who are suspicious of government, as we all should be, stop lumping people together. Division is crap. Stop it.

I’m not a republican. I’m not a democrat. I’m the independent voter both sides would love to vote for their candidate.

 

It's nice to see I'm not alone on this forum.

 

You are correct in that the violations were not equivalent. Because at Mueller's appointment there was no reasonable evidence of any violation by Trump.

There were plenty of Obama actions that could have called for a special prosecutor, but no one did. As Sage3030 says the campaign finance violation doesn't even come close. But his surveillance, wire tapping, and hacking of news reporters, the use of the IRS for explicit political gains, his failure to address and then lie to the people about a military assault on our sovereign soil, and his clear unconstitutional action (he even admitted that) with the Dreamers come to mind as examples that would warrant a special prosecutor and/or impeachment proceedings. That nobody pushed for either..... well, maybe that is indicative that we don't care about the rule of law.

 

Hmm.. basic reading is fundamental problems... huh? I asked the question, why doesn't smoking always cause cancer? if you can't answer that, you've got nothing but a belief that your correlation is correct. I said nothing about whether I believe or don't. The question is why can't you prove it.

 

So, obviously cancer depends on many factors, and is essentially a consistent background risk, and people always have and always will get cancer. Smoking just increases that risk to a degree significant enough to be worth whatever suffering is involved in quitting. Now, just because I can't dig into and explain every aspect of apoptosis doesn't mean I wouldn't be completely stupid to start smoking and completely immoral to make my kids start smoking even if the cigarette companies sneak in a few doctors and scientists, and buy a few politicians to try to tell me to ignore the scientific consensus.

The proof part is a fallacy I see anti-science people throw around all the time. The truth is that you can't prove anything to an arbitrary degree. That means that anyone emotionally tied to an opinion that contradicts evidence and facts can always move their bar for proof a little further down the line and claim that since a scientific reality can't meet "their" definition of proof that we can safely ignore it.

 

Lol, maybe in dollar amounts. Like, if hillary had paid a hitman $50k to kill trump, then that's a lesser concern than a $150,000 payment?

 

So, republicans had no hesitation in investigating hillary every chance they got, or her husband even while he was in office. So, there is no reason to think they didn't investigate obama simply because of some 'respect' they had for the office (which would be stupid). What that means is that everything you listed there were political accusations with no basis in actual fact. It's all just nonsense conspiracy theory. There obviously WAS reasonable evidence to investigate trump by contrast.

 

Smh. If murder was involved? No. There’s no murder here though.

I’m not going to try and reason with someone who thinks a possible campaign finance violation is grounds for FISA warrants, special counsels, etc.

 

Ok, so you admit it, you suggest that smoking "increases the odds", and yet that statement doesn't indicate that it does, in fact, cause it. That isn't a "fallacy", it's factual. That you cannot overcome the bar that actually demonstrates authoritative evidence of your assertion, it's you who are being fallacious..

 

Ok, lol, let me just try to break down your understanding of statistics and risk. Increasing the odds of something happening doesn't constitute a risk to you?

 

Didn't I respond to you with the documentation which describes the chemicals involved in the link between smoking and cancer, the agents that catalyze the reactions, etc. before? Or was that Josephwalker? I can't remember. Edit: Yep, it was you.

And yes. There is absolutely unequivocal evidence of the causal link between smoking and cancer. You are absolutely significantly more likely to develop lung cancer and other ailments as a direct result of smoking. It's a similar scenario with asbestos which I'm sure you'll deny as well.

Do you also deny that bullets cause death because they don't always result in death?

 

Your Pavlov type meme is flat out wrong. Every one of my examples is factually and unassailably correct, and were common knowledge. Hell, even Obama admitted to the unconstitutionality of his Dreamer's action. Clinton was impeached in part for crimes proven in a court of law (though in my personal opinion I don't believe they rose to impeachment, but that's just me); The Whitewater investigation was based on known criminal activity.

There was no -- as in none, nada, zero -- reasonable suspicion, let alone reasonable evidence, of any crime committed by Trump or his campaign. That was probably why Mueller's appointment letter illegally did not state a specific crime ("matter") to investigate. (which BTW makes it a witch hunt by definition.)