Using logic-not emotion-Trump should be impeached
First of all I love this country. All presidents have flaws. I have tried over the years to give Trump the benefit of the doubt - I even prayed for the guy. I wanted him to do good as a novice and outsider. During the campaign I immediately saw that he was all about criticizing, but had no real plans of his own. He had his weaknesses. And so I gave him the benefit of the doubt thinking well, he's new, and he could drain the swamp as he said. And he could learn the ropes and come up with some good policies which in part he has. Unfortunately, it appears he hasn't really drained the swamp at all; he's now part of the Swamp Team.
Like Andrew Johnson , Clinton and to a lesser degree Nixon ( resignation before impeachment), presidents before us sometimes do not work out. Like Nixon, some are even borderline dangerous. Our wonderful Democratic process allows for removal of a government official Comander in Chief, if the public is overwhelmingly dissatisfied with his/her performance.
Let's fast-forward. It is starting to become apparent that the negatives are outweighing any positives. Reported behavior now includes; abuse of power, obstruction, misogyny, racism and fascism.
I will prove overwhelmingly through using basic logic, that the scales have now tipped in favor of the sad fact that we must expect much better from our leaders; we must move on (and let the VP carry the remaining term) from our leader Donald Trump. .
Any takers?
Like Andrew Johnson , Clinton and to a lesser degree Nixon ( resignation before impeachment), presidents before us sometimes do not work out. Like Nixon, some are even borderline dangerous. Our wonderful Democratic process allows for removal of a government official Comander in Chief, if the public is overwhelmingly dissatisfied with his/her performance.
Let's fast-forward. It is starting to become apparent that the negatives are outweighing any positives. Reported behavior now includes; abuse of power, obstruction, misogyny, racism and fascism.
I will prove overwhelmingly through using basic logic, that the scales have now tipped in favor of the sad fact that we must expect much better from our leaders; we must move on (and let the VP carry the remaining term) from our leader Donald Trump. .
Any takers?
Comments (213)
Yes, and we call that process an election, which will take place in just over 13 months.
Public dissatisfaction with the President's performance, no matter how overwhelming, is not a constitutional basis for impeachment. That requires sufficient evidence of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" for the House of Representatives to adopt formal charges by a simple majority vote. Of course, this would not yet result in removal from office--that requires a subsequent two-thirds majority vote by the Senate, after a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
I did not and will not vote for Donald Trump, because I consider him unfit for the office, temperamentally and otherwise. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that all this impeachment talk is pure political theater, predicated on flimsy pretense. The only viable strategy for getting rid of Trump is to offer voters a better alternative next November.
Quoting aletheist
Committing criminal acts, failing to discharge the duties of the President, and violating the constitution, however, are.
No. This is a different thread and I will explain why shortly
Quoting 3017amen
It's not 'meanness' or 'violence' or 'hateful language' that's really at issue here: it's criminal acts committed by the highest elected official whilst in office. That is 'logic not emotion'!
OK I edited it out, just give me a second I'm eating dinner
Quoting 3017amen
Expressing a general dislike for any thread that might start thus.
When someone says this, walk away.
Logic can't prove a normative.
Sure, but the OP did not offer any of those allegations; just that "the public is overwhelmingly dissatisfied with his/her performance."
1. Donald Trump paid off a pornstar and a Playboy bunny and lied about it on air Force one.(And his lawyer went to jail for campaign finance violations.)
2. Donald Trump was on tape disparaging women's genitalia.
3. Over his career Donald Trump has made other explicit derogatory remarks towards women.
4. Misogyny is partially described as sexual objectivication and bellitlement of women.
5. Is it reasonable to infer that Donald Trump is a misogynist.
Please feel free to question me on any of those propositions.
I'm going to make a case. I'm going to cover a lot of ground. You don't like that?
I agree that Donald Trump is an immoral, dishonest, and obnoxious person. However, none of the items that you mentioned--even taken together--qualify as a constitutional basis for removal from office. That requires "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Bill Clinton & Monica Lewinsky. And please refer to Lindsey Graham's concerns about cleansing the office.
That seems like a response prompted by emotion, not logic. I am simply pointing out the constitutional requirement for removal from office. Unless there is evidence of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," there is no case for impeachment.
Not impeachment. Impeachment is a political process not a legal one
Your very name lends to distrust.
I agree, there is a sense in which the House has the power of impeachment for any reason. However, the OP calls for "removal of a government official," and the constitution explicitly authorizes the Senate to take that step only for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Many on the left suggested that he is a racist. How do we know that it's true? Should that concern us? Let's again break it down and deconstruct what we think we know.
1. Donald Trump during his property management interests was accused of discriminating and settle out of court.
2. Fred Trump was involved in the KKK rally in New York City and was incarcerated.
3. Donald Trump during his presidency has explicitly disparaged minority women and has told them to go back to their countries because he didn't like them critiquing him.
4. Donald Trump routinely uses racist language and appears to support extreme white nationalism.
Please feel free to ask me questions as to whether those propositions are sound.
6. Six individuals were found guilty of wrongdoing all of whom were part of Trump's 2016 campaign. And some are in jail.
7. Trump destroyed the transcripts from the Putin summit.
8. The Mueller report did not find collusion, but found Russia meddling with our election on his watch.
Please feel free to question me as to whether those propositions are sound.
Eating dinner?! Hey, get back here. Trump is way too dangerous for you to take time out at the trough.
I used logic. Logic said that on some official and unofficial functions, Trump was doing badly. I checked out my emotions. They concurred with logic. I checked the auspices by ripping open a live, vegetarian-fed-never-given-hormones-or-antibiotics chicken with gloved hands and examined its gut. There was a large cancer visibly pulsating. I threw it into the fire and heard the dead chicken cackle.
Looks like a negative result to me.
So, more seriously: There are some events the presidency has little control over. Most of the time the White House can not claim credit or blame for a good or bad economy. The president is not responsible for most of the social events which have histories stretching back decades. The president can not pass legislation: What can be done is amend administrative rules (no small thing). The President in his role of Commander in Chief can instigate military actions. This has been the source of some big problems over several presidencies (Kennedy's to start with).
I loathe Trump more than I loathed Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. He is most loathsome in the area that has little direct effect, but considerable indirect effect on political discourse: the use of his mouth, and his fingers on Twitter. He set and maintains a low standard of discourse.
He is simply wrong (or worse, not even wrong) on issues such as global warming, environmental protection, world trade, and social services--all vital concerns. He is wrong either on the basis of policy or on the basis of knowledge. Which is difficult to tell, quite often.
Hillary Clinton, or Jesus for that matter, given the Democrat controlled House and the Republican controlled Senate would not have been able to pass so much as the salt and pepper, let alone major legislation.
No recent president has been entirely successful or a total failure, maybe since... the Harding Coolidge administrations? But Harding and Coolidge were before my time, and I haven't nailed down everything that wen ton in the 1920s.
Love 'em or Loathe 'em.
Sure, impeach the bastard, but be aware that it might not make any difference. A merely impeached president isn't bounced out of office. He has to be convicted in the Senate of the crimes on which the House found him guilty. If he is found guilty in the Senate, then his presidency is over.
Please feel free to question me on whether that proposition is sound.
Of course BC! I understand that.
Reckon there’s a chance this time. How many Republicans owe The Don personal loyalty (as distinct from fearful subservience?) Already Mitt Romney and several others are making the right noises. There are many powerful Republicans not in the House who detest him.
And also - imagine if the House convicts, and the Senate acquits, what the atmosphere would be like for next year’s poll. I mean, it’s poisonous now - if that were to happen, I think it would make the Presidential campaign - well, I hate to imagine......
Quoting Wayfarer
Impeachment is not a finding of guilty nor a conviction, it is merely a formal accusation. The House is the equivalent of a grand jury, ascertaining whether a simple majority of its members believes that there is enough evidence to move forward with a trial. Only the Senate can vote to convict (guilty) or acquit (not guilty), and it would take all 47 Democrats plus 20 Republicans to reach the required two-thirds majority for removal from office.
The only Republicans who matter are those in the Senate, and how they personally feel about Donald Trump is a relatively small part of the equation. Unless sufficient evidence is presented to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he is truly guilty of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"--a bar that @3017amen has not even come close to meeting yet--their main consideration would be whether voting to remove him from office is more likely to help or harm their own reelection prospects.
And before anyone bemoans that strictly political calculus, recognize that the Democrats in the House who are now contemplating impeachment are no different in that regard. As we have already established ...
Quoting 3017amen
Correct, this is a political forum not a legal forum.
Again look at history: Nixon, Clinton, et. al.
And I will cover more stringent criteria that relates to the president putting his personal gain over national security interests
Induction can prove a normative. You're thinking deduction.
Nixon resigned before he could be impeached. Clinton was impeached for perjury--lying under oath, which most people agree qualifies under "high Crimes and Misdemeanors"--but was acquitted by the Senate.
Quoting 3017amen
Again, there would have to be sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump did something amounting to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" for there to be a constitutional basis to remove him from office. Anything below that intentionally high bar is irrelevant. The voters will have the opportunity to deny him a second term on that basis in just 13 months.
Fast forwarding , 'High crimes and misdemeaners ' may be appropriate here.
10. Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani solicited a foreign government for political advantage.
11. Donald Trump use the word " favor" in approaching the Ukraine government about reopening an investigation.
12. An interview with ABC news Donald Trump said that he would take information from a foreign government for political advantage and ' maybe report it'.
Feel free to ask me questions as to the soundness of those propositions.
Once again feel free to parse it.
Soliciting a foreign power for information harmful to a political opponent for personal gain meets all criteria without breaking a sweat. From what I read, and I’m reading a lot, Trump and the administration have been caught red-handed in commission of a criminal act and if he is not removed from office on these grounds, then I really think we’re looking at the end of the Republic.
No it can't. There are no true normatives. No normatives that are factual.
That's correct, it's called the abuse of power standard.
Then what does deductive logic do?
Ha, of course. And the reason why it can be construed as such is because the statute is 'high crimes misdemeanors and other...'
Abuse of power is 'the other'
With respect to normatives? Nothing.
The relevant language is not in a mere statute, it is in the Constitution itself; and it does not say "high crimes, misdemeanors, and other," it says "Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Whether alleged abuse of power rises to that level, and whether there is sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a president is guilty of it--thus warranting removal from office--is for a simple majority of the House of Representatives (as grand jury) and then a two-thirds majority of the Senate (as trial jury) to decide.
Agreed. In politics that's why we have hearings to help confirm plausibility.
Sure it's an interpretation issue Trump's lawyer will have to defend. Abuse of power for personal gain however will be difficult to overcome. Stay tuned!
High crimes and misdemeanors
You don't think that there are reasonable grounds to consider Trump guilty of any of this? You yourself say that he is "unfit for the office" and being unfit to serve is right there in the description of what counts as high crimes and misdemeanors.
With all due respect are you trying to intimidate me (with your derogatory comments)?
Fitness for the office is up to the judgment of the voters. Evidence sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the commission of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemanors" is up to the judgment of a simple majority of the House (for formal charges) and a two-thirds majority of the Senate (for conviction and removal).
Given the meaning of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" fitness for the office is also up to the judgement of Congress.
This is the most important point. I neither know nor care if Trump's actions are grounds for impeachment. What seems clear though is that there's a lot of ambiguity and disagreement about it. In those circumstances, pursuing impeachment is suicidal and likely to set back the liberal cause in the US for many years, as it will be seen as an establishment counter-revolution. So just from a tactical point of view, all anti-Trump efforts have to be about getting him voted out. Trouble is I'm not sure the Democrats are up to the challenge.
I appreciate your comments and I know we're all pontificating.... As an independent moderate myself , there is no disagreement about foreign meddling and abuse of power for personal gain particularly in light of the fact that he promised the voters he would drain the swamp and be different.
Further in my opinion I don't think it's an all or nothing proposition. I think you can do both... Because unfortunately having an impeachment inquiry is the only way to educate the public on whether or not to vote for him in 2020
I see what you're saying, but it looks like a big mistake to me.
Thanks... Just to be clear it's my understanding that an impeachment inquiry in itself is necessary to preclude executive privilege over release of certain documents and information. In a sense the Democrats had no choice, they were backed in the corner if they wanted to get to the truth.
Otherwise unfortunately we have seen the White House restrict and mislead the public about similar information. It's sad and it really sucks honestly.
Sorry I'm just trying to dot the eyes and cross the t's and get caught up. Thank you for pointing out your previous concern me, accordingly I corrected the record in the OP thus:
"Like Andrew Johnson , Clinton, and to a lesser degree Nixon ( resignation before impeachment), presidents before us sometimes do not work out."
Can it support it?
No. Logic doesn't have anything to do with normatives.
Can anything? (... support a normative?)
My desire is to keep this thread specifically about political empeachment. I'm approaching this in a bullet-point syllogistic style, so that one can draw reasonable inferences from the premises or facts stated. Inductive reasoning relates to probabilities or likelihoods of things being true.
Even though other developments are happening guickly, relative to polical Agency heads resigning, file server cover-ups, possibilities of leveraging funds for political and personal advantage, I am not going to provide any bullet points for those at this time. I will await more information on those, from hearings scheduled this week.
In the meantime I am not opposed to a very brief detour in the philosophy of the so-called epistemic elements that I think both of you all are referring to...certainly worth devoting another thread to for sure.
I will then resume posting my enumerated bullet points when we get more information very shortly...
I don't at all buy Bayesian probability, which is what that would have to rely on.
At any rate, I also don't pay much attention to politics. (I'm interested in political philosophy; I'm not very interested in the daily political crap of the sort we see on the news.) So I can't offer much of an opinion about something like impeaching Trump. I did hear that it's supposed to have something to do with Trump approaching the president of the Ukraine for dirt on Biden, which doesn't sound to me like something that should be considered problematic (aside from the general fact that it underscores how stupidly we do political races in general), but I don't really know enough about it to have an opinion either way, and I'm not about to spend hours reading about it.
Bayesian probabilty? Are you absolutely sure that refers to Sociology and Political Philosophy, not to mention human behavior relative to cooberation viz. judicial process?
Basically if you're doing probability and it's not frequentist, it's Bayesian.
Cool, thanks.... certainly worth another thread to explore....
Or a doctor who fails you, but upholds the law?
What if the doctor didn't tell you he was breaking the law?
(Would you care to know?)
Establishing priorities.
I would need a little bit more information. Is the doctor a public servant? And is he trying to cure clinical narcissism?
If the doctors is a public servant he must follow the law no?
Must? No.
Are public servants above the law then?
"They can be. ". Really, how so?
By getting away with it.
Is that what you want from your public servants?
It depends on what's at stake. If it's a package deal:
A. cure the disease, win the war, accomplish the goal, AND criminal activity, or
B. failure and no criminal activity
I might pick A. There's a potential cost to picking A though. Rule of law could be degraded by it.
Do you think some of the people who elected Trump knew he was a shady character, but chose him for other reasons?
Do you think some of the people who elected Trump knew he was a shady character, but chose him for other reasons?"
Sure I can understand what a protest vote means...should it mean that one sells their souls at all costs, or recognize their errors and cut their losses?
Being a moderate independent, I'm okay with enforcing immigration laws and deportation of illegal immigrants not paying their share. And the previous administration did a great job with deportations of same.
Good question. But could we go back to establishing priorities for a second?
In your view, are there times when breaking the law is ok, for instance to win a war (as an extreme example)? Or is it never ok?
It's a good question and I'll give you a quick example of an exception, for a public servant.
God forbid if a plane carrying 50 people was going to hit a tall building with 5,000 people, I would acquiesce to shooting down the plane with 50 to save the 5,000.
... An important point to add when you say breaking point, it was a combination of many things over time. Regarding our elections, he supported Russian meddling in 2016 and is attempting to do the same again...
As they say, fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me.
I think a lot of Americans would say that the benefits of Trump as a president outweigh his faults and lawlessness. For instance, even if he killed 50 Americans, his SCOTUS will eventually save 5000 people from death by abortion.
How would you address that logically? Is there a logical approach?
Sure absolutely not, as a Independent Moderate I can make a case to support your view.
To answer your concern, what I was referring to were illegal immigrant's not paying taxes. I don't think you would take issue with that.
Great question!.
As an Independent Moderate, with few exceptions, I am opposed to killing of any kind. Don't support death penalty; but don't support a cushy prison life either. I believe practicing deterrence (in all its forms whether it's crime or public safety laws or gun control et.al.) first and foremost.
That's a more reasonable approach in my view. I can give you specifics... .
I WILL BE UPDATING THE SYLLOGISTIC POINT LIST VIZ. THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY SHORTLY.
Sure but many don't. You have the numbers by chance?
I'm only glancing through this conversation, and I suspect what I have to say is what @Maw had in mind anyway, but I'm going to say it because this sort of attitude really pisses me off. We have VAT here in the UK, you have Sales Tax in America. We both have various other levies and duties on goods and services, but apparently if someone doesn't pay any income tax on their salary, they suddenly "don't pay any taxes". Its just a convenient myth to beat the lower classes with, but it gets trotted out too often, so I like to refute it wherever I see it
Unless your immigrants are buying absolutely nothing but tax-free food items or the like, then they definitely do pay taxes, all of them.
In the interest of the OP, I won't belabor or detour much from the original thread topic, however, your point is well received!
Very good point. Unfortunately, many would view it as tantamount to getting a partial discount or a windfall from the taxes they owe; in that case not paying the full amount. In other words, they may be paying some, but not all/not paying the full amount that other's are paying.
In keeping with the theme of using logic, that's why I asked for the statistics, if available.
Exactly. A situation which large corporations and the very wealthy are in too. Anyone who can afford a tax advisor will pay less tax than the equivalent person who cannot. Now you're moving from "not paying any taxes" to "not paying enough taxes", which is an entirely different argument, and one which I very much doubt immigrants will come out on the losing side of.
Surely you're not saying that everyone should pay a fixed amount of tax no matter what they earn? So income tax being related to pay is essential. So those who get paid less, pay less. What happens at zero pay? Zero tax. It's not cheating, its the exact same system by which you pay less tax than Donald Trump.
True that Frank!!! ....huge, huge, huge, point. We could talk forever about that so-called dynamic, in politics at least....
How is that the lesson? What 'logic' has been defeated here by emotion, I can't work out from your comment how it relates to the post it's in reply to.
:up:
Thread title versus discussion
We agree. But the distinctions here are not following the laws in either instance.
1. It's unlawful to submit fraudulent tax returns
2. It's unlawful to pay someone without taking all the withholding taxes out . (Not to mention in the construction industry and other service economies workers-regardless of race & ethnicity - are paid 'under the table' with zero withholdings/ paid with cash.)
Are you just going to reply in clause-less aphorisms all the time?
So the immigrant's employers would be the ones committing the crime. American citizens. So why deport immigrants for the crimes of their employers?
The present vein of discussion started with an emotional message from Maw about the cuteness of the OP's strategy. From there, we left off from the topic to discuss the contributions of illegal immigrants.
Per a number if political commentators, that is in line with the GOP strategy to re-elect Trump amid impeachment proceedings: derail to create the maximum confusion. Theyre hoping Democrats will broaden the scope of the charges and in the process, they'll sow the field thickly with ways to confuse.
I see. The starting point for me was
Quoting Maw
No emotion, just a bare statement of fact. Hence my confusion about your comment.
Correct, in those cases you would have no reason to... .
Yeah I totally should have used a "logical" message
If you wanted to be in keeping with the thread title, yes.
14. Robert Mueller's testimony revealed his concern with foreign meddling in our elections, and I quote: "They're doing it as we sit here".
15. FBI Director Christopher Wray's testimony revealed, and I quote: "The Russians are absolutely intent on trying to interfere with our elections through the foreign influence... they haven't been deterred enough".
Feel free to parse and ponder.
While we await more definitive news and information (President Trump now reportedly wants to meet the Ukraine whistleblower) I am adding more factual information to the so-called record:
16. Directly from Mueller report : "[T]he investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts..."
17. Directly from Mueller report: "The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests."
Feel free to parse and ponder
18. Mueller Report Vol II Obstruction page 290 : "...when Sessions told the President that a Special Counsel had been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked.”504 .
19.Mueller Report vol. II, p. 157: "Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong."
In the meantime, as a house-keeping matter, the logic that we are using is essentially Modus tollens rule of inference. This isn't like a priori formal logic, instead it deals with probabilities and the likelihood of things happening. A couple examples:
If the watch-dog detects an intruder, the watch-dog will bark.
The watch-dog did not bark.
Therefore, no intruder was detected by the watch-dog.
If I am the axe murderer, then I can use an axe.
I cannot use an axe.
Therefore, I am not the axe murderer.
Feel free to parse and ponder.
To what use will you put rules of inference?
Oh yes, I am aware of that. I actually think it's a mistake not to include it, but that's just my personal opinion. As you know, I look at things in totality and try not to dichotomize where possible. At the very least, it establishes patterns that can be corroborated. And it also helps the voter to make an informed decision in 2020.
To answer your question, here's an example:
1. Donald Trump had affairs, paid off a pornstar and a Playboy bunny and lied about it on air Force one (Subsequently his lawyer was found guilty of campaign funds violation/fraud.)
2. Donald Trump was caught on tape (TMZ interview) disparaging women's genitalia ("...you can do anything, grab them by the pu$$y...").
3. Over his career Donald Trump and while in office, has made other explicit derogatory remarks towards women.
4. Misogyny is partially described as sexual objectivication and bellitlement of women
5. Is it reasonable to infer that Donald Trump is a misogynist.
Is this what we want in a President or should we accept it as the norm(?)
I will argue not. I hold my public officials to a higher standard. We can't just give up on our leadership values.
True, but he's also put women in significant roles of authority even 30 years ago when it wasn't so popular. His philosophy was that you get more for your buck if you hire women because they work so hard to prove themselves to counter sexism.
There was a recent poll that showed that Trump is losing the support of college educated white women (who helped put him in office in 2016). Their complaint isn't misogyny, but that he thinks he's above the law.
Trump has taken a hard stand against China. If he's impeached, then the Chinese will just sit on the trade war instead of trying to negotiate.
And that will amplify a problem that democracies tend to have: changing captains so often, the boat zig zags all over the place. It's hard to be taken seriously and that can lead to hot war.
What do you think?
Hey Frank well thank you kindly for asking my opinion. First of all today, ironically enough, Trump just said and I quote:
"China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine,"
That is scary on many levels. One obvious concern would relate to easing up on the tarrifs in return for a political favor of investigating a political opponent for personal gain.
As you know tariffs are controversial. Some say in the long run they work others say they don't since they don't encourage production efficiency here in the states. And the temporary cost increases to the consumer usually never decreases back to where it was.
If you remember back in June Harley-Davidson said they were moving some of their production to Europe because of retaliatory tarrifs from EU. In response to Trump’s import tariffs on steel/aluminum, Europeans targeted Harley by raising the U.S. motorcycle tariffs from 6% to 31%. This percent increase adds nearly $2,200 to the cost of an average motorcycle over there. So they layed off workers here and moved some production over there to avoid the tax and stay competitive over there.
The big picture in politics is basically how do we want our politicians to spend the money. So instead of tax cuts for large corporations I would just give them other incentives. I mean look at all the incentives that the farmer's get...
Though blood and gore may be all around you, you can just sit on a hill and watch the clouds
if you want to.
Most economists agree that ideally it's best to have a free market. And deal with trade or economic disparities in other ways by policing regulations... At least then you wouldn't have cost increases from tariffs.
So maybe one question at least is, if Trump tries to negotiate tariffs for political favors then it was a big waste of time and people suffered economically for no reason.
Stay tuned!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vUI__sxL_fgzy5JYqaxB9cysOHwwQSE4/view
Sure right now it's in the fact-finding phase of course... otherwise, Modus tollens rule of inference is being used here...
Stone, a political operative, was found guilty of all seven counts brought by the Justice Department, a victory for special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. Stone was found guilty on five counts of lying to Congress, one of witness tampering, and one of obstructing a Congressional committee proceeding.
Stone is facing anywhere between 5-20 years in jail.
Evidence continues to suggest that past behavior is a good indicator of future behavior; obstruction and abuse of power. Stay tuned.
"Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky,” he said. “Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of [claims Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. election] and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president.”
“But I never received a clear answer,” he said. “In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 election and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded.”
Ambassador Sondland later concluded that at the time, and in spite of a subsequent telecom directly with President Trump to the contrary, that a quid pro quo was nevertheless implied.
"Trump" is an exemplar of a much larger problem. So is the Republican Party. But then, so is the Democratic Party, and so is Wall Street, Capitalism, and more!
My thoughts exactly! I wanted a moderate John Kasich to get the nomination...I think most people will end-up doing a protest vote just to get the guy outa there....sad.
Being an Independent Moderate is tough....and nowadays the Republican party is a far cry from the party of Lincoln…. .
Yes but 'everything is fucked anyway' is hardly an answer. Trump is such an egregious example of wrong man for the job, were he removed (and regrettably I'm not expecting that outcome) then that would go a long way to righting many wrongs. Followed by the lunatic fringe in the GoP, most of whom originated with that idiotic 'Tea Party' fad and shock jock radio. There are decent republicans, although I admit they're very hard to see.
Stay tuned there was bombshell testimony today from Fiona Hill and others... It could be the start of some Republicans turning on the President.
I commend the Democrats' efforts toward impeachment. (Remember, impeachment, to be effective, has to be followed by a conviction and removal from office--quite unlikely, given the Republican controlled Senate). The Democrats happen to not be at fault on the question of manipulating the Ukrainians into investigating Bidens Jr. and Sr., but they haven't caught fire and fought fiercely on other issues where they should have, were they a "real" opposition. Everything isn't fucked. What is fucked is the the Two-Wingéd Unitary Beast that colludes to facilitate all sorts of corruption and bad policy.
The United States does not have a viable third party. Third parties there have been, oppositional groups there are, but up against a united front of political and corporate power, they have not had, do not have, and, as far as most oppositional analysis sees it, will not have a chance much better than NIL.
A third, militantly progressive oppositional party would have to arise from the electorate; While there may be 10% (arbitrary number picked out of thin air) of the electorate who could be militantly progressive and oppositional, it would take quite some time for such a new, rapidly growing party, even given plurality and majority election numbers, to win in the 50 states, elect a majority oppositional party in both houses, win the White House, and repeal reams worth of regressive legislation and go on to achieve real change. Meanwhile, the Two-Wingéd Unitary Beast would not have died. It would fight like hell to maintain its prerogatives and privileges.
Trump can disregard the facts because he is a liar who has no respect for what is true or real. You know, some people are liars. They lie. Or thieves, knaves, and scoundrels. They tend to behave in an immoral manner.
The congress could, if they were not hogtied by partisan divide, withdraw funding from White House operations.
Stone’s trial has also proved damaging for Trump. The government argued that Stone’s motive was simple. “Roger Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee because the truth looked bad for the Trump campaign, and the truth looked bad for Donald Trump,” prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky said in his opening remarks to jurors last week.
Testimony Tuesday by former campaign staffer Rick Gates suggested that Trump probably lied to special counsel Robert Mueller about conversations he had in 2016 with Stone regarding WikiLeaks. Trump told Mueller in written answers that he did not recall “discussing WikiLeaks with [Stone], nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign.”
But Gates described a July 31, 2016, phone call between Trump and Stone, immediately after which Trump told Gates that “more information would be coming.” Gates also revealed that former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort told Gates that he intended to brief Trump on information from Stone on WikiLeaks’ plans.
This tape is further evidence of Trump's guilt relative to wanting no 'internal' opposition to political cheating/investigating political rival Biden. Although a President can certainly have the power to hire/fire appointed positions, this also speaks to the fact that he continues to lie to the public about things. Last week he denied knowing him 14 times in one White House question and answer session, then he denied it again last Wednesday, this time saying: 'I don't know him, other than he's sort of like a groupie.'
Lev Parnas seems to be a very forgettable guy. Even Devin Nunes forgot he'd ever talked with him. Maybe Parnas is a Jedi.
The pro-Trump view is that Trump really didn't know who Parnas was. But that implies he decided to fire Marie Yovanovitch on the basis of a stranger claiming she'd been badmouthing him.
Yep. It fits the reverse Modus Tollens principle: if it walks like a duck, squawks like a duck, smells like a duck, it probably is a duck.
As Adam Schiff so well articulated in his closing argument on Friday....use of common sense can most likely go a long way here... . In short, his [Trump's] behavior suggests guilt. Otherwise, if one was not guilty, one would not block documents/witnesses. But rather, provide such evidence documents/witnesses to exonerate oneself.
25. Feb 6, 2018: A federal court approved a $25 million settlement with students who said they were duped by Donald Trump and his now-defunct Trump University, which promised to teach them the "secrets of success" in the real estate industry.
Documents made public through the litigation revealed that some former Trump University managers had given testimony about its unscrupulous and exploitative business practices. One sales executive testified that the operation was “a facade, a total lie.” Another manager called it a “fraudulent scheme.”
Other records showed how Mr. Trump had overstated the depth of his involvement in the programs. Despite claims that Mr. Trump had handpicked instructors, he acknowledged in testimony that he had not.
Despite its name, Trump University, which ceased operations in 2010, was not a licensed university.
All the lies, the deception, the mendacity, the cheating, the abuse of power - it will all come down to the vote on Friday as to whether there will be more witnesses and documents. If Mitch McConnell has the numbers to close the inquiry and declare Trump acquitted, then it's goodbye to American constitutional democracy, and Hail Caesar. It will be a coronation, not an impeachment.
As I've argued in the other thread, this is the only legal argument that can really succeed. Trump, as an elected official, is supposed to know what the boundaries of his power are. His intent in the matter is irrelevant as I would suspect negligence or even strict liability to apply. Whether the Ukrainians took it seriously or whether it was successful are irrelevant too, because an unsuccessful threat was still a threat.
So what's left is that it was within his powers to do what he did but that begs the question what "high crimes and misdemeanors" mean and can radically shift the balance of power towards the office of the president as he basically becomes untouchable.
The fact party politics trump these considerations once again reflects the deep division in US society between cola and cola light, since there is currently no substantive difference between the two parties.
Here's where Dershowitz contradicts himself in this other video (that Schiff alludes to), where he say's abuse of power is impeachable viz. Clinton:
And yet you fail to present a single example of them. Could you start by doing so?
Hi Nonsense!
You may want to start from the beginning of the thread. For example, you'll see instances of misogyny and other nefarious behavior. Painstaking I know, but you kinda came late in the game. Nevertheless, please take the time to read through the enumerations that I posted, then if you care to challenge them I would be more than happy to make a case... !
It's not even that. Collins, Alexander, and Rubio (and probably others) all accept that he did it and that it's wrong. But for Collins and Alexander it isn't impeachable, and for Rubio it is impeachable but he shouldn't be removed for it because it would be bad for the country or something.
Too many people are still conflating impeachment with conviction/removal. Arguably a simple majority of the House of Representatives can impeach any federal official for any reason whatsoever, but as I noted at the very beginning of this thread, a two-thirds majority of the Senate can only constitutionally remove someone from office for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." In this case, a majority of Senators voted that the President was not guilty of anything of that magnitude.
Being immoral, dishonest, and obnoxious--which I have acknowledged to be an accurate description of Donald Trump, which is why I did not and will not vote for him myself--is not sufficient to take the drastic step of overturning the result of a valid election. The American people will have their say in nine months, and so far it looks like the first-ever strictly partisan impeachment of a sitting president has had the opposite of its intended effect on his approval ratings.
I know that is your interpretation, however, High Crimes and Misdemeanors is simply that, a constitutional interpretation. Accordingly, abuse of power is not considered an unreasonable interpretation, much like Prof. Dershowitz'' initial interpretation during the Clinton era.
Otherwise, the question becomes, how can we prevent such an abuse of power for future Presidents? And would you condone such behavior from any President (requesting foreign assistance for personal political gain-which is in violation of campaign statues.)...unfortunately he can't be trusted. I worry he may try to rig the 2020 election.
Not really, it is a direct quote from the text itself. The Senate has the exclusive power to determine what qualifies.
Quoting 3017amen
Of course not; but in my opinion, the House managers did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump requested foreign assistance strictly for personal political gain. That is an attribution of motive, which is a very tricky thing to prove, especially on the basis of a single phone conversation. The issue there is whether an investigation of Burisma and the Bidens was (and still is) properly predicated, in which case the fact that it might also have a personal political benefit for Trump is irrelevant.
Yep, and that's their job; its a political process and, an interpretation.
Quoting aletheist
Even though it wasn't a criminal trial, we all wanted witnesses in order to help determine incriminating or exculpatory evidence. The mere fact there was obstruction of documents and witnesses, suggests a Modus Tollens type of inference.
This is the first Impeachment without witnesses. 75% of Americans wanted witnesses. So, what are we left with, reasonable inference you think?
Impeachment is supposed to be a rare and serious matter. Gathering evidence to support taking such action is the responsibility of the House of Representatives. If its investigators believed that there was genuine "obstruction of documents and witnesses," then they could (and should) have taken that argument to the courts, since that is where such disputes between the legislative and executive branches are routinely resolved. Besides, two Democrats in the House and Mitt Romney in the Senate acknowledged that President Trump was not guilty of obstructing Congress.
Quoting 3017amen
No, it is the first Senate trial for removal from office without witnesses; again, please do not conflate the two distinct steps. It is also the first impeachment without bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, and even Nancy Pelosi once argued against proceeding under such circumstances.
Quoting 3017amen
A majority of Senators did not believe that additional witnesses would have revealed any new information that would have changed their assessment--President Trump's conduct did not warrant removal from office. What other inference would be reasonable?
That's not correct, where did you get that from? It's Congress's responsibility otherwise you would typically have no witnesses during an impeachment 'trial'.
As far Court's, Dumpertrumper blocked everything so that it would go interminably to the Supreme Court. Clearly obstruction there, particularly in light of all previous impeachment hearings the president's allowed some documents.
Explain what is incorrect in stating that this is the first impeachment trial without witnesses?
Regarding inference, this is what you're basically saying. If I get a ticket in traffic court and I want to exonerate myself I would bring witnesses. The partisan Senate did not want witnesses. Two inferences can be made:
1. They feared witnesses would incriminate and coobberate Dumpertrumper's behavior.
2. They would want to exculpate and thus exonerate their parties leader.
Therefore they did not do their job and the trial was a sham. It was predetermined in advance. Nixon and Clinton had a regular trial, right?
There was seventeen witnesses.
Nothing, but that is not what you said.
Quoting 3017amen
There were witnesses for the House impeachment--although only certain ones that the Democrats wanted, and many of them testified only in secret--just none for the Senate trial.
Quoting 3017amen
Or you could come by yourself, and if the police officer who issued the ticket did not show up, then the judge would find you not guilty. In this case, it was not the defendant who primarily wanted to call witnesses, but the prosecutors--because they failed to do a sufficiently thorough job with the grand jury (House) that produced the indictment (impeachment).
Quoting 3017amen
3. They did not believe that additional witnesses would have revealed any new information that would have changed their assessment--President Trump's conduct did not warrant removal from office. Also, your #1 again suggests that emotion--not logic--is guiding your responses.
Quoting 3017amen
Nixon resigned before being impeached, let alone tried; I assume that you meant Andrew Johnson. And no, there is nothing "regular" about any Senate impeachment trial of a sitting president--especially one initiated by the House on a strictly partisan basis.
That's not correct. It was a bipartisan hearing room. Pretty typical stiff. (Although Ken Starr during the Clinton impeachment did a lot of secrete depositions).Do you listen to Fox news? LOL
Quoting aletheist
Fake news, again. The Congress (House and Senate) have the responsibility to perform the hearing/trial. Again using logical inference, explain this:
1. They feared witnesses would incriminate and corroborate Dumpertrumper's behavior.
2. [Or] They would want to exculpate and thus exonerate their parties leader.
Quoting aletheist
Correct, we agree!! The Republican's fear retribution from Dumpertrumper because they want to get re=elected. Correct? The GOP is very emotional indeed!!! LOL
Were any of them in the Senate ? LOL
The Republicans in the room were not allowed to call any witnesses of their own, and were restricted in their questioning of the witnesses who did appear.
Quoting 3017amen
Maybe in some cases, definitely not in others; but once again, this is an attempt to discern motives rather than sticking to facts.
Quoting 3017amen
Says the person who refers to the duly elected President of the United States as "Dumpertrumper."
Do you mean 'moderate' questioning like any other Majority leader would moderate?
Quoting aletheist
Well, I wanted to say a misogynist or liar (Stormy Daniel's denial, TMZ audio tape, Parnes audio tape, denial of Russian interference-campaign team violations/incarcerations, crowd size, ad nauseum), but that would only be stating a fact.
Oh, wait, taking a dump is considered one the facts of life, so you stand corrected!! LOL
Hey IBB!
Don't be afraid of yourself; truth is beauty, beauty is truth. That is all ye know and that is all ye need to know!!
Welcome to the forum!!
Thank you, I tend to agree with that sentiment lately.
That's a silly, political slogan that appeals to the ignorant.
I'm a retired project manager and software developer. There are robust ways to run projects and develop software, and there are poor ways. Political ideology has absolutely nothing to do with it.
You must not be following the detailed news from Iowa. It was all politics. Crony contracts given to Hillary and Pete associates. Look it up. It was bad project management, sure. Caused by the political cronyism. And plenty of old-fashioned fraud too. Bernie votes "accidentally" given to Deval Patric. Oddly, all the accidents went in the same direction, against Bernie. You should look into the actual news about what's going on in Iowa.
And maybe you forgot the Obamacare website rollout. Was forgetting to build a backend just bad project management? Or bad project management as a result of crony contracts?
They put their secret call-in phone number on the Internet, so naturally trolls called it and tied up the lines. As would happen if you posted your phone number online in the context of a widely-read news story. And now the Dems are blaming Trump supporters. Is that what you call good project management?
If you're trying to say that the problems in Iowa are just accidental software deployment issues that could happen to anyone, you are politically naive and not following the up to the minute news out of Iowa. It's a political clusterbleep, and in no way routine deployment issues.
You want to see the Dems excoriated? Read this from one of their own, longtime Clintonista James Carville.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/7/21123518/trump-2020-election-democratic-party-james-carville
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying this has no bearing on whether or not healthcare is manageable.
To say it has no bearing seems like an overstatement. If taken as a piece of data relevant to the government's (or democrats') ability properly manage complex tasks, it is clearly evidence against their ability to do so. That's not to say that it is very strong evidence. It is, after all, a small piece of data and, in isolation, it could easily be seen as inconsequential.
"Proper management" could include moral integrity or general types of competence or both. The general sort of competence (e.g., technological competence) seems like a less serious issue and the data has less evidential weight in this category, since other pieces of data fishfry mentions (Obamacare website) as well as our almost universal experience with technology, show that these eventually get fixed.
The moral integrity charge is more serious. As another piece of evidence that government workers are subject to the same moral biases and failings as everyone else, and thus why many don't trust handing over more power (more programs) to the government, it would be hard to dismiss it. That is, assuming the accusation of cronyism and fraud can be substantiated. (I haven't looked into it.)
No. That's a purely partisan perspective, and completely irrational to suggest the party and/or ideology had ANY bearing. This was poor project management. Quality project management has nothing to do with politics. And neither does it imply that complex systems are infeasible - corporate America utilizes complex systems every day, and would collapse without them.
That this was poor project management does not entail that it was not relevant to the government's or the democrats' ability to properly manage complex tasks or to the problem of moral integrity.... which leads us to your second claim which I guess is supposed to fill in that gap:
Do you mean in principle or just in this specific case? If you mean in principle, I would disagree. It's trivially easy to imagine a scenario in which a specific political party has a political philosophy which itself leads to poor project management.
But if you mean in this specific case, then I have no opinion since, as I already said, I haven't looked into it.
I'm not sure how this statement is supposed to fit in relation to the others. How exactly are you cashing out these terms? Because on some definitions and in some contexts we could say complex systems are by definition not feasible. And that complex systems exist isn't relevant to their feasibility pe se. As for the political debates that often take place, the issue is usually to what degree complex systems are able to be efficiently managed at a broad level vs an organic, close level.
Why are you even revering to "the government's" or "the democrats" abilities? Quality project management skills can be bought. In this case, it seems they were not - and it's fair to blame the individuals involved, but it is not fair to generalize this into a handicap from which all Democrats suffer. I'm a Democrat, and I successfully led projects, and I'm certainly not the only one.
Quoting JohnRB
In principle. Imagination doesn't establish correlation; rather it constitutes irrational prejudice when you apply it (it's trivially easy to image specfic ethnic group x as being lazy; I hope you see how ridiculous that is). Political philosophy has zero bearing on project management skills. 15 years ago, I took training something like this, and I assure you there is nothing in the methodologies or skills that is inconsistent with being a Democrat.
Quoting JohnRB
It's a different issue, which I thought you might possibly have in mind - namely, that even if Democrats are neither better nor worse than others at managing projects, the mistake is to try and tackle something so complex. If this were true, one might infer that a big government program is too complex to even consider tackling. I was simply conveying that this does not follow.
The Dem establishment (here through Carville) is panicking about Sanders exactly the way the Repub establishment panicked about Trump. But Trump won... On the other hand, they may be more successful in eating themselves alive and if so, they'll have the likes of Carville and others like him to blame.
I agree it's a cheap clichéd talking point ("They can't run healthcare if can't even rig a small caucus"). On the other hand there's a lot of truth to it. In Iowa you had gross technical incompetence combined with crony contracts and a biased Democratic committee trying to influence the winner. All the things you DON'T want to see in the party trying to take over health care for 300 million people. I'll stand by my original remark. Cheap cliche, sure. Which in this case perfectly encapsulates a more complex and nuanced truth: That the Democrats are the last people in the world I want near the levers of power right now. And it's not just me. A lot of Democrats are starting to notice. I myself am a registered Democrat and just finished filling out my California absentee ballot. I voted for Tulsi. Now you know my politics. I"m appalled at the state of the Democrats and you should be too.
Through the lens of politics, it's unfortunate there were screw-ups. Even the alleged sticking of a thumb on the scales is a screw-up: processes should have been in place to prevent it. And actually, I understand that there actually were mechanisms to correct for this, but it takes time to correct through the paper trail.
However, considering this is a philosophy forum, I think it's appropriate to apply reasonable epistemology and exercise critical reasoning. It is NOT good epistemology to treat this as a problem in the DNA or developmental environment of Democrats. Analyze what went wrong, identify what can be done to prevent a recurrence, and find ways to prevent it. It doesn't mean Democrats can't do complex projects right. It doesn't mean a public option for health care (or a single payer system) is a non-starter because of incompetence by Democrats or because the complexity is beyond human capability. However, it SHOULD wake everybody up to the fact that complex policy requires (non-partisan) expertise to implement right. It would also be good to educate Democrats in the law of Unintended Consequences/
We need to distinguish between general competency and moral competency questions I mentioned earlier. Regarding the moral critique, if democrats were engaging in fraud and cronyism, then buying quality project management skills only means their fraud and cronyism is more successful.
Regarding general competency, you're focusing on the wrong point. It's correct that the failure here isn't necessarily tied to democrats qua democrats, such that had republicans or independents attempted the same task they would have succeeded. The way in which the event serves as a piece of data against democrats is at a different level.
Imagine there is a political party called the Whips and a key part of their political philosophy is that all people are secretly sadomasochistic and respond best to being whipped. Because of their political philosophy, at their first Iowa caucus they devise a plan to whip delegates into supporting them. Now let's say the plan fails because the delegates respond negatively to the whipping.
On the one hand, it's not as though the negative outcome was unique to the Whips, such that had Democrats employed the whipping strategy they would have been successful.
On the other hand, it's obvious that the problem is uniquely attributable to the Whips insofar as their political philosophy motivates them to employ methods that don't align with the reality of the way things are or the way things work.
This applies to democrats in the following way. One common plank in conservatism is the idea that bureaucratic expertise is a myth and trying to control complex systems with relatively few people who are several hops away from the point of action is less efficient and more error prone. One common plank in leftism is the idea that the bureaucratic expertise of the few is the best method (often seen as the only method) for solving complex problems that are several hops away from the point of action.
It's in this way that the failure of the Iowa caucus is a piece of data against the sort of technocratic overconfidence that Democrats are prone to.
The point of my thought experiment wasn't to establish correlation. If we're trying to see if something x has nothing to do with y, in principle, then I don't need to establish a correlation.
I guess this is supposed to be a counter-example? I didn't imagine democrats were bad at project management and then, on that basis, claim that democrats were bad at project management.
My Whips examples demonstrates that this isn't true as a matter of principle.
The question isn't whether successfully tackling complex systems is possible, but how best to tackle complex systems.
You're not reading carefully. I didn't make any absolute claim about complex systems.
In my opinion you are either tragically naive or in denial about the perfidy of the Democrats.
Here's Caitlyn Johnstone, far more eloquent than me but of a similar mind.
The Myth Of Incompetence: DNC Scandals Are A Feature, Not A Bug
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-myth-of-incompetence-dnc-scandals-are-a-feature-not-a-bug-4f264352d4f7
Vice got the source code for the famous "app" that caused all the trouble. They discovered that it's basically an off-the-shelf demo project that's been cookie-cutter enhanced by people cutting and pasting solutions they looked up on javascript tutorials. In other words the very lowest kind of crap hack work.
So what happened is that after 2016 some Hillary and Obama hacks said, Hey we can make a bundle selling software to the hicks in Iowa. Of course anything "tech" sounds good to people who don't know how fucked up tech can be. So these political consultants now need to build and app, and being idiots they don't go out and hire the kind of professionals who know how to build production quality software that holds up to high transaction volumes. Instead they farm it out to bootcamp grads and worse.
And then when it "just happened" that this mess turned out to benefit Pete and hurt Bernie ... then the DNC was all-in! None of this is excusable as normal software rollout shit. This is an organization in freefall, malevolent and stupid.
If you want me to believe that this single instance does not prove the whole; and that I shouldn't be the least bit bothered by grandiose schemes to radically transform the US economy and in particular everyone's health care; I'm sorry, I am not buying it.
Here's the article about the reverse engineering of the app.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3a8ajj/an-off-the-shelf-skeleton-project-experts-analyze-the-app-that-broke-iowa
Quoting Relativist
As an abstract point of logic, one screwed up caucus in a tiny state does not necessarily imply that health care reform is impossible.
One incident doesn't mean the Democrats can't do a project right. But if you look at their track record the last few years, and -- you'll have to pardon me but this is how I see it -- the sheer insanity that's gripped the party, culminating in Nancy Pelosi grimacing and smirking behind Trump all night long before ripping up his speech behind his back, on camera; have rendered the Democrats unfit to govern.
I believe that in November the American people will agree with me. We shall see.
Yes I do get that you are making a point of logic. But Iowa's not just one incident. It's the latest incident in a very long string of incidents going back to the effing Russiagate hysteria, cooked up by Robby Mook and John Podesta the night of the election so they wouldn't have to answer for why they ran the worst campaign in US history, losing an election to Donald Trump.
They, and Hillary, were unwilling to take responsibility or assent to the legitimacy of Trump's victory. The hysteria and insanity they unleashed are tearing this country apart. So in the end I can not credit your point. In the totality of circumstance, Iowa IS determinative of who they are. Grifters and cheaters who can't even do that well.
But you have committed a philosophical fallacy. You have assumed that which is not in evidence.
If you go back a couple of posts I have taken pains to note that I am a disillusioned Democrat and lifelong social liberal. I am still a liberal Democrat. But the Democrats and liberals have gone to a dark place. I oppose what they've become.
That makes me a supporter of Trump. He's exposing what they've become. One doesn't always get the ideal historical figure to do what needs to be done, which is blowing up the corrupt neoliberal consensus of the past 30 years. If you don't know that Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama were the same president, you are missing the point. This is not a partisan issue. The corruption and dysfunction are bipartisan.
As a sane, independent-minded centrist, I haven't got a side. That's the tragedy. I have noticed this for quite some time now. I don't have a side and I don't have a tribe. I believe the worst of what each side says about the other.
I support Trump as a historical figure doing some things that need to be done at this point in our history. I can't think of any Congressional Republicans I wouldn't drop down a well. Mitch McConnel? Jeez. I'd throw away the well.
No. I have not got a side. But if it's Trump versus what's become of the Dems, I'm with Trump. There isn't anyone else.
My apologies. I didn’t read the entire thread. My persuasion is to side with a more community-minded message. I realize that it is basically bullshit messaging, but everything about Trump is bullshit and far worse bullshit. It’s downright dangerous to civil society.
(I said in another thread that Nixon was more of a liberal than Obama, crook that Nixon was. Eisenhower even more so.)
So the solution to neoliberalism is the dissolution of all that is decent? I don’t even think Trump’s policies are any good for the vast majority of the population. He’s a self-serving showman who is tearing apart civil society.
I see Trump as a symptom of a system that's not working anymore. And as proof, I offer Bernie. His popularity comes from the same place. Outsiders committed to blow up the system. I believe Bernie could have won in 2016. I don't think he could win in 2020. In fact I predict that if the Dems nominate him it will be 1972 all over again when Nixon crushed McGovern. And if the Dems cheat Bernie out of the nomination, his supporters won't show up. Trump wins either way.
But the major point is that Trump and Bernie both result from a populace starting to notice that something's wrong with what's been passing as the ruling class consensus.
I don't happen to agree that Trump is uniquely bad. I think that what's been going on before Trump has been uniquely bad. Start with 19 years of endless war, most of which create more enemies than we eliminate, and drain the wealth of the nation. It all starts from there. The day the Dems signed on to the Iraq war, that was the day they lost me. It's been downhill since.
I don't understand how you can say that. I think all of them had their faults and weaknesses, and I think W. was arguably culpable of criminality for the invasion of Iraq. But none of them hold a candle to Trump when it comes to downright mendacity and self-dealing. He is visibly, palpably dishonest and utterly corrupt. The Republicans muttered about impeaching Obama when he wore a tan suit on the White House podium. Can you think for a minute what they would have said if a Democrat had pandered to Putin, like Trump has? Can you imagine the pandemonium if a Democrat had been called out for exactly the phone call that the impeachment enquiry was about? Even several of the Republicans who voted to acquit said he was shown to be guilty but that they had decided to put politics before principle and the law.
I agree with you the Democratic Party seems hopeless at this point. But that's hardly a matter for rejoicing. To me, your viewpoint seems utterly bathed in cynicism - like Trump's obvious malfeasance is the 'fault of the system'. Whereas he's visibly corrupting the system, tearing down faith in the law, the foreign services, America's alliances, and the media. How can any of that be a good thing?
The problem is the system, I agree, but not in the sense that you may think. The system has been telling you lies since birth: what to value, how you are valued, how to value other people. Neither Bernie nor Trump offer any sane solutions. Just more egomaniacal bullshit. I just prefer the lies of the Democrats, so I won’t be voting for Trump.
Agreed.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
But of course. I apologize if I have not made it perfectly clear that I agree with this point.
I'm analyzing, not partisan-izing. Trump and Bernie represent people's dissatisfaction with the status quo. That's all I'm saying. That it's worth noting that enough Americans are unhappy enough with the government to want to fundamentally blow up the system. With either Bernie or Trump.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
I used to. It was Teddy. That's the first time I recall a crack in my reflexive liberalism. Teddy killed a girl. That's bad even if he pushes legislation for women's rights. Even if he's your guy, at some point he has crossed a line you won't cross.
But the Dems and liberals rallied around him. I was startled at the hypocrisy. I've always had a special annoyance with hypocrisy.
I forgot about all this for years, till the Clintons. The sexual hypocrisy on display was appalling. This guy was a genuine sexual predator. Don't pretend people didn't know that in the 90's. The stories were always around. And again liberals closed ranks. A "feminist" named Nina Burleigh made a remark that I won't reprint in a family newspaper, but it confirmed that liberals have an absolute double standard when it comes to sexual ethics.
By the time Hillary voted for the Iraq war, I'd had it. I voted for Obama and mostly liked him except for his foreign policy, which was basically Bush's third and fourth terms. And what I've seen since 2016? I just can not in any way endorse any of it. I'm off the reservation.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
I live in California so technically I don't need to, since California goes to the Democrat no matter who it is. My vote doesn't count. This lets me cast protest votes. Frankly if Tulsi Gabbard ran third party I'd send her money and volunteer. She is the only one who speaks the truth about our eff'd up foreign policy.
I hope you don't mind that I find it unproductive to engage on these specifics with people who hold your opinions. Please know that I am perfectly well aware of the details behind each of these talking points and could in theory get into endless debate with you about each one, after which neither of us would change our opinions. So I prefer not to go that way. But Trump pandering to Putin? My God that is so absolutely contrary to truth. You know that military aid to Ukraine Trump withheld for a month? Obama withheld that exact same aid to Ukraine for the entire eight years of his presidency, so as to avoid not upsetting Putin. In fact Trump has been far tougher with Putin than Obama was. That Russiagate shit was hatched up by Podesta and Mook so they wouldn't have to answer for losing the most winnable election in history.
But ok I stipulate that you're with the Trump haters. Let's agree to disagree. He's a polarizing figure for polarized times.
Quoting Wayfarer
I find it tragic. For the country, and for the party of which I have always been a member. I voted for Mondale, for Dukakis in the tank helmet. For John Kerry and Jimmy Carter. All those guys. D next their name they get my vote. I do not rejoice in the recent developments.
I rejoice over their self-destruction because it's now become necessary. As recently as 2018 I wrote online that if the Dems were smart they'd spend two years working on health care and infrastructure and inequality and reigning in our totally out of control war machine foreign policy. I said if they did that they'd win back the presidency. And that I feared that instead they'd piss it all away in an orgy of anger at Trump. You may remember the 2018 House Dems ran their campaigns based on getting things done and not on indulging their Trump hate. But that's what they did. That was a tragic mistake that doomed the party and might well doom the country. That's why it's now necessary that they be utterly destroyed.
Quoting Wayfarer
Well, I have been closely observing politics for a long time! Cynicism is the rational position here I'm sure you'll agree.
Quoting Wayfarer
Please don't be disingenuous about what you know I said. Trump is a symptom of people being unhappy with the system. That's political analysis. It's beneath you to twist my words like that to pretend I said that Trumps flaws, of which there are many, are the system's fault. I did not say that and you know I didn't. I said that he is a symptom of a system that's not working.
Quoting Wayfarer
You know ... a lot of this stuff needs to get torn down. The law? Corrupted by Obama, Hillary, Comey, and many others. The media? A disgrace to the word journalism. America's alliances? Nixon and Kissinger played the world against itself for the purpose of US interests. Trump does the same thing. His foreign policy often seems insane, and often works out brilliantly. He's either really lucky or really good. Yeah I agree he makes me crazy too. But he often prevails.
Fake news, eh? I suppose it must be, in the alt universe.
Ok man. See you in November. We'll let the American people decide.
Matters of law, and the abuse thereof, are not decided by public elections, but by the penal code. Those who flout the penal code ought to be subject to legal sanction not popular vote. This will be the case, even if Trump wins the election, which would amply demonstrate that his occupancy of that office is a threat to the rule of law.
Ok man. I had no idea you felt that way. Thanks for sharing. /s
It might interest you to know that many people of longtime political awareness and good will hold the opposite. That it's the Democrats who have been lawless; and that Trump is a flawed but strangely effective opponent of much that's wrong in our system. He's gotten the Dems to reveal who they are: Nancy Pelosi tearing up the SOTU speech, having pre-ripped it earlier. That's what your side's come down to. That's what you offer the American people.
As for the Democrats acting lawlessly - that has no foundation in fact. But again, there are no facts in Trumpworld, so as you say, pointless to argue.
Quoting 3017amen
Quoting 3017amen
1. A great many people have been accused of a great many things..
2. Guilt by association
3. This is fair
4. Can you site examples of him doing so?
5. Guilt by association continued..
6. Guilt by association continued further...
7. These types of actions do raise suspicion.
8. This is beside the point of your accusations.
9. Okay well that's his opinion. If he has good reason to hold it then he should present evidence. As should you.'
Dude, you a nine points in and presented little of value. Do you have any arguments as to why he should be impeached.
It's a crazy world we live in. People pointing at a blue sign and telling me it is yellow...and they really think they are telling the truth as far as I can tell :yikes:
Hi Nonsense!
Thanks for the concern. Yes, I believe it's called abuse of power and obstruction. Mueller and Schiff found obstruction; his campaign team from 2016 were meddling with Russia, many of whom were found guilty of the aforementioned/various violations, and of course the most recent Ukraine abuse of power Impeachment for personal gain; Parnas, Giuliani, ad nauseum.
With respect to your question #4, he consistently uses ad hominem attacks to anyone who doesn't agree with him i.e., Mitt Romney, Ocasio Cortez, John Cain, the list is endless. And of course his racism; Charlottesville, KKK involvement, found guilty of being a slum lord and not renting to blacks, and other nefarious behavior like was guilty in the now defunct Trump University scam. I can't remember everything right now but will be happy to dig them back up... . If you don't mind, I've listed 25 things that may include some of which you're concerned about (particularly if you watch FOX news/they don't report everything and down play the facts-they didn't even have live coverage of the House Impeachment hearings and ran regular programming) that speaks to his lack of character, consistent lying (which he did again recently about denying he knew Parnas-like he did with Mike Cohen/Stormy Daniels), so on and so forth.
I've got a list of things that go beyond the 25 that speaks to even criminal behavior and other poor character issues or so I had posted here, and would be happy to dig those back up too, if you want to debate... . (It goes all the way back to fact checking his narcissistic emphasis on crowd size.)
Vindman’s twin brother was also let go for no apparent reason, which begs the question of ‘retaliatory vindictiveness’.
European Ambassador Sondland who testified and told the truth about the quid pro quo, was also let go. ( He reportedly had donated a million dollars to Trump's campaign.) Was this punishment for telling the truth?
Marie Yovonovitch-The career diplomat was scheduled to remain until July, but Trump removed her when she objected to Rudy Giuliani's activities in Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trump_administration_dismissals_and_resignations
Considering the behavior of the Trump White House, it bears revisiting the question concerning expectation levels of character and temperament in the White House. Sure, every President has the right to fire appointed position's, no exceptions taken there! However, it was known from the beginning that Trump was quite an emotional guy who had thin skin, and took many things too personal. I mean, no one has proved the Impeachment witnesses were lying about Trump. It almost seems as though he is looking for 'yes men'. He comes across as being highly insecure.
There's a bit of an irony here. Are emotions good or bad in this case? Are they good when they are appropriately used in a virtious way? When Clinton was Impeached, the subsequent Prayer Breakfast was more of an act of contrition, with apologies and a humble heart. In the case of Dumpertrumper, even though the GOP said he had learned a lesson from his Impeachment, the opposite appears to have happened, and I'm afraid it will continue to happen. Questions:
1. Do we want a President who is too emotional and has thin skin? Assuming the answer is no, can you blame critics who are worried about his behavior and the safety of our nation? Could his emotions be a dangerous vice or moral flaw?
2. Since he encouraged meddling in 2016, and 2020 for personal gain, could he be still trying to get back at the people who Impeached him?
3. What will he stop at doing, for his own personal gain? (He was quoted in a Rally that he could shoot someone, and no one would care.) Obviously, through social media, he has demonstrated a lack of character/restraint and continues to show his thin-skinned demeaner through his personal attacks and apparent retaliations/vindictiveness, whenever someone disagrees with him.
4. Does he only want people who ‘hear no evil, see no evil’? Should a President encourage opposing opinions to help streamline and vet public policy? In a free society, do we want freedom of speech in order to help critique our public policies? In part, isn't that what makes America great? We critique each other in business and in our personal lives and families in order to get better.
5. Should freedom of speech include daily ad hominem from POTUS? Do personal attacks help or hurt people? What should our expectations be?
6. Should any POTUS seek foreign assistance for personal political gain?
7. Should our Impeachment trial process include or exclude witnesses?
8. Should we have whistleblower laws and procedures? Does that make Government more efficient/better?
9. Do the ends-justify-the-means?
Bonus question: Should private individuals who have been on the receiving end of Trump's emotional tirades/vindictiveness, can or should they sue POTUS (at some point) for libel and/or defamation of character?
Post Impeachment truth and lies:
27. 2/13/20: President Trump told Fox News friend Geraldo Rivera on Thursday that he did send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to procure damaging information on his political rivals. "Was it strange to send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine, your personal lawyer?" Rivera asked Trump on his podcast. "Are you sorry you did that?" "No, not at all," Trump responded. "When you tell me, why did I use Rudy, and one of the things about Rudy, No. 1, he was the best prosecutor, you know, one of the best prosecutors, and the best mayor."
"That is literally the exact opposite of what he told Bill O'Reilly in an interview in November," CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale told Don Lemon on Thursday night, playing the clip where Trump said, "No, I didn't direct him," meaning Giuliani. "So what has changed now? Well, perhaps Trump just thinks impeachment's over with, I've been acquitted, I can say whatever I want. Perhaps he forgot that he ever denied this. Regardless, though, what he's saying now is the truth. He did direct Rudy to go there. We heard that not only from Rudy himself, but from testimony from others in the impeachment inquiry."
Commentary:
Sound Familiar? He did that with the Stormy Daniels/Michael Cohen, lied about hush money before the 2016 election. (This is starting to remind me of the OJ Simpson trial. Afterward, OJ wrote a book called 'If I did it'.) Rest assured, sooner or later the truth will reveal itself. Lies are like cockroaches, for every one you discover there are many more that are hidden.
" I’m not upset that you lied to me; I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you."
—Friedrich Nietzsche
Great question! I have a few more (just a few regarding emotion). Did the jury acquit using emotion rather than logic? And is Trump's emotion of revenge getting the better of him? Or was his fear of losing an election based on emotion? LOL
You know, kinda like the OJ trial (and/or the Clinton Impeachment). :wink:
Emotions are a strange phenomena indeed...any clues here?
“He was not prosecuted, as some have complained, for standing up for the president, he was prosecuted for covering up for the president,” said Judge Amy Berman Jackson about Stone, who showed no visible emotion when he was sentenced in U.S District Court in Washington, D.C.
“The truth still exists, the truth still matters. Roger Stone’s insistence that it doesn’t ... are a threat to our most fundamental institutions,” Jackson said in a blistering denunciation of Stone, who he lied about his efforts to obtain damaging emails related to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Democratic presidential campaign that were stolen by Russian agents.
Can you tell is why you know that the e-mails were damaging if you did not see them, and why we should not see them if they are damaging?
Quoting 3017amen
Can you tell us who these "Russian agents" are and how one "steals e-mails"?
The answer to why they were, of course, was to cover-up for the Dumpertrumper. Regarding Russian agents, since he was convicted by a jury I'm thinking Roger/the Dumpertrumper knows (or perhaps the jury)?
What do you think?
I think your discombobbled word soup makes no sense at all. Can you write what you are trying to say in plain English, so it is understandable for those of us outside your echo chamber?
You may want to check-in with Dr. Spock, he's not as emotional as you seem to be... .
LOL
Don´t know what that is supposed to mean, either. Can you write in plain English, if you have something coherent to say? Thanks.
Quod non intelligis?
Trying to impress people by having found out that Googletranslate has Latin?
OK... if it works for you.
However, I still dont know what (if anything) your previous word soup was suppsed to mean.
Bene, quid habes reversus cum magna dicens!
So, you have nothing to say.
Quod non es, intellegere non possis intelligere; se communicare non you-- AH Maslow
YOU'RE FIRED!!!!
One term loser; the experiment failed.
My question is, will all those middle class people who gave Trump legal-team donations get their money back??
LOL
Bonus question: does Dumper Trumper prefer to be perceived as a victim, or a loser?
Bonus question-2: is this a lesson in the dangers of extremism?