J.C.MacSwell

I answered "Bribery..." Bribery requires intent. ...because it requires intent...I cannot think of an example where it does... There is no such thing. It is required. Without intent it is not bribery.

I don't think it would be required in all cases...but I'm suggesting it would in the case of using the power of office for intention of personal interest while it is at the same not intended as being in the national interest.

No. That's why I used that example.

Bribery would (though that is not in the articles of impeachment...it's noticeably left out). Also working for his personal interest against the national interest...thus abuse of power. What crime, exactly, is it clear that Trump committed?

Did Trump request it be done illegally, and while knowing it was illegal? It is if the crime requires intent.

You don't have to be naive to believe Trump thinks that what is good for him is good for the America, or believe that Trump doesn't think everything through.

Clearly a conflict of interest...extremely suspect...but no hard evidence of a crime. Do you think Trump honestly believed Hunter Biden's business dealings were all above board? Do you think Trump felt he had been dealt with fairly in the Mueller investigations? That he felt Ukraine had not helped Clinton in any way in 2016? Do you not think many past Presidents have done the equivalent...but recognized the conflict of interest up front and simply been smarter about it? The rationale is that Trump has an excuse...he could have believed he was acting in the National interest. You can't call it murder if the "murdered's" still alive...even if he looks like he's in critical condition. Note that the Democrats, as much as they would like to have, chose not to include bribery in the articles of impeachment. They recognized, at least for that, it didn't meet the legal definition. If the impeachment articles are turned down by the Senate, it won't mean there is no truth to them (no "exoneration", as Trump will no doubt claim), but based on the GOP claim that the evidence doesn't rise to requiring removal of office.

Is this with regard to the request to investigate the Bidens? Would it make a difference if Hunter Biden's involvements in Ukraine were, say, much much more egregious and much much more obviously corrupt?

If you're wearing all of them at once...no wonder!

I thought you said you didn't watch CNN... ...or Fox News...

Yes INow. That was much better. Than this more recent one:

MSNBC has no mention of Andrew Yang since Nov 26 http://www.msnbc.com/search/andrew yang I wonder how long they can keep it up?

Yang has qualified for the December 19 debate. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/10/andrew-yang-qualify-debate-deadline-080098

Thanks. So they will vote on the two items separately?

Any thoughts on how the vote will go? The Dems will no doubt get the impeachment passed, but how many of them will vote against? Will any Republicans vote for it?

Okay. Let's try not to do that. I wouldn't have much to add if everyone shared my opinions. We should keep that in mind especially when conversing with new posters.

What I bolded: I’m not ready to agree with you that they’re useless and biased by default... Your interpretation of what others are saying when they have different opinions from your own...try to read without picturing them in a MAGA hat... It's not all or none Only to you ...(because you feel it is easier to argue against?) I don't get the impression anyone is claiming polls are, by default, useless. We can all read the same words. Why is it that you insist on mischaracterizing in this manner? It doesn't make your arguments appear any smarter.

Hyperbole, but more than a grain of truth to it with regard to much of current media. How often have you seen the numbers at least seem reasonably honest but not match the headline? By default, I rarely fully trust any media source at face value. That would have been much less the case a few years back. But that doesn't make them useless to me.

INow. It is not all or none. Where do you get that YJO2 claims they are useless and biased by default? They are to some degree suspect. This is to some extent true of climate change data (an example you brought up that no one is describing as a red herring...) It was an example. No one claimed you were obligated to respond to it. The facepalm was you not allowing the same courtesy. No we can't.

The problem I think is that we don't all agree on the trustworthiness of the sources of what we and others might consider facts. Our biases still come into play in this regard, including how things are "liked", "disliked", and even moderated. YJO2 provided some insights some may not agree with here, in a very respectful manner, and in my opinion closer to mainstream than many here would like to think.

I was giving it consideration and asked a question with regard to it. You weren't satisfied with that...took it as a "no", despite my not giving a clear answer answer either way as Zap points out. How is that not polarized thinking? It certainly was a polarized reply. Straight out of the play book...

I realize you tend to polarized your thinking but don't assume it of me...not that you can help it..LOL. Now...how would our new poster have come upon this little "incite" (not a typo) The Dems better nominate a good candidate...

How many received any degree of bipartisan support? (Asking, have no idea) They should of course have a good chance of making it through into law. The others of course would likely not, and not have received the attention required, or simply been non starters.

“O, wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, An' foolish notion.” Robert Burns 1786