Forum: Author Hangout

You're correct; whats your point?
is different from

You're correct. Whats your point?

Why are those different? The semicolon simply shows a tie between the two sentences. But both cases mean the same.

I'll have a nibble ;)

"You're correct; what's your point?" infers that although what you stated was correct, it appeared to be irrelevant to the discussion.

"You're correct. What's your point?" has no direct connection between the two sentences so although acknowledging you are right, the question is more existential in tone and could mean 'for what purpose do you exist?' or 'what role are you supposed to be fulfilling?'

AJ

I'll have a nibble ;)

Precise wording, along with talent, is what makes good authors great authors, IMHO.

I've have a nibble of the nipple.

he may have been referring to the president her served, as he didn't say current president.

He didn't mention his past role. The commentator mentioned it when introducing him (or it displayed on the bottom of the screen). So using "the" would not have applied to "that" president.

Was this a story about President Trump's lawyer resigning because the president would not follow his advice?

No, it was about Mueller telling Trump's lawyer that Trump was not a target, but a subject, not a witness. This guy said going from a subject of interest to a target could happen in a heartbeat. That's why he would be worried about Trump being interviewed under oath. He has a tendency to lie and that would be a criminal offense. He could also say something he shouldn't.

I think context would only matter in Ernest's example because it's speaking about a specific president, thus "the."

He has a tendency to lie and that would be a criminal offense.

Assuming the lying is referenced to Trump, there's no evidence Trump lies about anything. He is outspoken and says his mind. However, to those with opposing views they regard anyone not agreeing with them as lying.

As to lying being a criminal offence, that would only apply a few limited situations which then requires they have to prove it's a lie to make it an offence.

there's no evidence Trump lies about anything.

The Washington Post just published an article listing 2,000 Trump lies in his first year in office.

He does lie, not that other presidents didn't. But he tells stupid lies. When he said his inauguration had the largest crowd in history, it was a stupid lie.

According to the socialist media like the Washington Post Trump saying we shouldn't let illegal migrants into the USA is a lie. They need some evidence not just allegations.

Just curious. By what definition of "socialist" makes it applicable to the Washington Post. I was taught that socialism means the government owns or controls all means of production.

A socialist is a person who believes in the socialist political agenda where they want collective or government ownership of everything with just the one governing body. Socialism is where they have some of those aspects within the society. Those who promote a socialist agenda or socialist policies or socialist actions are socialists.

Just curious. By what definition of "socialist" makes it applicable to the Washington Post. I was taught that socialism means the government owns or controls all means of production.

Sorry, but that's the definition of Communism, not Socialism.

The Oxford Dictionary:

Socialism - "A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Communism - "A political theory derived from Karl Marx advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."

Note: Under socialism, it says "owned and regulated by the community as a whole". That does NOT say, controlled by the government. In fact, in the vast majority of quazi-Socialist governments, there are strict regulations imposed to prevent the GOVERNMENT from abusing the programs.

It's also interesting that the definition for socialism is based on a type of government, while that for communism is based an the initial proposal first put forth by a single writer, which was then routinely refuted by every single Communist government. Under Communist Governments everything is controlled by the government, with few, if any, restrictions on what they can do.

Take a look at the European models of Socialism before you try to feed us what terrors liberal socialism offers. Sweden has the highest voter satisfaction numbers of any country. Clearly, they're doing something correctly, while you won't get those same results from Cuba or the Soviet Union.

That you call them quazi implies that they are incomplete implementations of socialism.

The ONLY 'socialist' controls are in the form of social safety nets (i.e. medical care, feeding the poor and disabled, but none of the many, many things every conservative has been warning is inevitable as soon as you concede a single inch to actually benefit people rather than corporations). Thus 'socialism' is merely a limited aspect of communism (the people DON'T own the means of production, but only have access to what they require to live reasonable lives).

The ONLY 'socialist' controls are in the form of social safety nets

Don't forget the increases in taxation to pay for those things, and many others like education which has huge funding from taxation. This is especially when the services are given away to non-citizens of the country.

Sorry, but that's the definition of Communism, not Socialism.

Communism is a form of socialism whose only difference is the way the government leaders are organised. Thus making it a sub-group of it.

According to the socialist media like the Washington Post Trump saying we shouldn't let illegal migrants into the USA is a lie.

Don't get me wrong. The news lies (or at least sensationalizes to mislead) all the time. But just today Trump said he's the toughest president of all time on being tough on Russia. Simply not true. He's a braggart. That's one of his bad traits.

But I don't want to get into politics. It may drive someone else away from the forum.

If there is sufficient evidence of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" the House of Representatives can impeach the president. The Senate can then try him for the crimes and if the impeachment is confirmed, the president can then be charged and tried for the crimes.

The charge in the impeachment bill would undoubtedly be made public and if the evidence is adequate I don't think the Senate would overturn the impeachment.

I have always been curious how a person can be pardoned for a crime if they haven't been charged with the crime. I know it has happened but it just seems wrong.

At the earliest, the evidence would become public during the Senate trial on the bill of impeachment.

Today the charges listed in a bill of impeachment and much of the evidence supporting the charges is made public before the bill is introduced to the House.

I find your claim to not be credible.

Last year a bill of impeachment was introduced in the House to impeach Trump. Before that bill was introduced the media told all of us about the charges and the supporting evidence.

Except there wasn't any.

Depends on which media source you believe. The evidence just wasn't sufficient to warrant impeachment.

But my point was the information was made public before the bill was introduced, which is what you claimed as not credible.

I suspect there will be further bills of impeachment against Trump. Perhaps the evidence will be stronger.

You don't just list the charges in a bill of impeachment. You have to provide a reasonable amount of information to support the charges. Yes evidence would be presented in the Senate, but evidence is also needed to get the bill through the House.

The originator of the bill to remove Trump stated before he presented it that he doubted that it would be passed, but he would submit it anyway to make the American public aware of the threats that Trump represented to the nation.

In the weeks prior to the bills submission there was a lot of media coverage. The media reported on why the bill was being introduced and substantiated the whys with evidence. In today's world, everything is leaked to the media, and the media reports all of it to us citizens. We don't have to wait for the Senate to reconstitute itself into a court to hear the evidence. Granted the evidence may not be official before it is presented to the Senate, but we hear about it before then.

it was nothing more than a political stunt

What you just said seems to pretty much be the truth.

At least, based upon the minor detail there simply has been NO evidence presented otherwise. Seems they have to do something to try to gin up support and money from their base, because nothing else has been working right for them.

Maybe it's just karma that Chappaquidick was able to be made and released. And from the liberal side of things, he notes that effectively, liberals only have themselves to blame for the Trump election.

"Yet maybe what the dark truth of "Chappaquiddick" suggests is that liberal culture, going forward, needs to think more about cleaning its own house, and about who it chooses as its representatives. Can't we just say — out loud — that with these primal sins of entitlement in our closet, we liberals haven't had a strong enough leg to stand on to make the case against Donald Trump? That's a major part of what the last election was about. It's part of why the arguments against Trump's personal behavior were neutralized, reduced to the political equivalent of white noise."

the vast majority of both Democrats and Republicans voting not to proceed.

You may want to read the following. It addresses why Green introduce his bill of impeachment.
https://www.houstoniamag.com/articles/2017/5/17/rep-al-green-officially-calls-on-congress-to-impeach-president-trump

Why did the Democrats vote to defer it? Basically, they didn't think the evidence was strong enough and they wanted to wait for Mueller to uncover additional evidence before calling for impeachment.

Sorry about that.

It was an article in 'Variety' by a liberal writer. I didn't realize I'd deleted the source link.

http://variety.com/2018/film/columns/every-liberal-should-see-chappaquiddick-1202746616/

wouldn't it be a Don of impeachment?

Hopefully it is the Dawn of Impeachment.

I have always been curious how a person can be pardoned for a crime if they haven't been charged with the crime. I know it has happened but it just seems wrong.

That's always been the assumption, but Trump threw that idea out with is first pardon, demonstrating to anyone testifying against him that he could save them from prosecution if they refused to testify—though he's never followed through with anyone who's actually working with Mueller yet.

However, that's more a technicality, as it would have to be determined by a court, which would take years and would require a 'damaged party', which might be hard to prove in court.

If you check, there have been a number of preemptive pardons before Trump took office.

One of the nice things about a preemptive pardon is if the pardoned person is called to a witness stand regarding their offense, they can't refuse to answer based on the 5th Amendment.

The President is not likely to face criminal charges. The Justice Department in 1973 and again in early 2000s issued an opinion that a sitting president cannot be charged with a criminal offense.

Alas, that interpretation has largely changed, as that interpretation was based on the President needing to keep certain 'wartime' secrets close to his chest. Since we're not in a declared war, and are supposedly only 'aiding' other countries in defending themselves, those objections no longer apply, and even if they did, the current President keeps Tweeting any military secrets we have while sitting on the can anyway.

He would only ever call Howard the rodent; never a rodent, because the former is a nickname, whereas the latter would be a pejorative term.

Another good example of why choosing the right word is important.