Now that the articles of impeachment have been relayed from the House to the Senate, and all of our Senators have sworn under oath to provide “impartial justice,” we’re ready for the trial of Donald J. Trump to commence. While Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has yet to come forward with the rules that will dictate the course of the trial, things are apparently set to begin tomorrow morning. And this afternoon, right at the deadline, the Trump administration issued their 110-page brief, laying out the defense strategy they intend to pursue. And, not surprisingly, they didn’t even really attempt to answer any of the changes enumerated by the House Impeachment Managers. They pretty much just said that Donald Trump, in withholding military aid in order to pressure a foreign government into announcing an investigation into his primary political rival, did “absolutely nothing wrong,” which is pretty much with the President’s lawyer, Alan “I kept my underwear on during the massage” Dershowitz told the nation yesterday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Here, if you haven’t seen it yet, is the video.
.@GStephanopoulos: "Is it your position that President Trump should not be impeached even if all the evidence and arguments laid out by the House are accepted as fact?"
Alan Dershowitz: "That's right." https://t.co/lpd9l8H85g pic.twitter.com/auxhsVu5lG
— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) January 19, 2020
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: “Is it your position that President Trump should not be impeached even if all the evidence and arguments laid out by the House are accepted as fact?”
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: “That’s right.”
This argument, of course, has no legal merit whatsoever. And Dershowitz knows it. Today he’s arguing on Donald Trump’s behalf that, “Abuse of power is not a criteria for impeachment,” and that, “You need ‘criminal type behavior’ akin to treason and bribery,” in order to impeach a U.S. president, but he wasn’t always of that opinion. No, back when he was a professor at Harvard, well before he fell in with the likes of Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump, Dershowitz had a different view. Here he is in 1998, saying that a president doesn’t have to commit a crime for impeachment to be pursued.
Here's the video:https://t.co/ffje5ZSOLE pic.twitter.com/2Ccfb0PNIi
— andrew kaczynski🤔 (@KFILE) January 20, 2020
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: “It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president, and who abuses trust, and who poses great danger to our liberty.”
As for the legal brief submitted by Dershowitz and the rest of the Trump defense brain trust this afternoon, here’s some of the response from the House Impeachment Managers, who, it would seem, disagree on the seriousness of the President’s abuse of power… Please read it.
The American people entrusted President Trump with the extraordinary powers vested in his Office by the Constitution, powers which he swore a sacred Oath to use for the Nation’s benefit. President Trump broke that promise. He used Presidential powers to pressure a vulnerable foreign partner to interfere in our elections for his own benefit. In doing so, he jeopardized our national security and our democratic self-governance. He then used his Presidential powers to orchestrate a cover-up unprecedented in the history of our Republic: a complete and relentless blockade of the House’s constitutional power to investigate high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
President Trump maintains that the Senate cannot remove him even if the House proves every claim in the Articles of impeachment. That is a chilling assertion. It is also dead wrong. The Framers deliberately drafted a Constitution that allows the Senate to remove Presidents who, like President Trump, abuse their power to cheat in elections, betray our national security, and ignore checks and balances. That President Trump believes otherwise, and insists he is free to engage in such conduct again, only highlights the continuing threat he poses to the Nation if allowed to remain in office.
Despite President Trump’s stonewalling of the impeachment inquiry, the House amassed overwhelming evidence of his guilt. It did so through fair procedures rooted firmly in the Constitution and precedent. It extended President Trump protections equal to, or greater than, those afforded to Presidents in prior impeachment inquiries. To prevent President Trump’s obstruction from delaying justice until after the very election he seeks to corrupt, the House moved decisively to adopt the two Articles of impeachment. Still, new evidence continues to emerge, all of which confirms these charges.
Now it is the Senate’s duty to conduct a fair trial—fair for President Trump, and fair for the American people. Only if the Senate sees and hears all relevant evidence—only if it insists upon the whole truth—can it render impartial justice. That means the Senate should require the President to turn over the documents he is hiding. It should hear from witnesses, as it has done in every impeachment trial in American history; it especially should hear from witnesses the President blocked from testifying in the House. President Trump cannot have it both ways. His Answer directly disputes key facts. He must either surrender all evidence relevant to the facts he has disputed or concede the facts as charged. Otherwise, this impeachment trial will fall far short of the American system of justice.
President Trump asserts that his impeachment is a partisan “hoax.” He is wrong. The House duly approved Articles of impeachment because its Members swore Oaths to support and defend the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic. The House has fulfilled its constitutional duty. Now, Senators must honor their own Oaths by holding a fair trial with all relevant evidence. The Senate should place truth above faction. And it should convict the President on both Articles…
Just to reiterate… Donald J. Trump, as Congressman Adam Schiff said today, “invited foreign interference, endangered our national security, and sought to cheat in the next election.” And, for that, he should be removed from office. And to argue that abuse of power is not impeachable is not only absurd, but it brings into sharp focus the fact that the administration doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on. They know that the evidence of the President’s constitutional misconduct is overwhelming, and that leaves them in a position where they have to fight to keep witnesses from testifying, push to hold Senate debate under cover of night, and put shameless has-beens like Alan Dershowitz on the stand to completely debase themselves, arguing that the executive branch is all-powerful, and above legislative oversight. This is not only wrong, constitutionally speaking, but it is incredibly dangerous. And we need to light up the Senate switchboards today, letting our elected officials know that we are watching, and that we expect them to honor their oaths to provide “impartial justice.”
105 Comments
“Is” does not imply “ought”.
“Can” does not imply “ought”.
Arguing for the “can” at the expense of arguments for/ against the “ought”—is the same kind of favorite thought process employed by sociopathic criminals everyday.
Aloha. Unlike a criminal trial where jurors are sequestered to keep public opinion from swaying the jurors mind, you can call, write or if you have the resources sit down with Trumps jurors and influence them. Evidently Trumps decision to take us to the brink of war with Iran was to ensure some necessary votes for acquittal.
I like theater, but has anyone really thought this is anything other than kabuki.
Ken Starr’s comments and positions during the Clinton impeachment also exist on public record in direct opposition to his position now as one of Trump’s lawyers. We will certainly be hearing those comments repeated during the trial if there is one to speak of. Indeed I think the Dems can make a pretty good constitutional case for the charges in this case being worthy of impeachment only from the previous statements of Dershowitz and Starr.
FF I don’t know why you work so hard to defend the indefensible when you know you will convince no one here and Trump will not be removed from office even if we are right.
What’s the point? Are you working that hard to convince yourself of something despite all evidence and reason?
It’s already a show trial:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/19/business/media/senate-impeachment-trial-media.html
JUST IN: The House says Trump’s top impeachment lawyer, White House counsel Pat Cipollone, is a “material fact witness” and must disclose evidence before the start of the trial.
NEW: The House impeachment managers say Cipollone’s role as Trump’s lead lawyer could undermine fair trial, demand he disclose firsthand knowledge of Ukraine facts.
Why does Jean assume my purpose is to convince Jean or Mark (or others) of anything?
Just be yourselves ! You guys are great!
Why would I point out fallacious reasoning? Because Truth is an end in itself to everyone who is not an enemy to the Truth.
It is not hard work to identify the bs here.
Defend the indefensible? Each of Schiff’s 3 points are highly debatable. Fact.
I didn’t know Hunter Biden is the President’s political rival. Must be out of the loop or sum’m. He’s running…against his dad???
Looks like Hyborian Warlord is going to be MIA for a while.
https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2020/01/man-accused-of-hiding-cameras-in-ypsilanti-restaurant-bathrooms-heads-to-trial.html
Notice I don’t need to resort to mindless degradation like that but you do. Trying to paint someone who wrecks you in debate as a sexual deviant? Yucky, Jean.
Funny though.
You, a Trump supporter, standing up for fair discourse is funny as hell too.
You are a ridiculous person HW. I know you think you are winning these arguments. Just like FF. That too is funny.
I’m sure you think that means something. You have no substance. It’s 100% posturing.
I am not trying to be mean but I think Jean is unusually bad at identifying the issues in most debates. Understanding the issue is the minimum prerequisite to even enter a debate. Yet she believes she is winning these debates? Dear Lord.
How could I be ridiculous to you when events prove me correct over and over but you are never correct? Tell me one major victory you’ve had. The Blue Wave failed to secure the Senate so Trump will not be removed. He will open a big old can of whoop-ass called the power to declassify documents though. You are going to be done with all these things you do soon. Probably will be infuriated at them for leading you to ultimate defeat in life on your knees before me.
:-)
I don’t believe in winners and losers of debates. I believe in discourse, but not with the likes of you two. Really, really not worth anyone’s time.
As I have said before, every once and a while you want to swat at an annoying if benign fly. And if increasingly persistent and annoying, maybe even fuck with it a bit. That’s all. You two are of no consequence.
I know so so many Trump supporters who are smarter and more interesting than you two. Primarily in that they abhor the kind of righteousness you two exhibit. Gah. Who cares?
And yes I know I’m being massively condescending here which can be construed as righteous, but that’s the response you two invite. It’s unproductive and not instructive and incredibly boring for me. It seems you two feel the same, so good riddance. I’ll no longer be engaging in any serious way, although I do reserve the right to scoff a little.
Should have done this years ago.
The purpose of debate is to find the superior argument. The side with that would be the…winner. It’s not a question of what you believe.
You have no business being condescending to anyone. If you go away that will be amazing. Come get your just deserts when it’s time, that’s all.
For the record, I didn’t say I would go away; I said I wouldn’t engage HW and FF.
The purpose of debate is not to determine a winner. That’s simply wrong and can be easily looked up. Even in staged, competitive debates, it is not in any way assumed or suggested that the winner is therefore right. Sometimes wrong is wrong.
I dub thee Jean The Uncannily Wrong
http://www.americandebateleague.org/what-is-debate.html
A debate is an organized argument or contest of ideas in which the participants discuss a topic from two opposing sides. Those who agree with this statement or idea are the “Pro” side. Those who will not agree with this statement or idea are the “Con” side. Each side will show in an organized and clever way why they believe to have the right answers. They will use examples and evidence to support their ideas while working towards a conclusion.
The aim of a debate is to convince the opposition that you are right. When the two sides agree on the subject or when one side’s arguments are more convincing than the other side that is when the debate comes to a close. In a formal debate, a mediator (a person that has not agreed with the Pro or the Con) will decide who the *WINNER* should be. In an informal debate the argument can continue until the time when one side gives up :)
Jean just admitted to “fucking with” houseflies when she finds them annoying. I think that is weird.
Jean contradicts herself constantly in the most extreme ways. It’s destroy who you hate by any means necessary but when you get your ass whooped by that person then proper discourse is the way.
SNL did a nice bit on me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c5neBXQwf8
HW you are full of shit.
https://www.debate.org/opinions/does-winning-a-debate-mean-one-has-found-truth
Read slower Jean. Try to focus on what other people are actually saying before responding. Slow way down.
Wow. Incredible!!!!
FF– Even by the definition HW provided, he has never won a debate, as that would require someone, anyone who opposes him to concede. None of us have.Nor have any of us given up, though if we did it would not be because Hw is right.
“The aim of a debate is to convince the opposition that you are right. When the two sides agree on the subject or when one side’s arguments are more convincing than the other side that is when the debate comes to a close”
Though I have a lot of disagreement with HW on most things, I can admit he has been right on some significant points. I don’t know why admitting that is such an emotional hurdle for you, Jean.
We are all just speculating here most of the time. You’ve said some insightful things at moments. I have no problem admitting that. HW has shared some valuable insights as well. You seem to think it somehow benefits you to pretend otherwise. That’s clearly emotion driven and amounts to childish gamesmanship.
By the way, I believe Virginia Giuffre. Alan Dershowitz Is a disgusting, arrogant, narcissistic creep. He perfectly fits the profile of a sexual predator.
HW is only ever right in the same way that FF is ever right. Basically only in the same way that a stopped clock is right twice a day.
https://youtu.be/T6WhQZ234yw
Mideast Peace Plan, bitch. Are you kidding me? It’s win after win ad infinitum. Now you are in a position of having to hope “the impossible” doesn’t become reality. He does in fact have a magic wand according to Obama so I don’t think you are in a position to scoff.
You are full of shit, Jean. Not me. I don’t subscribe to the concept of absolute truth; at least not from a human perspective. There is always a better way to understand a given thing.
How are you incapable of reading words and not ascribing other meanings to them? I said the purpose is to find the superior argument. To add this wacky idea that that must mean I think the superior argument is some kind of settled “truth” is absolutely moronic. What is wrong?
“Even by the definition HW provided, he has never won a debate, as that would require someone, anyone who opposes him to concede. None of us have.Nor have any of us given up, though if we did it would not be because Hw is right.”
But innumerable times I have brought factual information and/or reasoning that you are incapable of responding to. It has happened over and over. You get spanked then slink away and pretend it didn’t happen. I stated long ago I consider that to be a concession of defeat.
I have other things to do sometimes, HW. It’s not the case that I have no response. I choose not to. The rules of formal debate do not allow for debate without end. If they did then basement obsessives, boomer retirees and constantly-stoned pot dealers/sound men with endless free time would be the most right all the time. I think we all know that obsessiveness is not an indication of validity of viewpoint. Although it’s very clear it feels like that to those who are obsessed.
The only thing anyone here agrees with you on is that women with strong opinions counter to their own are to be attacked, ridiculed and dismissed out of hand.
That’s amazing you have something to do after you get smoked every time. I don’t argue for the sake of arguing. I end our arguments with facts you can’t effectively respond to. Your characterization of your behavior as merely strong opinions counter to mine is ridiculous. You have attacked me on a BAMN basis since the beginning.
“The rules of formal debate do not allow for debate without end. If they did then basement obsessives, boomer retirees and constantly-stoned pot dealers/sound men with endless free time would be the most right all the time.”
You know what pisses me off? When people say things that don’t make sense. I’m talking about when I smoke you with knowledge and you are unable to answer. If you can’t get up before the 8 count you are done. The fight is over. There is no amount of complaining that will change the decision. You can’t pretend you never got stopped because it is on the record.
In this format you can come back years later with an answer. If you never can then you don’t have one. Definitely you cannot act like you never got smoked.
Very funny stuff Jean.
It’s almost like you are suggesting you would “appear” to win more arguments if you were not arguing against such “losers” with so much time on their hands.
I don’t even watch or read much political news. It is incredibly easy to put a spotlight on all of the stupidity here. You imagine that it takes a lot of time to spot all of these basic mistakes but the truth is it requires a lot more time and energy to reach and maintain the level of brainwashing that has been reached by you, Mark, Lynne and other commentors here.
I Robert:
What I said :
‘The purpose of debate is not to determine a winner. That’s simply wrong and can be easily looked up. Even in staged, competitive debates, it is not in any way assumed or suggested that the winner is therefore right. Sometimes wrong is wrong.‘
-And-
‘ even by the definition HW provided, he has never won a debate, as that would require someone, anyone who opposes him to concede. ’
What HW said:
“ Jean contradicts herself constantly in the most extreme ways. It’s destroy who you hate by any means necessary but when you get your ass whooped by that person then proper discourse is the way.”
I Robert’s response: ‘Though I have a lot of disagreement with HW on most things, I can admit he has been right on some significant points. I don’t know why admitting that is such an emotional hurdle for you, Jean.
…You seem to think it somehow benefits you to pretend otherwise. That’s clearly emotion driven and amounts to childish gamesmanship.’
1) saying hw is right on some points is not conceding an argument. I don’t think you have ever conceded an argument with HW either.
Do you, iRobert, concede that HW’s points overall are well reasoned and evidenced? Does he ‘whoop our asses’ here all the time?
How is it that I, by saying that points aren’t proven here, somehow get seen by you as a person who can not admit I’m ever wrong who is caught up in childish gamesmanship.. oh not to mention my Expression of my political perspective is ‘emotionally driven.’ (Classic)
Your double standard is showing again iRobert.
FF I already established that I don’t believe winning arguments is establishing that one is right.
Please direct your criticism re certainty to HW. He’s the one who has it.
This is really not worth my time. I do have a life outside of this forum.
Ok HW you smoked ne.
You all win.
I’m an emotionally driven vapid idiot who can’t think for herself.
But here’s the thing: HW is still unwilling to meet my bet and none of what he has predicted has come down as he said it would. So how about we let history be the judge?
When Hillary Clinton goes to jail and the deep state is disable by mass arrests, then I guess I’ll be handing hw $1000 and licking his boots in public.
Until then, well anyone could be right. Unless you buy HW’s perspective.
You are so dumb. I just now smoked you on that exact same wacky idea of yours.
Why should I “meet your bet” on a position I never held? You are dumb as shit. It’s true.
But Jean, you grade out very poorly in your ability to actually engage in discourse too. Yes, you are able to talk about “discourse” as an idea pretty damn well but you do not practice what you preach at all. Rather, you talk about your love of “discourse” seemingly instinctively when you feel you need alibi for your most recent crime against reason–whatever that might be.
You get smoked in discourse too. How is that? Is that more palatable?
Ps HW— a Mideast peace plan that completely excludes the Palestinians from the process could have been achieved by literally any president. There is no negotiated settlement. This is a PR stunt that won’t stand.
I don’t engage seriously in discourse here FF because there is no point in engaging the circular logic ever present here. It’s not instructive. No one learns anything. Lots of other places where one can have a decent conversation across political beliefs.
Ps I didn’t know you were handing out grades, FF. Who have you that authority?
HW’s repeated use of the term ‘smoked’ is interesting…
Since this announcement is just the beginning I don’t think that is reasonable to conclude.
Aloha. Easy things that HW has gotten wrong but is in denial about. Secret subpoenas, Epstein, Assange, those are just off top of head. Why anyone waste parts of there life trying to engage in “discourse” with him is beyond my understanding.
Democrats with there Russiagate/Ukrainian impeachment seem to be committed to becoming irrelevant for the next decade. It is worse than the Obama derangement syndrome that the birthers suffered from.
The corporate media blacked out the Biden is corrupt arguments that the Leaders defenders made yesterday. Hopefully Sanders will send Biden off to retirement before February is over.
I guess Sad must be sad since it seems that Mayor Pete has had his day in the sun.
Show me where I ever used circular logic one time.
“Easy things that HW has gotten wrong but is in denial about. Secret subpoenas, Epstein, Assange, those are just off top of head. ”
You mean indictments? What makes you so sure about that? “Epstein” I got extremely right in the face of abuse from people like you. Assange…what did I get wrong about him? You are so full of bullshit.
Nothing wrong with smoking herb. If you are wise it only enhances wisdom. Getting ‘smoked’ all the time by a smoker must really fuck you up. You are oblivious to reality so maybe not in your mind but believe me you are all kinds of fucked.
I feel comfortable grading your arguments, logic, discourse, debate skills, reading comprehension. and memory, Jean. You can always ignore my assessment if you want. I actually think you are pretty good at talking about ideas in the abstract. You are in my opinion an absolute disaster when you (specifically) try to apply those ideas ; or when you (specifically) try to use those ideas to make judgments about some aspect of reality. The disconnect is huge! Something went severely wrong in your education. The professors that gave you passing grades for your very strange criticisms of logic should all be rounded up and fired immediately.
Aloha. Almost forgot. Being an old fashion democrat from down state Illinois meant we were always in the minority. We had a maxim. Vote early, vote often.
Absentee ballots for the March primary are now available at city hall.
I don’t like drugs. I am an extremist. Because Jean and others think it is fair game to insinuate that HW’s smoking pot has had some effect on his thinking—I think it is fair game to ask a question which otherwise would be incredibly rude: Can we get people here to list the pharmaceutical drugs they take and how long they have taken them?
I don’t take anything and never have.
Jean, Lynne, and Mark? What are you guys on? Blink twice if it is the same shit IL and JBrown are on? May I ask this rude question? Would HW, iRobert, EOS and Wobblie be willing to share that info? I apologize. It is is rude but something is going wrong with the way people think. Anybody willing to fill out this survey?
I take no medicine, FF. None at all. But it is in no way ok to ask. It’s amazing you think it is. HW offered up his pot proclivity. And he made it clear he goes well beyond any prescription doses. So he’s fair game. Many of my friends are there with him and it does not disrupt their thinking. For some people it does though. And HW shows many of the signs of toxic levels of THC.
“signs of toxic levels of THC.”
I’m not quite able to inhale that much yet but it’s flattering you imagine I must be some kind of weeed superhero to approach toxicity.
The estimated LD-50 (lethal threshold) for marijuana,established in 1988 by the DEA’s appropriate fact-finder, is 1:20,000 or 1:40,000.
“At present it is estimated that marijuana’s LD-50 is around1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.”
Jean Henry
Posted January 28, 2020 at 8:34 pm | Permalink
I take no medicine, FF. None at all. But it is in no way ok to ask. It’s amazing you think it is.
Jean Henry
Posted January 21, 2018 at 9:59 am | Permalink
Oh my!
Did you take a lot of LSD at some point in your life?
It was a rude question, I know. Thank you for answering though Jean. I don’t want anyone to answer if they do not want to. The fact that Jean is not on heavy prescriptions kind blows my theory out of the water anyway.
Aloha. Just got off Plavix, on a statin, metoprolol and aspirin, keep nitro around as a security blanket. Take vitamin E. Smoke my weed for the arthritis, and drink a few beers. In my youth tried numerous drugs. Only one that I would like to do again are mushrooms.
Toxic level of THC was funny.
Aloha. Was also a nicotine addict for many years but quit that evil practice 25 years ago — if I could only get my wife to do the same. My powers of persuasion are obviously not very good, but that is obvious.
Wobblie— any drug can be consumed in excessive amounts creating damage to ones physical and mental health. I’m all for pot, but the signs of adverse response to excessive use are clear. Paranoid obsessions being one of them.
FF— I answered your rude question precisely because I knew it would disrupt your narrative. But I know many people whose mental and social functioning is much improved by the correct dose of psychiatric medication. (And yes many of those drugs are also controlled substances that get abused). The stigma you place on mental health treatment is not just rude but unacceptable.
What information were you hoping to glean from a list of medications used by people with whom you engage on social media? Is this the kind of data without reasonable context that informs your opinions. Because that explains a few things.
https://youtu.be/LggeoD2MYOI
Before it’s too late.
Jean,
I have strictly anecdotal evidence and a small sample size which fuel my hunch that antidepressants degrade our thought processes. I don’t think there is anything wrong with collecting info on our own as long as we are honest with ourselves that it is not scientific. It is sort of a tricky situation we are all in. I simply do not believe we can rely on the science, about side effects, that is often funded by pharmaceutical companies to protect their products. Cigarettes were once promoted as healthy. I am sure many people questioned the marketing at the time just based on their own anecdotal evidence and common sense.
I know my question was rude. I pre apologized for asking the question already. I am genuinely curious though. It was not an attempt to stigmatize mental health. As a practical matter people need to make decisions regarding their mental health. I think there are often trade-offs to consider when deciding to take antidepressants for example.
“the signs of adverse response to excessive use are clear. Paranoid obsessions being one of them.”
Where do you get this shit? Literally every single thing you say is wrong. It’s all assumption based on ignorance.
Aloha, FF it is pretty clear to me that we all respond differently to the same medications. I know many people who tried pot and did not like the way it made them feel. When I was taking Plavix I was lethargic and it seemed to heighten my sense of depression. When I discussed these issues with my cardiologist he was adamant that these were not side effects of Plavix. Now that I am no longer taking that drug I m no longer tired all the time and I’m not as depressed. My individual response was probably an outlier response.
I know people who smoked cigs like a chimney. Two of my best friends both on the back half 70,s who were two to three pack a day Pall Mall smokers— one is in much better health than me—he got me to the ER when I had my widow maker. Neither have respiratory issues. We are all different.
The pharmaceutical industry in league with law enforcement has waged such a relentless propaganda campaign against any drug they do not profit from, that I am skeptical of all their claims.
Tulsi wants to decriminalize all drugs. It has worked in Portugal, maybe soon in Mexico.
Aloha then there is this epidemic of breast cancer. I’ve lost two friends both decades younger than me to that scourge.
Stress seems to me to be one of the biggest variables, economic station has significant health effects. Once we achieve universal health care in this country, the stress reliever that will be, will create greater health in everyone.
HW — I have never before encountered a regular pot smoker who denied the possibility of excessive use.
A drug cannot be simultaneously effective and not capable of toxicity.
My information is easily verified by the CDC and National Bureau of Health or pretty much any public health organization addressing medical marijuana use.
Aloha JH. There you go conflating two different things. Excess use and toxicity are totally different concepts. There is not a single case of an individual dying from a toxic dose of marijuana. Adverse reactions are possible, but that is not the same.
I understand that you are a supporter of the nanny state and do not think the masses are capable of discerning what is in there own individual interest. I disagree.
Adverse reactions are also evidence of toxicity.
I never suggested pot use was lethal.
Your misinterpretation of my statements based on assumptions v what I said and counter to the actual fucking meaning of words is growing tiresome.
Aloha on a different but related topic, ie health. Do any of the pro remove Trump from office folks believe that a President Pence would refuse to order the attack on Iran?
You can be as dismissive as you like JH but excessive use does not equal toxicity.
Ps I am and have always been for drug legalization. I’m actually for prison abolition with a restorative justice model to replace it. Maybe you’d call a restorative justice model a ‘nanny state.’ I don’t use that kind of Atwater language to dismiss perspectives.
I honestly don’t even recognize the person you seem to think I am politically or personally, Wobblie.
This blog rarely approaches the political issues of primary concern to me, so I guess that may explain it. I’m for deinstitutionalization of many of our current systems.
I will say this blog stated my turn towards UBI and for that I’m grateful. It gets social services out of our business while still offering much needed assistance. At the time I said we needed a new war on poverty and I now see how UBI could offer that. I still think the benefit should be income capped. And social security withholding should not be.
Maybe my interpretation of a nanny state would be believing that we should wait around for government to create effective climate action.
Wobblie: look it up.
https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=34093
An extraordinarily high LD50 tends to show extraordinarily low toxicity. You are making this shit up off the top of your head to feed your need to “discredit” me, Jean. It’s the circular logic you falsely accused me of using. It’s bad enough that fallacies form the basis of your thinking. It’s extra bad to malign someone else for what you do.
An extraordinarily high LD50 tends to show extraordinarily low toxicity. You are making this shit up off the top of your head to feed your need to “discredit” me, Jean. It’s the circular logic you falsely accused me of using. It’s bad enough that fallacies form the basis of your thinking. It’s extra bad to malign someone else for what you do.
For those too lazy to click links:
Toxicity: The degree to which a substance (a toxin or poison) can harm humans or animals. Acute toxicity involves harmful effects in an organism through a single or short-term exposure. Subchronic toxicity is the ability of a toxic substance to cause effects for more than one year but less than the lifetime of the exposed organism. Chronic toxicity is the ability of a substance or mixture of substances to cause harmful effects over an extended period, usually upon repeated or continuous exposure, sometimes lasting for the entire life of the exposed organism.
‘Lethality’ isn’t even part of the definition.
What’s you definition of LD50, HW?
I don’t have a special one. Not sure what you mean. It’s the amount estimated to kill 50% of people. So if they shot an ultra concentrated high amplitude blast of smoke with a jet engine from nearly a ton of weeed directly into your mouth you might be among the 50% of people that would die.
nearly a ton of weeed directly into your mouth for *fifteen minutes*
So maybe look into alternative methods of determining toxicity than one that takes the lethal dose and finds the median. Because, as I said, pot is not lethal when smoked as far as we know. It does however have short and long term toxic effects on regular large dose users.
I’m deathly allergic to shellfish. It’s toxic to me but not to most people.
One size fits all toxicity classifications may not always tell the whole story or keep one safe.
A ton of smoke WITHIN fifteen minutes. It would be like the bogus primate study where they asphyxiated monkeys with smoke and claimed weeed gave them brain damage.
Show me the toxicity then. How do you figure? Cannabinoids are well known to have extremely low toxicity.
there is a difference between chronic and lethal impact. I have a chronic disease (in remission). It’s unlikely to kill me on its own but still impacts me greatly during flare up. The impact of regular excessive pot use is chronic impairment not lethality. Both are evidence of toxicity.
Cherry-picking results that favor pot legalization was common during the battle to end prohibition. But I feel like we should be able to talk more honestly about the risks pot use now. Self management requires good information not political talking points.
How can I make any points when you insist on defining toxicity only in relation to lethality? We disagree on the definition of the term.
There are plenty of well documented health and especially mental health risks associated with regular excessive pot use.
Weeed causing impairment is an opinion. It’s not scientific at all.
When I want to make a point I get to the meat of it. You stick to the rhetorical. What diseases do you think smoking quality herb causes? By quality I mean no chemicals on or in the plant, no fungicides, no pests; clean organic herb.
Terpenes, the source of the many different wonderful aromas in Cannabis are non-toxic as well. I mean if you had to drink a swimming pool of them in half an hour you might not do so hot but other than that they only help.
I wouldn’t recommend noobs operate heavy machinery till they are used to being high. Some people shouldn’t smoke. For the vast majority I think just about any amount is no problem.
Aloha if only the nanny state had allowed open scientific research into pot. Oh well— JH I know we agree on a great many things. That is why our disagreements are much more significant than your disagreements with HW. There is at least a hope that we could find some common ground
Things I am thinking about today
Who thinks a President Pence would not order the bombing of Iran?
Why hasn’t Saint Nancy put the ERA on the Congressional calendar ?
Got to go. Off to a meeting of a bunch of returning citizens ( learned the other day we no longer refer to them as ex-con) to help them get UI and trade benefits.
I think Wobblie and Jean made good points against me. I just can’t figure out why so many people are getting less smart as time goes by. I thought people were supposed to grow wiser. It’s not happening with many people, imo.
Philbin is doing a pretty good job explaining the Dems intentional evasion of a court decision regard executive provoked fears. It is remarkable how lacking in nuance the pro impeachment side is.
#lowinfo
#lowintelligence
*executive privilege
Schiff is slipping into “parody mode” again!! Why?
Well, I was on some pretty serious drugs over the last few months for the cancer. Chemotherapy is no joke. It did affect my thinking. It made me kind of stupid. Not stupid enough for a guy like FF to really notice because even though I was stupid and slow thinking for ME, I was still just so much above the likes of him and HW cognitively that neither of them had any standing to be critical of me. They still don’t. All they have is white male arrogance and that isn’t much although I expect that both continue to think they are more intellegent than they have ever demonstrated here.
I also was smoking a LOT of pot. Probably around 1/8 oz per day. That didn’t help either but again, although it did affect my thinking, it didn’t make me as obviously cognitively impaired as those guys are. I am still smoking pot recreationally but much less. Not even every day these days.
Wobblie, I think a President Pense would be a disaster but that isn’t the point. The point is that our current president is a criminal and he is corrupt. Maybe Pense is too but so far, no proof.
As for the ERA, maybe she is waiting for the right timing. She is a brilliant woman and knows more about such things than you or I do.
Lynne’s consistency was never in question.
Since they legalized I’ve been spending all my time at Bloom City Club getting help to feel better.
Now I don’t even think Trump is that bad.
I don’t know about Mayor Pete. He’s really slipped.
Oh I have to go. There a new shipment of edibles coming it at 3 today.
They told me I could get a free sample.
P.S. Now when I read FF and his babble I just kind of giggle. IRobert still scares me though.
If I recall grad school Toxicology correctly, Toxicity is categorized as Acute (short-term exposure measured as mortality), sub-Acute (short-term exposure measured as morbidity), and Chronic (long-term exposure measured as morbidity).
But what you Maytards demonstrate here on MM is colloquial use of Toxicity referring to compulsive abusive relationships.
Sad! Dude! It’s good to see you’re still kickin’.
I’m high all the time now too.
Aloha Lynne, Trump is a criminal, but it seems to me that we are seeing neo-con national security apparatchiks removing the last stumbling block to war.
I’ve been waiting 50 years for the ratification of the ERA. It should be able to fly through the House in about one day. I believe they need a simple amendment to the enabling legislation. They’ve done it once before do it now. Make it so the Senate will have to deal with now. Make them (ie the Republicans in the Senate) answer why they oppose equal rights in the election.
Aloha, just discovered that there has been a resolution in the House since the start of the 116 th Congress. All she has to do is bring it to the floor for a vote.
And we have actually been waiting since 1923 the year it was first introduced in Congress.
You would know about toxic abuse, Dirty.
Bingo!
#soulmates
Wobblie— I too have been waiting for ERA for 50 years. I still have the silver cuff with ERA that my mother gave all of her daughters after a march in Philly. I might just start wearing it again. It must be child sized though.
I assume Nancy Pelosi has been just as eager to get it through. I trust her political instincts on matters she cares about mostly because I’d rather not think too much about the political implications of feminist progress.
The ERA offers gender equality to everyone btw.
Like reproductive rights, parental leave etc etc, it should not rightly be a concern of only women.
Aloha the ERA will make it very difficult to regulate a woman’s reproductive rights. Any attempt to do so would be discriminatory. Destroys the reasoning why many other wise decent people support Trump. Would make the minority anti- choice people seek a constitutional amendment. Another Supreme could die any day. There is no reason to wait.
One Trackback
[…] least note the fact that, this afternoon, during the Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, Alan Dershowitz made the claim that a president can’t be impeached for abuse of power so long as he believes […]