Trump

[Dan Rowden]

I'm sure Trump is enjoying all his trademark registrations in between saving us from China and explaining the deeper aspects of how tariffs work.

But really, it's increasingly clear, as it was inevitable, that Trump is proving to be a grave disappointment to many, believers in the "Accidental Hero' archetype among them. But seriously, what did anyone expect from a narcissistic, jumped-up, six-times bankrupt, drug-addled, real-estate conman? I mean, honestly?

The truth is in large measure we can 'thank' the Democrat establishment for the Trump Presidency. They gave us the perfect Democrat nominee - for Trump. If it weren't for the political baggage Clinton carried, along with DNC arrogance that led them to take 'Fly-Over State' literally (along with Jill Stein's splitting of the 'liberal' vote in key States), Trump would have lost. Without Steve Bannon, Trump would likely have lost, because while the 'drain the swamp' and 'anti-establishment' narratives were always 100% bullshit where Trump is concerned, they were the right narrative for the political moment. And the Dems could not counter it (and maybe still can't?).

And when all's said and done, I'm not sure it's China, per se, we ought be worried about. I'm more interested in the notion of a China-Russia alliance emerging amidst the continuingly successful attempts on their respective parts to bring the American Republic to the brink of ruin, politically and culturally, if not entirely economically.

Anyone who thinks the current crop of boxheads, kleptocrats and sundry racists and white supremacists in the White House have the capacity to deal with that are - well, let's just say I have a proverbial bridge to sell them ....

That said, Roger Stone's Nixon tattoo is pretty awesome. I'm sure his fellow inmates will enjoy the view.

[Dan Rowden]

I find the 'right' more factual and level headed than the left about muslim issues, aboriginal issues, immigration issues, globalisation issues, manufacturing and economic issues, access to nature issues, and china issues.

I'd like to explore these contentions a little, in particular 'immigration issues'. Without any detail as to what the particular 'issues' are I guess it's not easy to expand on, but without context it smells a bit of right-wing, culturally chauvinistic virtue-signalling, as does an earlier statement:

Excessive muslim immigration is also a problem, obviously.

Aside from noting that anything 'excessive' in an obvious problem given the meaning of 'excessive', I'm not sure there's any evidence that such a thing as 'excessive Muslim migration' actually exists, so I'm not seeing the point, other than that of aforementioned virtue-signalling, of raising it. The US has even more stringent migration processes than we do, and ours are pretty tough. I'm not a fan of bringing persons of serious theocratic temperament into the country, but I'm highly suspicious of this 'brown peril paradigm' when the clear and present danger in that respect already resides in our own parliamentary houses in the form of Xian fundamentalists enacting their own sharia. One only has to look at the insane activities of Red State Governors in the US (and like-minded types at lower levels of Gov't) to see the truth of this (ignoring of Roe v Wade, rampant gerrymandering and voter suppression for starters).

Here is OZ we not only have a Happy Clapper Pentie loon at Prime Minister, but an even loonier Pentie loon is in charge of the Disability sector. How about we focus on that true and immediate reality and stop the 'brown peril' misdirection?

There may be legitimate economic arguments against certain levels of immigration, but I find that whole area fraught. Most modeling I'm aware of says that controlled migration patterns are good for the economy. Our refugee intake numbers (at least here in OZ) are insufficient to have any meaningful impact, though that issue is more complex for the US. However in that context I'd like suggest that Rhett looks at an old map of Mexico to get a proper sense of whether Mexicans ought be thought of as 'immigrants' - or at least to get a sense of the cultural and historic complexity of that idea.

From my perspective I've not seen a 'right-wing' take on immigration that didn't include some form of subtle racism, or at least overt cultural chauvinism, or some sort of threat confabulation. I see issues with the Left's approach to immigration too, but I strongly resist the idea that the Right has a more 'factual' or 'level-headed' approach.

As for 'China issues'? Is this meant to suggest that 'right-wingers' more properly see the economic threat from China? If so, it sure as shit doesn't exist at the political level. This is your daily reminder that the Liberal Party's first Chinese-Australian candidate is currently in the High Court having her corrupt attempt to steal the result in the seat of Chisholm examined. The result will not be overturned but her overt corruption remains. Why do you think she's there, Rhett? Why do you think the Libs chose a Chinese candidate with links all over the shop to Chinese Government organisations? That's your idea of 'level-headed'?

Finally, for now, what do you mean by 'access to nature issues'? Please don't let that be about our 'right' to climb Uluru ....

[Rhett]

So, Dan, do you think that the China, or China-Russia threat, is large enough to be the prime deciding factor for who should be the next American president? If so, which of the candidates do you think would best serve that purpose?

Did you see the recent 60 minutes episode where they looked into China's growing influence in the Asia-Pacific, as an example?

[Dan Rowden]

The China (China-Russia) threat is certainly significant enough for it to be a meaningful factor in the choice for POTUS. Sure as shit rules out Tulsi Gabbard - but that Russian-asset allusion aside, I'm not thus far seeing any candidate (and for me that must be a Dem) whom I'd name at this point. Ya have to admit though that Mayor Pete is as cute as hell.

As soon as someone says something truly meaningful and sensible about Chinese economic and political expansion, I'll let you know. At a base level I've no doubt they're all conscious of it, but how to approach it in pursuit of the White House is a vexed matter.

[Rhett]

Okay, so your answer is that, no, you dont think its the biggest or deciding issue.

Here is a link to that recent 60 Minutes episode...
https://youtu.be/BzCqQKnF9Oo

[Kevin Solway]

By far and away the biggest issue confronting us is climate change and the world-wide destruction of the environment.

That's just a personal opinion. Others would say that the biggest issue confronting us is freedom of speech and basic human rights. Without these, the environment doesn't matter that much.

Trump's rampant criminality is becoming so blatant that even his most ardent supporters are having difficulty defending it. It's more than possible that he will be removed from the presidency before the end of the year.

There's no evidence of this so-called "criminality" despite the fact that countless millions of dollars have been spent trying to find it.

All of your predictions seem to be false. Firstly you predicted that Trump would lose the election. Then you said that within three months of his getting into power there would be wars breaking out all over the globe, caused by Donald Trump. You also said that within six months of getting into power the American economy would entirely collapse. All of these predictions were fantasy.

Once we get away from the right, we can encounter large swathes of society that are largely devoid of deception, paranoia and fear.

Like feminism and the left wing media?

Trump attempting a hostile take-over of the US.

Being democratically elected isn't a "hostile takeover". So you failed there.

Trump becoming more feral and unhinged as time goes on.

Compared to the left he comes across as sane and stable. So you completely failed there.

Trump engaging in multiple avenues of criminal behaviour.

There's no evidence of criminal behaviour. So you failed there.

Trump looting the American community.

Meaningless. So you failed there.

Trump triggering a constitutional crisis.

Again, meaningless. So you failed there.

[Dan Rowden]

Okay, so your answer is that, no, you dont think its the biggest or deciding issue.

It won't be for Americans and it's not for me. Removing Trump is the exigency. I've no doubt every candidate for their respective party nomination is aware of the issues regarding current China expansionism.

Out of curiosity, how would you elect to respond to it?

[jupiviv]

By far and away the biggest issue confronting us is climate change and the world-wide destruction of the environment.

That's just a personal opinion. Others would say that the biggest issue confronting us is freedom of speech and basic human rights. Without these, the environment doesn't matter that much.

What new dumbfuckery is this? Climate change is a far more serious issue than human rights. The vast majority of people had no formal or enforceable rights until late Victorian times. Also, human rights have no bearing on how much the environment "matters".

Trump's rampant criminality is becoming so blatant that even his most ardent supporters are having difficulty defending it. It's more than possible that he will be removed from the presidency before the end of the year.

There's no evidence of this so-called "criminality" despite the fact that countless millions of dollars have been spent trying to find it.

There is more than enough evidence that Trump has been involved in criminal activity throughout his life. More to the point, there is solid evidence for both of the charges levelled at Trump by Democrats. The Mueller Report did not find actionable evidence of crimes but it explicitly stated such evidence may indeed exist.

Of course, it's good to point out the hypocrisy implicit in the Democrats' war with Trump, or that the obsession with Russiagate betrays a lack of real strategy or policies (just like Trump). Indeed I've done so to your enthusiastic approval in the past. But what you're doing here is a far cry from that. You're not interested in challenging hypocrisy or untruth. Like David, you're only interested in using distorted notions of "truth" and "rationality" to feel good about yourself.

All of your predictions seem to be false. Firstly you predicted that Trump would lose the election. Then you said that within three months of his getting into power there would be wars breaking out all over the globe, caused by Donald Trump. You also said that within six months of getting into power the American economy would entirely collapse. All of these predictions were fantasy.

Ad hominem.

Once we get away from the right, we can encounter large swathes of society that are largely devoid of deception, paranoia and fear.

Like feminism and the left wing media?

Strawman.

Trump attempting a hostile take-over of the US.

Being democratically elected isn't a "hostile takeover". So you failed there.

Definition fallacy (terms unclear, hence collapses into circular logic).

Trump becoming more feral and unhinged as time goes on.

Compared to the left he comes across as sane and stable. So you completely failed there.

Strawman.

Trump looting the American community.

Meaningless. So you failed there.

Trump triggering a constitutional crisis.

Again, meaningless. So you failed there.

No.

I'm reversing my position. At this point you represent far more of a threat to actual wisdom than David and Dan combined. I hope it was worth it.

[Kevin Solway]

Climate change is a far more serious issue than human rights.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. In my view a basic level of human dignity and quality of life, which includes freedom of speech and freedom of thought (what I call "rights") - is the most important thing.

There is more than enough evidence that Trump has been involved in criminal activity throughout his life.

So why isn't he in jail? If there is clear evidence that someone is a criminal then they are found guilty in a court of law.

More to the point, there is solid evidence for both of the charges levelled at Trump by Democrats.

That's your opinion, but I disagree.

The Mueller Report did not find actionable evidence of crimes but it explicitly stated such evidence may indeed exist.

"Evidence may exist" doesn't mean anything.

Evidence may exist that Hilary Clinton is an alien from another planet. The statement is meaningless. Evidence may exist. Or it may not.

Also, even when so-called "evidence" does exist, the "evidence" can be entirely fallacious or inapplicable.

Ad hominem.

No. I was pointing out to David that his predictions and speculations are extremely unreliable, so in my view he's wasting his time making them.

Once we get away from the right, we can encounter large swathes of society that are largely devoid of deception, paranoia and fear.

Like feminism and the left wing media?

Strawman.

I don't agree. In my view these "large swathes of society that are largely devoid of deception" are a fantasy. An enormous fantasy.

[Dan Rowden]

Out of pure curiosity - Kevin, have you read the Mueller Report?

[Rhett]

Here are some more interesting articles about Chinese influence...

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 53cv2.html

https://www.smh.com.au/national/chinese ... dlnno.html

Dan, what evidence do you have of the left engaging in strategic action against Chinese influence, outside of partisan politics?

And, if you think climate change is more important than freedom of speech, voting rights, proper judicial process, etc, are you saying that if, say, Brisbane became a dictatorship like China, and if you had the option of living somewhere that was the same old Australia but hotter, lets say Cairns, you would choose to live in Brisbane?

I think the issues are much bigger than how bad a person Trump is. I have seen a documentary that alleges he was mentored by a notorious mafia lawyer. That at one or more times Trump's businesses were losing money, so he offered shares, and while investment firms wouldnt touch them, because of his public perception of success mum and dad investors pumped in millions, Trump then took out millions in consultancy fees, sent the money into offshore accounts, then went bankrupt to clear all the debts. Trump inflated the numbering of the floors in Trump tower in order to make more money. But if people take him out because of these kinds of thing, and as a result China becomes pre-eminent, the consequences of that would be much worse.

[Rhett]

Okay, so your answer is that, no, you dont think its the biggest or deciding issue.

It won't be for Americans and it's not for me. Removing Trump is the exigency. I've no doubt every candidate for their respective party nomination is aware of the issues regarding current China expansionism.

Out of curiosity, how would you elect to respond to it?

I consider actions of the CCP to be an act of war, so if i was the Prime Minister of Australia i would firstly encourage Australians to trade with other nations, and if that wasnt enough i would ramp it up, and if need be enforce it, and canvass economic sanctions at the UN primarily with respect to human rights issues and secession. We should not fund or enable China's rise given all the issues.

I would focus Australia on rebuilding our manufacturing industry, taking lessons from Chinese efficiency, add value to our commodities and export high value goods.

I encourage Australians to order the four major parties as they please then put that block last on their vote cards, and place the Sustainable Australia Party first. In particular, our four major parties all support excessive immigration, which is heavily damaging our environment and economy.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan, what evidence do you have of the left engaging in strategic action against Chinese influence, outside of partisan politics?

I don't recall offering that precise contention so I'm not obliged to furnish evidence for it. I don't really understand your question given that outside of New Zealand, no 'left' Governments are in power. I'm not sure what 'strategic action' you expect from people not in power. And I have no idea what the current NZ disposition is regarding China's expansionism in the Pacific, but I'd at the very least imagine they're acutely aware of it, given their even greater strategic proximity to it than ourselves.

And, if you think climate change is more important than freedom of speech, voting rights, proper judicial process, etc,

I don't merely contend this, I would say a contrary view is pretty damn insane. What is the fucking point of those cultural artefacts if civilization itself effectively collapses? You do understand, I hope, that when such events happen, the void in structure and social coherence created is always filled by the equivalent of the Taliban - i.e. some form of totalitarian (ordered) government and control. Where will your concerns about free speech and voter rights be in that reality?

Plus, we can address concerns about such matters concurrently with the small matter, of, you know, saving the global ecosystem from calamity. It's only right-wing, black and white thinkers with overly large amygdalas who can't walk and chew gum at the same time for whom that's a problem (or, 'bubble-gum' and Grandpa Bernie would say ....).

are you saying that if, say,

I feel a crazy-arse strawman hypothetical coming on, but do continue ....

Brisbane became a dictatorship like China, and if you had the option of living somewhere that was the same old Australia but hotter, lets say Cairns, you would choose to live in Brisbane?

Cairns has more pubs per square mile so that's a really tough call you're asking me to make. But your hypothetical is vastly too simplistic to be worth addressing. Do you seriously think that places being a bit hotter is the sole or primary consequence of climate change that we're facing? In truth, Cairns might end up 10 degrees colder than Brisbane given certain Polar Vortex failure modelling. You're setting up a false moral dilemma, but since you made the effort I'll offer this:

If Cairns were ravaged by climate change horrors and somehow, miraculously, Brisbane were not, because obviously Brisbane is blessed of God and superior in all ways (and I say that only because it clearly is), then I frankly might choose Brisbane depending on my judgement of survival probability. Being oppressed but alive may be, arguably, a better scenario than being 'free' but forced to live every second trying to stay alive. which is itself a form of oppression. The devil would be in the detail.

But ultimately I think your choice-scenario is a bit of a red-herring ....

I think the issues are much bigger than how bad a person Trump is.

No, really? Ya think? How bad a person Trump is, taken as an individual issue, is only as important as people's ability to accept the fact of it. Denial of it by otherwise historically sane people is a fucking serious matter. But more broadly the 'regime' he now presides over is incredibly and openly corrupt, brazenly nepotistic, anti-democratic, fantastically kleptocratic, uniquely inept - but apparently all of that is ok because they may just accidentally put some uppity nigger feminists in their place. Sigh.

I have seen a documentary that alleges he was mentored by a notorious mafia lawyer.

Are you aware he was denied a casino licence in Australia because of his ties to the mafia? The man is a classic white collar criminal. What you (and Kevin even more desperately) need to understand is that the US treats white collar crime vastly differently to us. It takes a lot to put a business man in jail for things like fraud. If the fraud isn't committed against the Govt, then it will be treated as a civil issue. Trump has been been found guilty of numerous offenses (e.g. Trump University) that would have seen him playing checkers with Alan Bond in C Block here in Australia.

That at one or more times Trump's businesses were losing money, so he offered shares, and while investment firms wouldnt touch them, because of his public perception of success mum and dad investors pumped in millions, Trump then took out millions in consultancy fees, sent the money into offshore accounts, then went bankrupt to clear all the debts.

Two words for you - 'Deutsche Bank'. They are the key as to why he will not release his tax return.

Trump inflated the numbering of the floors in Trump tower in order to make more money. But if people take him out because of these kinds of thing, and as a result China becomes pre-eminent, the consequences of that would be much worse.

Because he alone can deal with China? He alone? He's the only one? Him and Ivanka? With a little help from Miller? Hmm, ok ....

[David Quinn]

By far and away the biggest issue confronting us is climate change and the world-wide destruction of the environment.

That's just a personal opinion. Others would say that the biggest issue confronting us is freedom of speech and basic human rights. Without these, the environment doesn't matter that much.

A couple of things:

(1) Freedom of speech is clearly a very important issue, particularly when it comes to the environment. Sadly, scientists and environmentalists are nowadays facing increasing levels of censorship by right-wing governments around the world.

For example, from the Trump administration: Trump’s Shadow War on Climate Science.

It is here in Australia too: NSW public servants at climate conference told not to discuss link with bushfires

And it's not only scientists who are copping it, but radio hosts as well: Radio host says he was fired on-air after criticizing Trump.

Unfortunately, these are not isolated incidents. They are part of an emerging pattern of suppression being instigated by authoritarian-type regimes with a hard-right bent. This should alarm anyone who values knowledge and free speech.

(2) If, as the scientific community predicts, the climate becomes increasingly unstable and weather events become more unmanageable and extreme, the material conditions that make free speech and basic human rights possible will start to break down. There will be more floods, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires, crop failures, famines, water shortages, species extinction, deforestation, collapsing ecological systems, vanishing habitats, and so on. This, in turn, will likely create massive refugee problems all around the world, leading to increasing political and civil unrest. Governments will probably choose to become ultra-authoritarian and clamp down hard on political opponents and dissidents as a result.

When this starts to happen (and we can already see signs of it happening, even here in Australia), we can all begin to kiss our free speech and human rights goodbye.

What will happen to the raging crusade against the "radical left" which obsesses so many people today? It will be a thing of the past. No one will give two hoots about it. We will all have far more pressing matters to deal with.

Trump's rampant criminality is becoming so blatant that even his most ardent supporters are having difficulty defending it. It's more than possible that he will be removed from the presidency before the end of the year.

There's no evidence of this so-called "criminality" despite the fact that countless millions of dollars have been spent trying to find it.

There is plenty of evidence:

- The Mueller Report outlined multiple crimes. The fact that Trump was not charged is due to a Department of Justice guideline which states that the president of the United States cannot be indicted. Mueller specifically stated in his televised testimony that once Trump leaves office, he can indeed be charged for these crimes.

- Trump has been named as a co-conspirator in paying hush money to Stormy Daniels in a effort to keep his dalliance with her quiet before the 2016 election, which is a violation of campaign laws. His ex-lawyer, Michael Cohen, has already gone to jail for his role in the affair.

- His charity organization, the Trump Foundation, has just been fined $2 million for self-dealing and using the money for improper purposes.

- The current impeachment inquiry clearly reveals that Trump and his cohorts engaged in a bribery/extortion scam to benefit himself at the expense of the national security of his country, which is a very serious crime.

This is just what we know for sure. There are strong suggestions of other kinds of criminality as well, such as violating the emoluments clause, tax fraud, and possibly money-laundering. Unfortunately, we will probably have to wait until his presidency ends before we get a clear picture of the full extent of his criminality.

There is more than enough evidence that Trump has been involved in criminal activity throughout his life.

So why isn't he in jail? If there is clear evidence that someone is a criminal then they are found guilty in a court of law.

Several reasons:

- He was born into a rich family with numerous political and business connections. It is very difficult to charge and convict rich, connected people, as they have many allies or people that can be bought within the system.

- He is clever enough to know how to cover his tracks. He rarely leaves a paper trail, and he knows how to couch his orders to his underlings in ambiguous language, in code. We have seen him behave in this manner numerous times during his presidency.

- Whenever he has been caught in one of his scams, he has always been able to use ultra-aggressive lawyers to make it go away. If someone makes a complaint against him, he gets one of his lawyers to intimidate or threaten them. If that doesn't work, he sues them. And if that doesn't cause the complainant to immediately back down, he can endeavour to have the case tied up in court for years, thus bleeding his victims dry as they struggle to pay for their legal fees. This type of thing has also been played out numerous times during his presidency, such as with his stonewalling of congress.

Once we get away from the right, we can encounter large swathes of society that are largely devoid of deception, paranoia and fear.

Like feminism and the left wing media?

I was thinking more along the lines of the Mueller Report, the Impeachment inquiry, the scientific community, the various parts of the media that practice serious journalism, those who practice honest business principles, the daily lives of spiritual philosophers, etc - in short, any area of society that fosters logical argument and a respect for facts.

All of your predictions seem to be false. Firstly you predicted that Trump would lose the election. Then you said that within three months of his getting into power there would be wars breaking out all over the globe, caused by Donald Trump. You also said that within six months of getting into power the American economy would entirely collapse. All of these predictions were fantasy.

I never made any of those predictions. You’re making things up.

Why would you make up stuff like this, I wonder? What is the point? Are you really that eager to tear me down? Why?

Speaking of which, you wrote and wrote and wrote:

So you failed there.

So you completely failed there.

So you failed there.

So you failed there.

So you failed there.

This is very strange behaviour, particularly as these are among the first words you have spoken to me in over two years. I wonder where it all comes from.

Let me ask you a question. Do you consider yourself to still be on the bodhisattva path?

Be honest.

[Kevin Solway]

Out of pure curiosity - Kevin, have you read the Mueller Report?

Yes I have. I've also listened to Mueller speaking about it in his own words. Why do you ask?

[Kevin Solway]

Sadly, scientists and environmentalists are nowadays facing increasing levels of censorship by right-wing governments around the world.

They might be, but the links you gave didn't demonstrate that. What you provided were just opinions.

The first link you provided voiced a person's opinion. The opinion may have been correct. Or it might not. I don't know. The article didn't provide compelling evidence. It wouldn't surprise me at all if some scientific voices were being suppressed since people are crazy on both sides of politics, and scientific voices have been suppressed for all of history.

The second link quotes an email giving "advice" not to discuss the link between climate change and bushfires. "Advice" isn't the same as "gagging", and we don't even know what the email really said without seeing it. It is fundamentally wrong to link individual weather events to something like "global warming" because the link cannot be demonstrated. Most of the public don't understand that the link cannot be made. That might be why they were advised not to do it. We would need to hear both sides of the story before we can make a proper judgement.

The third link said "Maria Caffrey, a climate scientist in the National Park Service, wrote in an op-ed last week that she lost her job this year because she “was a climate scientist in a climate-denying administration.” ".

"Op-ed" means it is an opinion piece. There might indeed be something there, but I don't find a mere opinion to be compelling.

Without freedom of thought and freedom of speech there won't be any action on the environment. That's why these things are of primary importance.

The fact that Trump was not charged is due to a Department of Justice guideline which states that the president of the United States cannot be indicted.

Where does it say in the Mueller report that Trump committed these things that you are calling "crimes"? It doesn't.

Mueller specifically stated in his televised testimony that once Trump leaves office, he can indeed be charged for these crimes.

There was nothing in the Mueller report to suggest that Trump committed any crimes, or anything that might be considered a crime once he is out of office, otherwise Mueller would have said so, and it would have said so in the report. Anybody can be charged with crimes. It doesn't mean they committed any crimes. You can personally be charged with countless crimes - it doesn't mean that you are guilty of any of them.

Trump has been named as a co-conspirator

Trump is named many things. Trump is named to be worse than Hitler. It is meaningless.

The current impeachment inquiry clearly reveals . . .

No it doesn't. That's just your personal interpretation. The transcript of the call - or the nearest thing we have to one - is available for anyone to read.

We will probably have to wait until his presidency ends before we get a clear picture of the full extent of his criminality.

I think that's just wishful thinking on your part. All your other speculations have been wrong, so I wouldn't be surprised if this one is wrong as well.

It is very difficult to charge and convict rich, connected people

I believe in the rule of law. I'm not going to accuse a person of being a criminal, in the legal sense, unless they are found guilty in a court of law. I don't believe in mob justice. Mob justice is the end of civilization.

Like feminism and the left wing media?

I was thinking more along the lines of the Mueller Report . . .

Irrationality is rife throughout the whole of humanity. It doesn't fall along party lines.

All of your predictions seem to be false. Firstly you predicted that Trump would lose the election. Then you said that within three months of his getting into power there would be wars breaking out all over the globe, caused by Donald Trump. You also said that within six months of getting into power the American economy would entirely collapse. All of these predictions were fantasy.

I never made any of those predictions.

Yes you did. You told me them over the phone and I remember them specifically.

You also said that Trump would get rid of all environmental regulations. This also never happened. Not even close.

Why would you make up stuff like this, I wonder? What is the point? Are you really that eager to tear me down? Why?

As I've said, it's not made up. It's clear to me that you don't distinguish between faith and knowledge. And you don't distinguish between fact and opinion, and between fact and interpretation. That's why I mention it. You state things you believe on faith as though they were things that you have direct knowledge of, and you state mere opinions and interpretations as though they are facts. These things are major hurdles to the acquisition of wisdom.

Do you consider yourself to still be on the bodhisattva path?

I certainly do. Why do you ask?

[Rhett]

In any weighing up of Trumps positive versus negative effects, it needs to be considered whether other country's focus to avoid specific warming limits could thus compensate for Trumps poor position on the environment.

I consider that i have articulated a strong, concise, reasoned political opinion on Trump and the critical political issues of the day, with a raft of supporting links, and a vision for how aspects of the future might realistically pan out and why.

I dont consider that i have seen that from opposers yet. Opposing doesnt constitute a responsible leadership stance. Articulate to me your vision. What if none of the other presidential candidates take a strong stance on china, globalisation and illegal and excessive immigration?

Interestingly, although it was well understood in the past that excessive immigration typically increases the supply of labour and thus causes downward pressure on wages and working conditions, i wasnt hearing a single peep about this anywhere, and now after months of repeatedly stating this on social media i see it mentioned by others in social media, and i recently saw it mentioned on a tv program. I have noticed similar effects on other topics i have raised a narrative about. It would be interesting to know how easily the right kind of narrative can influence the world.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

As an aside, I don't like the way you repeatedly jump on people who speak the truth and attack them in a personal manner. It is exactly the sort of slimy thing that Trump does. Just be glad that a few particles of truth, no matter how small, are still being expressed in these degraded times. Why the constant need to squash this out of existence?

That's a strange remark coming from someone accusing me and others again and again, without one shred of evidence or sincere quote to be "alt-right" aka racist or far-right in their convictions. Frankly, you lost credibility when it comes to this question. Clean up your own act first!

Of course we were talking about David Jolly here, a republican who does not "speak the truth" by any common standard but you just happened to agree with his opinion on Trump. And so I remarked that being a Scientologist might put in question his connection to truth. Being a Republican is not a good sign for reason either as far as I'm concerned because I'm very much Left on many serious issues while Scientology, the most sleazy and criminal mass religion on the market, cannot be ignored here; it's not just some personal hobby, race or character trait.

Perhaps for you, people are all great as long they play the tune you happen to like for the day. However, truth demands a bit more consistency.

[David Quinn]

Sadly, scientists and environmentalists are nowadays facing increasing levels of censorship by right-wing governments around the world.

They might be, but the links you gave didn't demonstrate that. What you provided were just opinions.

Two things:

- I knew you would respond in this manner. In anticipation of this, I chose those three topics specifically because in each case there are mountains of evidence from many different sources that demonstrate wide-spread systemic censorship of science, environmental activism and truth by the Trump administration and by governments here in Australia. I will expand on this a little more below.

- Dismissing a viewpoint on the basis that it is “just an opinion" is meaningless. It is the kind of false equivalency that people use, particularly those on the right, to dismiss expertise. If everyone’s opinions are equal, simply by virtue of the fact that they are opinions, then informed expertise can be considered just as worthless as the uninformed layman’s. Once this happens, it become very easy for people to reject any viewpoint that challenges them out of hand. And in so doing, a culture of anti-intellectualism is allowed to flourish.

I recall many people coming to this forum over the years and dismissing our views about wisdom and truth on the basis that they were “just our opinions”. Women, in particular, were fond of that one.

The first link you provided voiced a person's opinion. The opinion may have been correct. Or it might not. I don't know. The article didn't provide compelling evidence.

I doubt that you read it. If you had read it, you would have seen that it provided links to various incidents and documents which demonstrated the validity of the author’s “opinion”. In particular, it provided links to official testimony to The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and to The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if some scientific voices were being suppressed since people are crazy on both sides of politics, and scientific voices have been suppressed for all of history.

The Trump administration is unique, at least in modern times, in that its attack on science has become systemic and pervasive within the upper-echelons of government. For example:

From the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law: Silencing Science Tracker details the numerous instances of the Trump administration censoring science.

From an article in Scientific American: The Silenced: Meet the Climate Whistle-Blowers Muzzled by the Trump Administration

From the New York Times: this article, E.P.A. to Limit Science Used to Write Public Health Rules, describes the growing alarm among scientists and medical professionals over the Trump’s administration determination to expand its roll back of environmental and health regulations.

The second link quotes an email giving "advice" not to discuss the link between climate change and bushfires. "Advice" isn't the same as "gagging", and we don't even know what the email really said without seeing it. It is fundamentally wrong to link individual weather events to something like "global warming" because the link cannot be demonstrated. Most of the public don't understand that the link cannot be made. That might be why they were advised not to do it. We would need to hear both sides of the story before we can make a proper judgement.

The third link said "Maria Caffrey, a climate scientist in the National Park Service, wrote in an op-ed last week that she lost her job this year because she “was a climate scientist in a climate-denying administration.” ".

For the sake of keeping the discussion concise, I think we should put these two other topics aside for the time being.

Without freedom of thought and freedom of speech there won't be any action on the environment. That's why these things are of primary importance.

We already have freedom of thought and freedom of speech here in Australia (not perfectly, that would be unrealistic, but to a very high degree), and yet very little is being done about the environment. Indeed, one of the key reasons why very little is being done is because many people are taking advantage of our culture of free speech to disseminate falsehoods about the state of the environment, the science of climate change, and scientists more generally.

Here is a question for you: If it is a toss up between the continuation of the species and free speech, which would you choose?

The fact that Trump was not charged is due to a Department of Justice guideline which states that the president of the United States cannot be indicted.

Where does it say in the Mueller report that Trump committed these things that you are calling "crimes"?

He outlined 11 counts of obstruction of justice, and a good deal of circumstantial evidence pointing to systematic collusion with Russia. Also, many of his associates from the campaign are already in jail for their roles in the affair.

Anybody can be charged with crimes. It doesn't mean they committed any crimes. You can personally be charged with countless crimes - it doesn't mean that you are guilty of any of them.

True, but the evidence in the Mueller Report is pretty compelling. When you read the report, a clear picture emerges of a gangster-type personality who rides roughshod over the law and demands others be loyal to him by doing the same. Luckily for him, many refused. Trump was often saved from nuking his own presidency simply because those around him refused point blank to carry out his lawless commands.

Trump has been named as a co-conspirator

Trump is named many things. Trump is named to be worse than Hitler. It is meaningless.

He was named this in a court of law. It is not meaningless.

The current impeachment inquiry clearly reveals . . .

No it doesn't. That's just your personal interpretation. The transcript of the call - or the nearest thing we have to one - is available for anyone to read.

I have been closely watching the Impeachment proceedings and the evidence is crystal-clear and damning. It is so crystal-clear and damning that even the Republicans on the committee don’t bother trying to refute it. Instead, they focus on smearing the witnesses and bringing up unrelated, debunked conspiracy theories in an effort to muddy things up and create as much confusion as possible.

Watching the Republicans at the inquiry has been fascinating. It’s a bit like watching crazed evangelicals on acid sneering and preaching hellfire and damnation in an adult courtroom. It is the bizarre spectacle of two utterly different worlds colliding.

I was thinking more along the lines of the Mueller Report . . .

Irrationality is rife throughout the whole of humanity. It doesn't fall along party lines.

Would you say, then, that there is no difference between mainstream scientists who study and teach evolution and evangelical Christians who preach creationism?

It's clear to me that you don't distinguish between faith and knowledge. And you don't distinguish between fact and opinion, and between fact and interpretation. That's why I mention it. You state things you believe on faith as though they were things that you have direct knowledge of, and you state mere opinions and interpretations as though they are facts. These things are major hurdles to the acquisition of wisdom.

I do none of these things. Again, this is something you are just making up.

I am fully versed in the uncertainty of all (empirical) things, and I’m fully aware that news articles, opinion pieces, people’s comments, etc, should be treated with skepticism.

On the other hand, I follow the basic premise of the scientific method in accepting something to be true (or more accurately, provisionally true) when there is compelling evidence from numerous different sources backing it up. It is for this reason that I accept, say, that evolution by natural selection is (provisionally) true, and why I reject creationism.

So if I meet a creationist who starts telling me that evolutionary theory is just an opinion, that accepting evolutionary theory is a matter of faith, that all science is fake news, that the fossil evidence is full of gaps, that Bible-inspired creationism is just as valid, that science is biased against Christians, that promoting evolutionary theory is just a means for cultural marxists to take over the world, etc, etc, then I just laugh at him.

The evidence of Trump’s criminality and corruption is widespread and comes from many different sources. To acknowledge it doesn’t require an act of faith. It is simply a case of putting the scientific method into action.

Do you consider yourself to still be on the bodhisattva path?

I certainly do. Why do you ask?

I’ll let you know in due course.

[Dan Rowden]

Out of pure curiosity - Kevin, have you read the Mueller Report?

Yes I have. I've also listened to Mueller speaking about it in his own words. Why do you ask?

No particular reason. As I said, I was curious. It's potentially useful to know going forward, if any going forward eventuates. For me the politically interesting thing about the Report is that the Dems did no move on an Impeachment Inquiry on the basis of Obstruction of Justice, given that Mueller effectively endorsed it. Pelosi's hesitation was itself a curious thing, but in part I reckon it was because she's in the line of succession and didn't want any move to impeach to be seen as her promitiong her own self-interests. It needed to be its own Juggernaut.

For me impeachment on the basis of Obstruction of Justice would have been a Lay Down Misere; Ukraine a touch less so, though Trump's public witness tampering is useful, and hilarious to watch.

Of course, actual conviction will never happen given this current GOP.

[Dan Rowden]

From the New York Times: this article, E.P.A. to Limit Science Used to Write Public Health Rules, describes the growing alarm among scientists and medical professionals over the Trump’s administration determination to expand its roll back of environmental and health regulations.

On this point (this list is now 2 months old and other serious things have occurred in the interim):

Air pollution and emissions

COMPLETED

1. Canceled a requirement for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions.

2. Revised and partially repealed an Obama-era rule limiting methane emissions on public lands, including intentional venting and flaring from drilling operations.

3. Loosened a Clinton-era rule designed to limit toxic emissions from major industrial polluters.

4. Stopped enforcing a 2015 rule that prohibited the use of hydrofluorocarbons, powerful greenhouse gases, in air-conditioners and refrigerators.

5. Repealed a requirement that state and regional authorities track tailpipe emissions from vehicles traveling on federal highways.

6. Reverted to a weaker 2009 pollution permitting program for new power plants and expansions.

7. Amended rules that govern how refineries monitor pollution in surrounding communities.

8. Directed agencies to stop using an Obama-era calculation of the “social cost of carbon” that rulemakers used to estimate the long-term economic benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

9. Withdrew guidance that federal agencies include greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews. But several district courts have ruled that emissions must be included in such reviews.

10. Lifted a summertime ban on the use of E15, a gasoline blend made of 15 percent ethanol. (Burning gasoline with a higher concentration of ethanol in hot conditions increases smog.)

IN PROCESS

11. Proposed rules to end federal requirements that oil and gas companies install technology to inspect for and fix methane leaks from wells, pipelines and storage facilities.

12. Proposed weakening Obama-era fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks. The proposal also challenges California’s right to set its own more stringent standards, which other states can choose to follow.

13. Announced intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. (The process of withdrawing cannot be completed until 2020.)

14. Proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, which would have set strict limits on carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants. In April 2019, the E.P.A. sent a replacement plan, which would let states set their own rules, to the White House for budget review.

15. Proposed eliminating Obama-era restrictions that in effect required newly built coal power plants to capture carbon dioxide emissions.

16. Proposed a legal justification for weakening an Obama-era rule that limited mercury emissions from coal power plants.

17. Proposed revisions to standards for carbon dioxide emissions from new, modified and reconstructed power plants.

18. Began review of emissions rules for power plant start-ups, shutdowns and malfunctions. In April, the E.P.A. filed an order reversing a requirement that 36 states follow the emissions rule.

19. Proposed relaxing Obama-era requirements that companies monitor and repair methane leaks at oil and gas facilities.

20. Proposed changing rules aimed at cutting methane emissions from landfills. In May, 2019, a federal judge ruled against the E.P.A. for failing to enforce the existing law and gave the agency a fall deadline for finalizing state and federal rules. E.P.A. said it is reviewing the decision.

21. Announced a rewrite of an Obama-era rule meant to reduce air pollution in national parks and wilderness areas.

22. Weakened oversight of some state plans for reducing air pollution in national parks. (In Texas, the E.P.A. rejected an Obama-era plan that would have required the installation of equipment at some coal-burning power plants to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.)

23. Proposed repealing leak-repair, maintenance and reporting requirements for large refrigeration and air conditioning systems containing hydrofluorocarbons.

24. Proposed limiting the ability of individuals and communities to challenge E.P.A.-issued pollution permits before a panel of agency judges.

Drilling and extraction

COMPLETED

25. Made significant cuts to the borders of two national monuments in Utah and recommended border and resource management changes to several more.

26. Rescinded water pollution regulations for fracking on federal and Indian lands.

27. Scrapped a proposed rule that required mines to prove they could pay to clean up future pollution.

28. Withdrew a requirement that Gulf oil rig owners prove they could cover the costs of removing rigs once they have stopped producing.

29. Approved construction of the Dakota Access pipeline less than a mile from the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. Under the Obama administration, the Army Corps of Engineers had said it would explore alternative routes.

30. Revoked an Obama-era executive order designed to preserve ocean, coastal and Great Lakes waters in favor of a policy focused on energy production and economic growth.

31. Changed how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission considers the indirect effects of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews of pipelines.

32. Permitted the use of seismic air guns for gas and oil exploration in the Atlantic Ocean. The practice, which can kill marine life and disrupt fisheries, was blocked under the Obama administration.

33. Loosened offshore drilling safety regulations implemented by the Obama administration following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. The revised rules include reduced testing requirements for blowout prevention systems.

IN PROCESS

34. Completed preliminary environmental reviews to clear the way for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

35. Proposed opening most of America’s coastal waters to offshore oil and gas drilling, but delayed the plan after a federal judge ruled that Mr. Trump’s reversal of an Obama-era ban on drilling in the Arctic Ocean was unlawlful.

36. Lifted an Obama-era freeze on new coal leases on public lands. But, in April 2019, a judge ruled that the Interior Department could not begin selling new leases without completing an environmental review. A month later, the agency published a draft assessment that concluded restarting federal coal leasing would have little environmental impact.

37. Repealed an Obama-era rule governing royalties for oil, gas and coal leases on federal lands, which replaced a 1980s rule that critics said allowed companies to underpay the federal government. A federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s repeal. The Interior Department is reviewing the decision.

38. Proposed “streamlining” the approval process for drilling for oil and gas in national forests.

39. Ordered review of regulations on oil and gas drilling in national parks where mineral rights are privately owned.

40. Recommended shrinking three marine protected areas, or opening them to commercial fishing.

41. Ordered review of regulations on offshore oil and gas exploration by floating vessels in the Arctic that were developed after a 2013 accident. The Interior Department said it was “considering full rescission or revision of this rule.”

42. Approved the Keystone XL pipeline rejected by President Barack Obama, but a federal judge blocked the project from going forward without an adequate environmental review process. Mr. Trump later attempted to side-step the ruling by issuing a presidential permit, but the project remains tied up in court.

Infrastructure and planning

COMPLETED

43. Revoked Obama-era flood standards for federal infrastructure projects, like roads and bridges. The standards required the government to account for sea-level rise and other climate change effects.

44. Relaxed the environmental review process for federal infrastructure projects.

45. Revoked a directive for federal agencies to minimize impacts on water, wildlife, land and other natural resources when approving development projects.

46. Revoked an Obama executive order promoting “climate resilience” in the northern Bering Sea region of Alaska, which withdrew local waters from oil and gas leasing and established a tribal advisory council to consult on local environmental issues.

47. Revoked an Obama executive order that set a goal of cutting the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent over 10 years.

48. Reversed an update to the Bureau of Land Management’s public land use planning process.

49. Withdrew an Obama-era order to consider climate change in managing natural resources in national parks.

50. Restricted most Interior Department environmental studies to one year in length and a maximum of 150 pages, citing a need to reduce paperwork.

51. Withdrew a number of Obama-era Interior Department climate change and conservation policies that the agency said could “burden the development or utilization of domestically produced energy resources.”

52. Eliminated the use of an Obama-era planning system designed to minimize harm from oil and gas activity on sensitive landscapes, such as national parks.

53. Eased the environmental review processes for small wireless infrastructure projects with the goal of expanding 5G wireless networks.

54. Withdrew Obama-era policies designed to maintain or, ideally improve, natural resources affected by federal projects.

IN PROCESS

55. Proposed plans to streamline the environmental review process for Forest Service projects.

Animals

COMPLETED

56. Changed the way the Endangered Species Act is applied, making it more difficult to protect wildlife from long-term threats posed by climate change.

57. Opened nine million acres of Western land to oil and gas drilling by weakening habitat protections for the sage grouse, an imperiled bird with an elaborate mating dance.

58. Overturned a ban on the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on federal lands.

59. Overturned a ban on the hunting of predators in Alaskan wildlife refuges.

60. Ended an Obama-era rule barring hunters on some Alaska public lands from using bait to lure and kill grizzly bears.

61. Withdrew proposed limits on the number of endangered marine mammals and sea turtles that people who fish could unintentionally kill or injure with sword-fishing nets on the West Coast. In 2018, California issued a state rule prohibiting the use of the nets the rule was intending to regulate.

62. Amended fishing regulations for a number of species to allow for longer seasons and higher catch rates.

63. Rolled back a roughly 40-year-old interprentation of a policy aimed at protecting migratory birds, potentially running afoul of treaties with Canada and Mexico.

64. Overturned a ban on using parts of migratory birds in handicrafts made by Alaskan Natives.

IN PROCESS

65. Proposed relaxing environmental protections for salmon and smelt in California’s Central Valley in order to free up water for farmers.

Toxic substances and safety

COMPLETED

66. Rejected a proposed ban on chlorpyrifos, a pesticide linked to developmental disabilities in children.

67. Narrowed the scope of a 2016 law mandating safety assessments for potentially toxic chemicals, like dry-cleaning solvents and paint strippers. The E.P.A. will focus on direct exposure and exclude air, water and ground contamination.

68. Reversed an Obama-era rule that required braking system upgrades for “high hazard” trains hauling flammable liquids, like oil and ethanol.

69. Removed copper filter cake, an electronics manufacturing byproduct comprised of heavy metals, from the “hazardous waste” list.

IN PROCESS

70. Announced a review of an Obama-era rule lowering coal dust limits in mines. The head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration said there were no immediate plans to change the dust limit, but the review is continuing.

Water pollution

COMPLETED

71. Scaled back pollution protections for certain tributaries and wetlands that were regulated under the Clean Water Act by the Obama administration.

72. Revoked a rule that prevented coal companies from dumping mining debris into local streams.

73. Withdrew a proposed rule aimed at reducing pollutants, including air pollution, at sewage treatment plants.

74. Withdrew a proposed rule requiring groundwater protections for certain uranium mines.

75. Weakened federal rules regulating the disposal and storage of coal ash waste from power plants. (A second phase of this rollback is still under way.)

IN PROCESS

76. Delayed by two years an E.P.A. rule regulating limits on toxic discharge, which can include mercury, from power plants into public waterways.

77. Ordered the E.P.A. to re-evaluate a section of the Clean Water Act and related guidance that allows states to reject or delay federal projects – including pipelines and other fossil fuel facilities – if they don't meet local water quality goals.

Other

COMPLETED

78. Repealed an Obama-era regulation that would have nearly doubled the number of light bulbs subject to energy-efficiency standards starting in January 2020. The E.P.A. also proposed scaling back the next phase of efficiency standards for bulbs that remain subject to regulation.

79. Prohibited funding environmental and community development projects through corporate settlements of federal lawsuits.

80. Announced intent to stop payments to the Green Climate Fund, a United Nations program to help poorer countries reduce carbon emissions.

81. Reversed restrictions on the sale of plastic water bottles in national parks desgined to cut down on litter, despite a Park Service report that the effort worked.

IN PROCESS

82. Proposed limiting the studies used by the E.P.A. for rulemaking to only those that make data publicly available. (The move was widely criticized by scientists, who said it would effectively block the agency from considering landmark research that relies on confidential health data.)

83. Proposed changes to the way cost-benefit analyses are conducted under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other environmental statutes.

84. Proposed withdrawing efficiency standards for residential furnaces and commercial water heaters designed to reduce energy use.

85. Initially withdrew then delayed a proposed rule that would inform car owners about fuel-efficient replacement tires. (The Transportation Department has scheduled a new rulemaking notice for 2020.)


10 rules were reinstated, often following lawsuits and other challenges

1. Reinstated a rule aimed at improving safety at facilities that use hazardous chemicals following a federal court order.

2. Reversed course on repealing emissions standards for “glider” trucks — vehicles retrofitted with older, often dirtier engines — after Andrew Wheeler took over as head of the E.P.A.

3. Delayed a compliance deadline for new national ozone pollution standards by one year, but later reversed course.

4. Suspended an effort to lift restrictions on mining in Bristol Bay, Alaska. But the Army Corps of Engineers is performing an environmental review of an application for mining in the area.

5. Delayed implementation of a rule regulating the certification and training of pesticide applicators, but a judge ruled that the E.P.A. had done so illegally and declared the rule in effect.

6. Initially delayed publishing efficiency standards for household appliances, but later published them after multiple states and environmental groups sued.

7. Delayed federal building efficiency standards until Sept. 30, 2017, at which time the rules went into effect.

8. Reissued a rule limiting the discharge of mercury by dental offices into municipal sewers after a lawsuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group.

9. Re-posted a proposed rule limiting greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft, after initially changing its status to “inactive” on the E.P.A. website. In May 2019, the agency confirmed it would issue the rule.

10. Removed the Yellowstone grizzly bear from the Endangered Species List, but the protections were later reinstated by a federal judge. (The Trump administration appealed the ruling in May 2019.)

See https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... backs.html for the source for each item.

I don't know about you, but it looks like something of a trend to me. But this should have been expected with the initial appointment of Scott Pruitt to head the EPA. Then we have said EPA's newest brainwave, Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. If you're not aware of it, you should check it out.

Denial of the anti-science, anti-environment nature of this administration, and of the seriousness of it, is just whackothediddleo, batshit, fuckwittery. It's also not very sensible.

[Dan Rowden]

Sadly, scientists and environmentalists are nowadays facing increasing levels of censorship by right-wing governments around the world.

The fact that Trump was not charged is due to a Department of Justice guideline which states that the president of the United States cannot be indicted.

Where does it say in the Mueller report that Trump committed these things that you are calling "crimes"? It doesn't.

Mueller specifically stated in his televised testimony that once Trump leaves office, he can indeed be charged for these crimes.

There was nothing in the Mueller report to suggest that Trump committed any crimes, or anything that might be considered a crime once he is out of office, otherwise Mueller would have said so, and it would have said so in the report.

This makes me highly sceptical of your claim to have read the report or seen Mueller's public testimony, or at least to have paid any serious attention to either. He made is abundantly clear that while he would not move on indictment for Obstruction of Justice due to the [in my opinion] bullshit view about indicting a sitting President by Billy Bob Barr and Co, there was ample scope for remedy by another jurisdiction - namely, Congress via Impeachment.

He also made it abundantly clear that while he could not move on collusion with Russia based on any Federal criminal statute, that said collusion nevertheless took place. It's kind of what 100 pages of evidence of such collusion that does not 'exonerate' a person means. Mueller recognised the collusion issue as a political rather than legal problem for Trump.

That said, I think Dave should consider substituting 'corruption' for 'criminality' in certain contexts. The latter is a bit too easy to dismiss if no 'crime' per se is evident.

[Dan Rowden]

And here's a bit of 'ancillary' commentary [OPINION], in anticipation of a likely response:

Mueller does not explicitly mention Impeachment in his report, and he avoided that express language in his public testimony and pressers. But his allusion to it in both contexts was unmistakable. He made particular note in one press conference - with respect to Barr's opinion that a sitting President could be be criminally indicted (no idea why he agrees with that view) - that Constitutional remedies exist. Under questioning from Texas Rep. Veronica Escobar regarding such remedies, he stated, without directly answering her explicit question about Impeachment, that she'd mentioned one such remedy. Impeachment was the only thing she'd mentioned (because that's where she was trying to get him to go).

Mueller is an officer of the law, a judicial figure. He's also by nature and by dint of that position a man careful with his language. As a Special Prosecutor he cannot be seen to be suggesting or recommending Impeachment in any direct sense. This is because it would immediately politicise his position and undermine his standing as an independent judicial agent.

Impeachment is ultimately none of his bees-wax. It is a Constitutional matter, an explicitly political matter, a matter for the elected officials of Congress. At best Mueller was able to allude to the fact that his investigation provided sufficient substance for remedy via that avenue. He was also fairly obviously alluding to the fact that the redacted sections involved matters that would give further weight to any Impeachment Inquiry.

Does Mueller's opinion as a judicial agent about Impeachment matter since he's not an expert on the Constitution or political processes? It doesn't matter. He doesn't need to understand anything beyond the fact that the only encumbrance to his indicting Trump was a supposed prohibition against criminally indicting sitting Presidents. The fact that without such prohibition he'd have moved ahead with a criminal indictment is all that needs to be known because such indictment already by default justifies Impeachment.

[Kevin Solway]

Dismissing a viewpoint on the basis that it is “just an opinion" is meaningless.

I don't believe in "authorities" like you do. So in this regard we have a fundamentally different view of the world.

I simply don't care about the opinions of people who are regarded by some people to be authorities. What I care about are the reasons why they have their opinions - if there are any reasons.

Here is a question for you: If it is a toss up between the continuation of the species and free speech, which would you choose?

I think the species has the best chance of survival with freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

I am anti-authoritarian.

He outlined 11 counts of obstruction of justice . . .

If the Mueller report had contained even the smell of an oily rag then the democrats would be using it as a basis for impeachment. But they aren't. That should tell you something.

The evidence in the Mueller Report is pretty compelling.

I don't think it is, and clearly the democrats don't think it is either, otherwise they would be using it as a basis for impeachment.

He was named this in a court of law. It is not meaningless.

It doesn't matter what he is named, and where he is named it.

I have been closely watching the Impeachment proceedings and the evidence is crystal-clear and damning.

That's just your personal opinion. I think the opposite is the case. I think it is damning against the democrats.

Irrationality is rife throughout the whole of humanity. It doesn't fall along party lines.

Would you say, then, that there is no difference between mainstream scientists who study and teach evolution and evangelical Christians who preach creationism?

That doesn't have anything to do with my statement about irrationality not falling along party lines, so I don't know why you bring it up.

Scientists can be just as deluded as anyone else, so we shouldn't treat them as authorities. Instead, we should examine their statements for truth.

The evidence of Trump’s criminality and corruption is widespread and comes from many different sources.

If that were true then I think he would be in jail right now. You are leveling charges of criminality without evidence.

To acknowledge it doesn’t require an act of faith. It is simply a case of putting the scientific method into action.

Science requires evidence. That's what you're not providing.

[Kevin Solway]

He also made it abundantly clear that while he could not move on collusion with Russia based on any Federal criminal statute, that said collusion nevertheless took place.

So you're claiming that Mueller said that Trump colluded with the Russians to influence the election?

Provide an exact quote.

It's kind of what 100 pages of evidence of such collusion that does not 'exonerate' a person means.

No it doesn't. You are forgetting that so-called "evidence" can be entirely fallacious and meaningless. Even If you have one million pages of evidence that is fallacious and meaningless, it is still meaningless. Also what you're forgetting is that in the civilized world people are held to be innocent until they are proven guilty. People are not held to be guilty unless they are proven innocent, or "exonerated".

You don't need to be "exonerated" of things you never did.