Trump

[Rhett]

Most people in western countries dont know what it is like to live in an oppressive, corrupt, dictatorial culture. They can only make a vague speculation. In comparison, i have actually spent years living in and heavily exposed to an oppressive, mafia like culture, where free expression is very problematic.

It was worse than being dead. I was motivated to live based on the likelihood that i would get out of it. There were two occasions where i was driving along and trucks were coming the other way and i was deeply concerned that outside of my will my arms would steer me into the truck. Despite never having had any suicidal tendencies. Similar forces caused at least one car crash suicide of a local youth while i was connected to this region. I was also told other similar stories.

The majority of Hong Kong residents will not live under full Chinese rule. If a person has grown up in a free culture, to lose that freedom is worse than death. People become living dead. The concept of living dead has a very real basis, it isnt some kind of poetic or sentimental statement.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

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.

In fact, the term collusion was never part of the investigation and Mueller did not regard it as any "legal term". The terms was born out of media reporting as explained in the link.

The Special Counsel was investigating "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" or anything else found during that investigation (a bit broad fishing expedition and not without criticism by law experts). The report concluded there was no coordination found with Russia, defined as having any "agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference) or conspiracy".

If we define, like most of the media did, the term collusion to mean links and/or coordination or conspiracy, then the Special Counsel definitely concluded "no collusion". To deny that at this stage seems pure demagoguery. And of course the report brought a lot of other interesting things to the surface. But just not the main thing they tried to establish, the main reason of the appointment.

"In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign 'coordinat[ed]' – a term that appears in the appointment order – with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, 'coordination' does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

[Dan Rowden]

Yes, Mueller was unable to establish any 'collusion' with Russia under existing Federal statutes and a legal definition of 'coordination' upon which legal action might be taken (based on collected evidence at the time of the release of the report). From a legal perspective no illegal activity (under Federal law) was uncovered. That strict legal reality is/was Mueller's brief. That is how it should be. The rest of us are not bound by that limitation and neither is Congress. There are matters of political corruption and ethics, election process integrity, democracy etc to be considered.

While Mueller could not speak to the broader implications of what his investigation found, at least not directly, the rest of us certainly can, and in reality Mueller continually hinted at those broader realties anyway. When asked if his report exonerated Trump he said it did not, but from the perspective of his legal brief, why not? No legal basis for indictment existed so how - from Mueller's legal-brief perspective - was Trump not exonerated by his report? This is because Mueller knew Trump was guilty as fuck and why he made efforts to mention other remedies.

But it's interesting to me that the response has been focussed on the least important, and most nebulous matter in all of this (regarding Mueller). Obstruction of Justice is the issue of greatest import in the Mueller findings, and we frankly didn't need Mueller to tell us what we already knew on that score, given that Trump repeatedly committed this offence in public on several occasions.

But, as we've been told, evidence can always be fallacious and meaningless, so how can we ever know anything, really? We probably should stop accusing anyone of wrong-doing, including intersectionalists and sundry enemies of free speech.

[Dan Rowden]

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.

Yes, it does. It tells me you know too-little about the dynamics and nuances of American politics.

We don't know yet whether OoJ as recounted in the Mueller Report will be included in the Articles of Impeachment, but more broadly it does not follow at all that the Democrats would automatically impeach on the basis of the Mueller Report, or that they would have impeached at all. Impeachment, as I've already noted, is a political process that has manifold potential political consequences - a subsequent election loss among them. Pelosi was extremely hesitant for numerous reasons, the concerns of moderate freshmen Dems among them.

The obviousness of offences under Article II Section 4 does not automatically guarantee an impeachment process. Though, curiously, the enemies of just about every sitting POTUS in history seem to have always thought it should. 'Is that a tan suit Obama is wearing? High Crime! Impeach that Kenyan fucker!'

I don't know, Kevin, it seems to me you've reached that point where, as Trump suggested, if he were to shoot someone in the middle of Times Square you'd find a way to defend him, because, you know, there's always the possibility that at that moment we all suffered a sudden increase in the amount of DMT in our visual cortex and that caused us to see things that weren't really there.

[David Quinn]

It’s interesting to see that, in his conversation with me, Kevin has now closed up shop and adopted a hostile/defensive posture. Those who have followed him in the past will know that he does have form for this. It is a common tactic that he uses when he is unable or unwilling to participate in the discussion in a detailed, intelligent manner. Here is an example:

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.

So what do we have here? A terse restatement of an article of faith that he is clearly very attached to, followed by a three-word slogan in praise of himself.

There is no attempt to move the discussion forward, no attempt to explore the subject matter in any detail, no attempt to offer any new insights, and no attempt to furnish any reasoning or evidence for making these terse edicts at all. There is literally nothing of interest here.

What comes across is this: “I already know that I am perfectly correct in these matters. There is no chance that I am going to be persuaded by any reasoning or evidence that you happen to present. I don’t even know why you are still talking to me. My shop is closed for business and won’t be open any time soon.”

Nevertheless, I will push on in the hope that he will indeed open up shop again soon.

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.

Okay, let’s explore this a bit further. Presumably, you obtain your news of the world in much the same way as the rest of us - namely, read news articles and watch on-line videos. Correct? So what is it that you do differently than the rest of us that enables you to access news that is deemed to be credible?

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.

I have my reasons for asking it, so please try again. You did say that “irrationality is rife throughout the whole of humanity” which seems to imply that all areas of society are inflicted with similar levels of irrationality. Hence my question: Are you saying that there is no difference between mainstream scientists who study and teach evolution and evangelical Christians who preach creationism?

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.

While that’s true, we don't actually turn to scientists for their personal opinions, do we? Rather, what we look for is their professional expertise and their familiarity with the scientific process. In effect, we are looking to gain access to the scientific method and the enormous body of evidence that scientists, as a collective, have accumulated over the years, decades and centuries.

I am starting to sense a pattern in the way that you deal with things like authorities, scientists, news articles, other people’s views, and empirical evidence in general, a pattern that is designed to reinforce a narrative that has, since the gamergate affair, hijacked your mind. I will speak more on this at the appropriate time.

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.

As Dan says, politics is rarely that simple. Most people know that. There were indeed a lot of democrats who believed that the findings in the Mueller Report were strong enough to start an impeachment inquiry. I myself agreed with that assessment, and I see that Dan thought that as well. If it was based purely on the merits of the Mueller Report, then I believe the articles of impeachment would have been very substantial indeed.

Other political realities, however, stood in the way of that. Trump had successfully convinced half the country, through sheer repetition of loud all-caps messaging, that the whole investigation was a “witch hunt” or a “coup" designed to overturn the 2016 election. If there is one thing that Trump is good at, it is playing the victim card. And so for two years, throughout the entire investigation, he whined and whined and whined about how he was always being persecuted by people who were biased against him.

To give Trump credit, it is definitely a cunning strategy on his part, and it is one that he has used repeatedly ever since he began his political career. The strategy goes something like this:

Step 1: Say something indecent or outrageous, or openly engage in lawless behaviour, which deliberately provokes the non-right section of the community into anger.

Step 2: Label the ensuing torrent of condemnation that inevitably comes back his way as "persecution" and "bias" and being "politically-motivated" and play the victim card for all its worth.

Step 3: Sit back and watch all the dupes and suckers amplify his whining everywhere.

Step 4: Rinse and repeat.

In the face of this, many democrats knew that if they initiated impeachment proceedings based on the Mueller Report, Trump would just amp up that strategy and continue to whine like never before. The other complicating factor is that the Mueller Report is very complex and hard for the average punter to follow. Many democrats knew that the simplistic, paranoid messaging by Trump would overpower the subtle complexities of the impeachment process. They had to wait for piece of corruption to emerge that was simpler and easier to follow, which of course, the Ukranian affair duly provided.

Also keep in mind that the Mueller Report is still in play. It is entirely possible that the crimes contained in the report will comprise one of the articles of impeachment that are currently being written up as we speak.

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.

In what way? I would be very interested to hear your reasonings here.

[Kevin Solway]

Mueller continually hinted at those broader realities anyway.

Hints can be notoriously misinterpreted, and I think this is what you've done. I think Mueller was trying to save his own skin by suggesting that his work wasn't an entire failure. The democrats had high hopes for his report, and he didn't deliver. I think he was trying to offer them a few crumbs so that they wouldn't destroy him.

When asked if his report exonerated Trump he said it did not

I think the main reason he said that because it wasn't part of his job to "exonerate" anyone. Hilary Clinton wasn't exonerated by his report, and nor were you. In the civilized world people are automatically held to be innocent until proven guilty. They don't need to be "exonerated".

This is because Mueller knew Trump was guilty as fuck

Well, we're lucky that you have the ability to read minds!

Obstruction of Justice is the issue of greatest import in the Mueller findings, and we frankly didn't need Mueller to tell us what we already knew on that score, given that Trump repeatedly committed this offence in public on several occasions.

For there to be "obstruction" there needs to be an intent to obstruct. There needs to be motive. But If Trump hasn't done anything wrong, and he doesn't believe he has done anything wrong, then he cannot "obstruct".

Judging another person's motives is a matter of opinion.

I think the democrat's best hope lies with the "obstruction" angle, but it's a very hard road.

As we've been told, evidence can always be fallacious and meaningless, so how can we ever know anything, really?

You find out whether the evidence presented is fallacious, meaningless, or inapplicable. That's how. It's not impossible.

[David Quinn]

I don't know, Kevin, it seems to me you've reached that point where, as Trump suggested, if he were to shoot someone in the middle of Times Square you'd find a way to defend him, because, you know, there's always the possibility that at that moment we all suffered a sudden increase in the amount of DMT in our visual cortex and that caused us to see things that weren't really there.

It is very interesting you say this, Dan. It relates to something that has become increasingly more apparent to me over the past few months concerning the nature of Trump's following.

One of the most remarkable things about the whole Trump phenomenon is the way in which so many different people, from a wide variety of backgrounds, have openly disavowed their values and belief-systems for the sake of continuing to support Trump and his presidency. People such as:

- Evangelicals
- Fiscal conservatives
- Free-traders
- Tea Party advocates
- Traditional family values types
- Libertarians/Rand Paul types
- Lindsay Graham/anti-Russia types
- William Barr/Rule of Law types

This suggests to me that what these people are involved in is no longer an ideological war, but a purely tribal one, one that is ultimately motivated by a sheer hatred of liberalism.

For further insight into this dynamic, I found William Barr's recent speech to University of Notre Dame law school to be instructive.

This relates to another point, which is that Trump's support base is mainly comprised of people who have strong grievances with society, with most of them being obsessed with a particular pet issue. In other words, most of them are single-issue voters - whether it be immigration, abortion, evangelical power, China, political correctness, an unregulated business environment, or whatever. By being so focused on one particular issue, they can block out the bigger picture and ignore the dangerous consequence of having such a reckless buffoon in charge of the country. All they want, for the sake of their particular pet issue, is for Trump to succeed.

All of these people are united in their hatred of liberalism, which is what generates the power that Trump seems to mysteriously possess. In many ways, it doesn't really matter to them what Trump does. It is who he is a man that counts. They love his antagonistic character and they really, really, really want him to stay in power and keep sticking it to the people they hate so much. They are the ones who make it possible for Trump to “shoot someone on 5th Avenue" and not suffer any political fallout.

I don't think liberals are fully aware of what is going on in this regard. They like to dismiss Trump as an idiot and his followers as a blind cult, and yet at the same time they are still puzzled by the whole phenomenon. They just can't understand how it is that a buffoon like Trump, who is obviously corrupt and incompetent, could still be in power. They don't realize that all these different groupings who have coalesced around Trump are very conscious that they are in a war against liberalism and are highly motivated for it to succeed. The liberals, for their part, are mostly still asleep.

[Kevin Solway]

It seems to me you've reached that point where, as Trump suggested, if he were to shoot someone in the middle of Times Square you'd find a way to defend him.

I'm only interested in evidence. Valid evidence. I'm not interested in speculation, opinions, and smears.

If anyone has genuine evidence that Trump has committed some crime, then they need to come forward with it. I don't think this is too much to ask.

Has Trump done anything comparable to shooting someone in the middle of Times Square? And is there any clear evidence for it? If so, this should be reported.

[Kevin Solway]

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.

There is no attempt to move the discussion forward

Here's a question for you. If you have a choice between the existence of life itself in the universe, and consciousness of truth, and you can't have both, which would you choose?

Don't you see that the question is wrongly composed? You don't have to choose between the existence of life in the universe and consciousness of truth. You can have both.

Here's another one. If you have to choose between 2 + 2 being 5, and 2 + 2 being 6, which would you choose?

Here's another one. If you have to choose between having some oxygen to breathe, and having having lungs to be able to breathe, which would you choose?

I see your question as pointless. Can you think of another way to express what you are trying to say?

What is it that you do differently than the rest of us that enables you to access news that is deemed to be credible?

People such as myself are deeply skeptical of what is reported and we seek out original sources and differing interpretations of what may be the same original data.

We actively think of the many ways in which the reporter can by lying about, or misinterpreting the thing they are reporting on.

In my experience, few people think in this manner, or have the ability to do so.

You did say that “irrationality is rife throughout the whole of humanity” which seems to imply that all areas of society are inflicted with similar levels of irrationality.

No. Rationality is not rife with irrationality.

Hence my question: Are you saying that there is no difference between mainstream scientists who study and teach evolution and evangelical Christians who preach creationism?

I would expect an evolutionary biologist to more often speak rationally than a creationist on the general subject of evolution. Whether an evolutionary biologist is speaking rationally on a particular issue regarding evolution depends on what exactly he is saying. It doesn't depend on his title or his training, but only on what he is saying in that particular instance. He may be speaking nonsense. He may speak rationally about evolution for 90% of the time, and irrationally for 10% of the time.

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.

While that’s true, we don't actually turn to scientists for their personal opinions, do we?

What we hope for from scientists is professionalism, responsibility, rationality and honesty. But we may not get those things.

I am starting to sense a pattern in the way that you deal with things like authorities, scientists, news articles, other people’s views, and empirical evidence in general, a pattern that is designed to reinforce a narrative that has, since the gamergate affair, hijacked your mind. I will speak more on this at the appropriate time.

I think you are grasping at straws. I have always thought in the same way I do now. I haven't changed. I have never been trustful of the media, nor of religion, nor of atheists, nor of the scientific community. I have seen too much fraud in all of these things to be trustful of them.

. . . Step 4: Rinse and repeat.

Trump is a natural troll. Get used to it.

. . . the crimes contained in the report

There were no crimes contained in the report. If there were, Mueller would have passed them on for further action.

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.

In what way? I would be very interested to hear your reasonings here.

I have already mentioned the reasons. I'm not interested in people's mere opinions. The impeachment proceedings were a stream of people giving their opinion about what Trump meant in a phone call. Their opinion is worthless. Different people have different opinions, and different interpretations. In fact we don't really even know if what they expressed was their opinion, or someone else's opinion, or something else entirely.

What was most damning, so far as I'm concerned, was how the democrats were trying to pretend that their opinions weren't opinions, but were absolute fact. I believe they have gone completely insane.

[Rhett]

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.

After i saw the documentary i mentioned above i investigated the claims that Trump misnumbered the floors of Trump Tower to make more money. Numerous and varied sources verified that to be correct. I thus hold that to be a likely fact.

As for the other claims, they make me skeptical about Trump.

So much of the dialogue about Trump is riddled with emotionalism. Emotionalism is not worthy of attention.

Politics needs to be approached with a scientific perspective, otherwise it so easily loses contact with reality, and with what is constructive and of value. If people dont research their views, their views have a 50:50 chance, at best, of being good. Would you trust your reputation or life to a coin toss? It can often be that a hard to find fact morsel exists that turns one's perspective on its head. I typically remind myself that there could be any number of factors that i am unaware of that render any first or lingering impression to be false.

[David Quinn]

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 see your question as pointless. Can you think of another way to express what you are trying to say?

I was making reference to something you said earlier in the thread:

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.

You seemed to be saying that there is no point in the species continuing if we don’t have freedom of speech and basic human rights. I was looking for clarification on that.

So rephrasing the question: Given that endless falsehoods are saturating our culture of free speech and impacting on our ability to deal with the environment, should we think about imposing certain restrictions on free speech for the sake of our future as a species, or should we just continue with the open slather policy that we've got going at the moment and allow our species to crash aimlessly into extinction?

People such as myself are deeply skeptical of what is reported and we seek out original sources and differing interpretations of what may be the same original data.

We actively think of the many ways in which the reporter can by lying about, or misinterpreting the thing they are reporting on.

In my experience, few people think in this manner, or have the ability to do so.

That sounds noble and good, but I have the impression that you are merely presenting an idealized version of yourself and that you don’t actually practice what you outline here all that much.

As evidence, I point to what you wrote further down in your post:

I think the opposite is the case. I think it is damning against the democrats.

In what way? I would be very interested to hear your reasonings here.

I have already mentioned the reasons. I'm not interested in people's mere opinions. The impeachment proceedings were a stream of people giving their opinion about what Trump meant in a phone call.

This is not what happened at all. None of the witnesses ever voiced an opinion about what Trump meant in the phone call, nor were they ever asked to give such an opinion.

So in this instance at least, you did not seek out the original material.

Their opinion is worthless. Different people have different opinions, and different interpretations. In fact we don't really even know if what they expressed was their opinion, or someone else's opinion, or something else entirely.

That level of skepticism is entirely impractical when it comes to our daily lives. It is like the old joke about the academic philosopher who is asked in a court of law whether or not he stopped at a red light, and he responds by saying “Define red. And define stop. And how do we know that the red light even existed in the first place. Who can prove it? .....”

In any case, the uncertainty that you allude to is largely mitigated by the fact that the witnesses were non-partisan professionals who independently corroborated the emerging narrative. It is the sort of thing that happens in a court of law all the time.

What was most damning, so far as I'm concerned, was how the democrats were trying to pretend that their opinions weren't opinions, but were absolute fact. I believe they have gone completely insane.

We're not reading minds now, are we?

Hence my question: Are you saying that there is no difference between mainstream scientists who study and teach evolution and evangelical Christians who preach creationism?

I would expect an evolutionary biologist to more often speak rationally than a creationist on the general subject of evolution. Whether an evolutionary biologist is speaking rationally on a particular issue regarding evolution depends on what exactly he is saying. It doesn't depend on his title or his training, but only on what he is saying in that particular instance. He may be speaking nonsense. He may speak rationally about evolution for 90% of the time, and irrationally for 10% of the time.

It extends beyond that, though, doesn’t it. For example, there is his training as a scientist to consider. A scientist is trained to think in a methodical and logical manner. It might be the case that he only applies this training to his work in the lab, but nonetheless the training is still there. He has the capacity to think in a logical manner if he wants to.

And scientists tend to socialize together and engage in rational discussions outside of office hours, and they tend to read a lot of other scientific and intellectual works. In short, scientists tend to be far more steeped in an intellectual culture that promotes logical thought than, say, the average evangelical Christian. You would agree with that?

I am starting to sense a pattern in the way that you deal with things like authorities, scientists, news articles, other people’s views, and empirical evidence in general, a pattern that is designed to reinforce a narrative that has, since the gamergate affair, hijacked your mind. I will speak more on this at the appropriate time.

I think you are grasping at straws. I have always thought in the same way I do now. I haven't changed. I have never been trustful of the media, nor of religion, nor of atheists, nor of the scientific community. I have seen too much fraud in all of these things to be trustful of them.

I am not going to comment further on this matter until I am ready to do so. But I do want to ask why you are including the scientific community in this group. After all, there is very little fraud in science.

Yes, you do get the occasional instances where charlatans fake evidence or make unsubstantiated claims or skew the results to favour a predetermined outcome, but overall science is almost entirely free of fraud. This is due to the nature of the scientific method itself and the peer-review process. Over time, whatever is dodgy naturally gets weeded out.

. . . Step 4: Rinse and repeat.

Trump is a natural troll. Get used to it.

This sounds like something a twelve-year-old would say.

For my part, I don’t experience any joy out of Trump’s trolling, partly because I don’t harbour any hatred for the people that he regularly trolls, and partly because his trolling usually involves gaslighting people, which is essentially a form of mangling A=A. He spends his days mangling A=A in order to create confusion in people and cause chaos in the world more generally. I have far too much respect for A=A to gain pleasure from that.

I like the description “Anonymous” gave in his or her book, A Warning:

Trump is “like a 12-year-old in an air traffic control tower, pushing the buttons of government indiscriminately, indifferent to the planes skidding across the runway and the flights frantically diverting away from the airport.”

Yep, that pretty much sums up his presidency to a tee. What’s not to like?

Get used to it, you fuppy twerps!

[Kevin Solway]

You seemed to be saying that there is no point in the species continuing if we don’t have freedom of speech and basic human rights. I was looking for clarification on that.

Yes. If people feel that they don't have a basic value to their life then life will have no value to them. So far as they are concerned, the survival of the species will be pointless. What Rhett wrote about his experience sounds about right.

So rephrasing the question: Given that endless falsehoods are saturating our culture of free speech and impacting on our ability to deal with the environment, should we think about imposing certain restrictions on free speech for the sake of our future as a species, or should we just continue with the open slather policy that we've got going at the moment and allow our species to crash aimlessly into extinction?

As I stated earlier, I think our best chance is with freedom of speech. It might be that 95% of the human race dies out because of their stupidity, but that is probably better than an authoritarian state where intelligent people are not allowed to speak.

The impeachment proceedings were a stream of people giving their opinion about what Trump meant in a phone call.

This is not what happened at all. None of the witnesses ever voiced an opinion about the phone call, nor were they ever asked to give such an opinion. Rather, they were asked to describe certain events that happened before and after the phone call, events they personally witnessed or were involved in.

I listened to long periods of the proceedings.

For example, Gordon Sondland testified that there was a “quid pro quo” between the U.S. and Ukraine, even though he said that Trump had specifically explained to him that there wasn't. So when he said there was a “quid pro quo” he was in fact only giving his own personal opinion. Sondland later went on to say that his statement that there was a "quid pro quo" was a presumption. This is what the media reported as a "bombshell".

Many of those questioned expressed opinions about what they interpreted from the phone call. So I don't know why you say that "none of the witnesses ever voiced an opinion about the phone call". For example, Volker was talking about the mentions of Biden in the phone call, and what he thought about it. Vindman also spoke a lot about the call.

the witnesses were non-partisan

How do you know they were non-partisan?

I'm still thinking about Sondland whom I heard just recently, and he definitely didn't sound non-partisan.

A scientist is trained to think in a methodical and logical manner.

It might be the case that he only applies this training to his work in the lab, but nonetheless the training is still there. He has the capacity to think in a logical manner if he wants to.

Very often they can't even do it in the lab. It is a human failing.

It is well known that the majority of published academic papers are fundamentally flawed and nonsense.

And scientists tend to socialize together and engage in rational discussions outside of office hours, and they tend to read a lot of other scientific and intellectual works.

They also engage in irrational discussions and can read a lot of nonsense.

In short, scientists tend to be far more steeped in an intellectual culture that promotes logical thought than, say, the average evangelical Christian. You would agree with that?

It doesn't matter how "steeped in intellectual culture" a person is, since they can still be completely irrational, deluded, criminal, and lying.

I do want to ask why you are including the scientific community in this group. After all, there is very little fraud in science.

There is fraud, and there is also stupidity and blindness. These can range from rare to common, and from relatively harmless to absolutely devastating. In communist Russia fraudulent science was responsible for huge numbers of people starving to death.

It doesn't matter if fraud in science is rare if you are lied to when you don't want to be lied to, or if you are deceived about something of great importance.

Overall science is almost entirely free of fraud. This is due to the nature of the scientific method itself and the peer-review process. Over time, whatever is dodgy naturally gets weeded out.

It's nowhere near as noble as you think it is. When all the peer-reviewers share the same delusions, or the same fears, then the peer-review process is completely subverted. Sometimes it can take hundreds of years for problems to be corrected - if the human race doesn't go extinct first. Even when fraud is discovered it is often covered-up, so you never get to hear about it.

[Dan Rowden]

Mueller continually hinted at those broader realities anyway.

Hints can be notoriously misinterpreted, and I think this is what you've done. I think Mueller was trying to save his own skin by suggesting that his work wasn't an entire failure.

He was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on the basis of the force of the circumstantial evidence confronting the DoJ. Ignore that fact all you want, because it appears that your desire runs deep ...

The democrats had high hopes for his report,

Agreed.

and he didn't deliver.

That is a meaningless statement that without basis assumes an expected particular outcome, knowledge of which you do not remotely possess. Many Dems pushed for Impeachment based on the content of that report, and many even forefore based on OoJ. Many.

I think he was trying to offer them a few crumbs so that they wouldn't destroy him.

Oh, yes, that seems reasonable - fear of an outcome that isn't actually possible, unless you have in mind a mechanism by which the Dems had some capacity to 'destroy' Mueller.

Given the content of the Report and subsequent public statements, I'm going to, pun-intended, suggest that my interpretation of events trumps yours .....

When asked if his report exonerated Trump he said it did not

I think the main reason he said that because it wasn't part of his job to "exonerate" anyone. Hilary Clinton wasn't exonerated by his report, and nor were you. In the civilized world people are automatically held to be innocent until proven guilty. They don't need to be "exonerated".

He stated that because he was specifically asked that question. He didn't have to answer it at all. He didn't use the word 'impeachment' when specifically led to do so but he made it clear that's what he meant. He clearly wanted to respond to the prevailing GOP narrative that his report exonerated Trump, which was a distortion of his work and the facts therein. Among all the other nuances of that document and his public statements it is clear he wanted to correct that propaganda that distorted the content of his report. He also clearly wanted Congressmen to read the fucking thing ...

This is because Mueller knew Trump was guilty as fuck

Well, we're lucky that you have the ability to read minds!

Yes, we are. But feel free to Kevsplain the rudiments of epistemology to us all, as you so patronisingly did last time we had this tedious fucking dynamic... do explain how the events of a random and not repeatable sequence of events are subject to necessarily interpretative judgements and how subsequent analysis of said events is necessarily 'opinion'. Please regale us with that epistemic wisdom.....

Obstruction of Justice is the issue of greatest import in the Mueller findings, and we frankly didn't need Mueller to tell us what we already knew on that score, given that Trump repeatedly committed this offence in public on several occasions.

For there to be "obstruction" there needs to be an intent to obstruct. There needs to be motive. But If Trump hasn't done anything wrong, and he doesn't believe he has done anything wrong, then he cannot "obstruct".

Wow, that's a principle of jurisprudence we should all remember. 'I done it but I didn't mean to yer Honour!' Said Hitler (in Cockney for some odd reason) . 'I didn't think those stupid fucking Jews and Gypsies and Homos took me serious, like. That gas made me laugh, like.'

Judging another person's motives is a matter of opinion.

Not after the eleventh time, it is not.

As we've been told, evidence can always be fallacious and meaningless, so how can we ever know anything, really?

You find out whether the evidence presented is fallacious, meaningless, or inapplicable. That's how. It's not impossible.

That process never ends if you apply the motivation of requiring a desired outcome, which you clearly are. The facts in evidence are already clear.
I somehow lost control of the quote tags in this reply but I blame Trump. Reasons ...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Obstruction of Justice is the issue of greatest import in the Mueller findings, and we frankly didn't need Mueller to tell us what we already knew on that score, given that Trump repeatedly committed this offence in public on several occasions.

"What we already know" is a mindless statement. Who is "we", how would you "know" for sure and how much weight does that knowledge has? The whole point of performing an official investigation is to find any underlying facts to the court, Congress and the people

What the report suggested is that they found "acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence". And that these acts "were mostly unsuccessful". In other words they believed he tried, he wanted but did not manage to obstruct much. And then the report concludes that Congress has the authority to decide if Trump obstructed justice. This means that intention of the acts need to be judged as from the perspective of criminal law, it's very difficult to prove or interpret intent.

This reads a bit like the approach of death by a thousand cuts. In the mean time counter-investigations started into the way the Mueller report was constructed including the attempts to get dirt on Trump through Steele, Ukraine, Russian friends and so on: review of the Russia probe now a criminal inquiry. And fair is fair, if there's something here, it would need to be presented and only then we might judge all "acts by the President" to shut down what he classified as a political attack first and foremost.

[Dan Rowden]

Oh, Jesus, Diebert.

Trump repeatedly committed obstruction of justice offenses in plain sight. His 'intent' therein is actually not material, unless you want to run with a defense of 'I didn't intend to do so therefore I did not' dumbfuckery.

"What we already know' is an expression of the things Trump said and did in plain, public sight. So, basically fuck off.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Oh, Jesus, ...., basically fuck off.

Yeah, you're such a wonderful debater. Nice religious overtones there as well. Or emotional, copy-paste regurgitated views, which equals "religious".

All I did here was to present the conclusions of Mueller, that the charge "obstruction of justice" could only be determined by Congress, not by any clear unlawful act at this point in time. But to shift it towards the political interpretive terrain is not a fix, it seems more an attempt to repeat the initial problem. And unlike you, I don't have blind confidence in the motives or dedication to truth of politicians, the FBI, the Pope or any majority.

[Dan Rowden]

No, Diebert, you are - seemingly - willfully ignoring the multiple times Trump has committed obstruction of justice offenses in plain sight both on Twitter and in front of the camera.

I truly don't understand how any person purporting to be sane and politically informed cannot know this.

[Rhett]

Even if people find evidence of Trump breaking rules or whatever, i dont see it as overly significant. People that just play the person, while much bigger issues are in play, remind me of a woman nagging at her husband, yet when you offer her the power to be in charge, she shies away. Refusing or failing to address the overall state of play, is beta, is inviting failure. You have to play to win.

We seem to be seeing restrictions on freedom of speech coming from the left, so any suggestion that the left is just as ready as Trump to tackle China, doesnt convince me, where is evidence?

Playing Trump is a diversion.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

... the multiple times Trump has committed obstruction of justice offenses in plain sight both on Twitter and in front of the camera.

That depends entirely on your view on the motivations and professionalism of those initiating and performing the investigation. Trump made it clear he saw it as simply politically motivated, without any legal base and therefore fundamentally corrupted. It's not like I believe or disbelieve that, but I don't feel I'm in the position to determine it. This has to do with my own distrust in the current rationality of people in both camps of the investigation.

To obstruct or minimize the investigation might not be a crime, as the final judgement will have to consider all context. The fact that the Democratic party, Hillary Clinton and half of the mainstream news is supporting this idea does not make it a crime or even clear the path to impeachment.

[David Quinn]

You seemed to be saying that there is no point in the species continuing if we don’t have freedom of speech and basic human rights. I was looking for clarification on that.

Yes. If people feel that they don't have a basic value to their life then life will have no value to them. So far as they are concerned, the survival of the species will be pointless.

I see it the other way. The extinction of the species is final; there is no coming back from that. Totalitarian regimes, on the other hand, are fragile and temporary; there is always the possibility that they can be overthrown and liberty can be restored.

It’s a no-brainer, really.

What Rhett wrote about his experience sounds about right.

Rhett comes across as a kooky beta-male with anger issues and a desperate need to exert control. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the “dark communities” he speaks about were, in fact, perfectly ordinary communities that one might find anywhere in Australia and that the grief he experienced from them was generated by his own kooky behaviour.

So rephrasing the question: Given that endless falsehoods are saturating our culture of free speech and impacting on our ability to deal with the environment, should we think about imposing certain restrictions on free speech for the sake of our future as a species, or should we just continue with the open slather policy that we've got going at the moment and allow our species to crash aimlessly into extinction?

As I stated earlier, I think our best chance is with freedom of speech.

You keep stating this without providing any reasoning or evidence. As I alluded to above, the problem with our current free speech culture is that slogans, conspiracy theories and falsehoods are overwhelming intelligent people's attempts to generate intelligent discourse, and that the uninformed opinions of laymen and facebook users are being treated the same way as the informed opinions of scientists and experts. This, in turn, is hampering our ability as a species to deal with the massive environmental crisis before us in an intelligent, coherent fashion.

It is a very serious problem. Your simplistic mantra of “freedom of speech" is not addressing the problem or adding anything of value.

What is your opinion of Greta Thunberg?

I do want to ask why you are including the scientific community in this group. After all, there is very little fraud in science.

There is fraud, and there is also stupidity and blindness. These can range from rare to common, and from relatively harmless to absolutely devastating. In communist Russia fraudulent science was responsible for huge numbers of people starving to death.

It doesn't matter if fraud in science is rare if you are lied to when you don't want to be lied to, or if you are deceived about something of great importance.......

It's nowhere near as noble as you think it is. When all the peer-reviewers share the same delusions, or the same fears, then the peer-review process is completely subverted. Sometimes it can take hundreds of years for problems to be corrected - if the human race doesn't go extinct first. Even when fraud is discovered it is often covered-up, so you never get to hear about it.

Nevertheless, science has been remarkably successful in creating the modern civilization that we all enjoy. We only have to look at the amazing technology all around us to see that the scientific enterprise is very connected to logic and reality. This cannot be faked. The lack of fraud is there for all to see.

A scientist is trained to think in a methodical and logical manner.

It might be the case that he only applies this training to his work in the lab, but nonetheless the training is still there. He has the capacity to think in a logical manner if he wants to.

Very often they can't even do it in the lab. It is a human failing.....

They also engage in irrational discussions and can read a lot of nonsense.....

It doesn't matter how "steeped in intellectual culture" a person is, since they can still be completely irrational, deluded, criminal, and lying.

That’s certainly true. There is no guarantee that being "steeped in intellectual culture" will lead to consistent rational behaviour. To me, it is a game of percentages. The more you inculcate people with the value of truth and the more you train them to think logically, the greater the chances that they will actually start to live more logically and truthfully in their daily lives.

In other words, while training people to think logically may or may not lead to greater rationality in daily life, not training them will almost certainly not lead to it.

Given this, and given that science is a highly successful enterprise that demonstrates its strong connection to reality, and given that most scientists do spend at least a portion of their lives engaged in rational pursuits, how does it compare to evangelical Christians? Do evangelical Christians ever spend any time at all pursuing rational goals? Are they ever engaged in serious logical thought? What benefits have they ever brought to the world?

It is well known that the majority of published academic papers are fundamentally flawed and nonsense.

Is it? Where is your evidence for that?

The impeachment proceedings were a stream of people giving their opinion about what Trump meant in a phone call.

This is not what happened at all. None of the witnesses ever voiced an opinion about the phone call, nor were they ever asked to give such an opinion. Rather, they were asked to describe certain events that happened before and after the phone call, events they personally witnessed or were involved in.

I listened to long periods of the proceedings.....

Many of those questioned expressed opinions about what they interpreted from the phone call. So I don't know why you say that "none of the witnesses ever voiced an opinion about the phone call".

Sorry, my mistake. I didn’t express myself clearly enough. I realized a couple of hours later that my comments was problematical and I did come back to edit my post accordingly. I changed my comments from:

This is not what happened at all. None of the witnesses ever voiced an opinion about the phone call, nor were they ever asked to give such an opinion. Rather, they were asked to describe certain events that happened before and after the phone call, events they personally witnessed or were involved in.

to:

This is not what happened at all. None of the witnesses ever voiced an opinion about what Trump meant in the phone call, nor were they ever asked to give such an opinion.

Obviously, you must have swooped in before then and grabbed the earlier post. Sorry about that.

My basic point was this: The hearings were almost exclusively focused on detailing a number of events before and after the call which provide context for what was said in the call. By itself, the call could be interpreted, I suppose, as Trump innocently and gently asking Ukraine to investigate corruption in the usual official manner. I personally don’t see how it can be interpreted that way, but I am aware that Trump’s supporters want to argue the matter. Once we factor in the events before and after the call, however, everything changes. It becomes crystal-clear what Trump meant by his remarks in the call, and it definitely wasn’t normal official business.

In regards to the call itself, the witnesses (most of whom are experienced non-partisan diplomats and foreign service officers) testified as to how unusual its content was, and also how disturbed they were by the “irregular channel” that was being set up in the months beforehand by the likes of Giuliani and Sondland and known corrupt Ukrainian figures.

How do you know they were non-partisan?

Their long careers demonstrated that they consistently behaved in a non-partisan manner and served both Republican and Democrat administrations in the same professional manner. At least, that is what they testified. I have no reason to disbelieve them.

The one exception is Sondland. He was not a career professional like the others and, for me at least, he was by far the least credible of all the witnesses.

I'm still thinking about Sondland whom I heard just recently, and he definitely didn't sound non-partisan.

He is definitely not non-partisan. He has long been a Trump supporter; he donated a million dollars to his inauguration and Trump duly rewarded him with the coveted post of Ambassador to the EU despite having no diplomatic or governmental experience. And, as his testimony revealed, he also had numerous contacts with Trump while serving in this role and while helping to set up the “irregular channel” with Rudy Giuliani.

Looking back at his testimony, I can see that Sondland’s main aim was to extricate himself from the corner that he had backed himself into. There were already major holes and inconsistencies in his earlier testimony that he had given to the committee in the closed-doors part of the inquiry, so much so that he had to publicly make changes to it a couple of weeks later. Moreover, it was becoming clear that his closed-doors testimony was conflicting with what other witnesses were testifying in the televised section of the inquiry.

Thus, the question of how he was going to approach his own televised testimony became a major dilemma for him. If he were to lie in a way that was favorable to Trump, he was stuffed (because his testimony would have conflicted with the other witnesses’ testimony and thus he would have exposed himself to perjury), and yet if he told the truth, he was also stuffed (because his testimony would have conflicted with his previous testimony, which again would have exposed him to perjury).

In the end, he tried to juggle his way out of both. He was quite clever, really. He implicated everyone in Trump’s circle, hinting that if he was going to go down then everyone else was going to go down as well; he stated that the reason why his testimony had been inconsistent and patchy was because he had been blocked by the Trump administration and the State Department in his attempts to access the documents and readouts he needed in order to “jog his memory”; and perhaps most interestingly, he testified that he had had numerous phone calls with Trump, but somehow couldn’t remember what was said in them. This last bit is interesting because I have the impression that he was telling Trump directly that if Trump ever decides to throw him under the bus, then he may well start remembering those phone calls after all.

It is similar to what Rudy Giuliani is currently doing. He has been going around telling the media that he has no concerns that Trump will throw him under the bus because he has “an insurance policy”. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if everyone implicated in the bribery scandal has been telling Trump the same thing: if we go down, we are going to take you down with us.

In any case, Sondland dutifully gave Trump what he wanted in his testimony, which was a loud clear statement confirming that Trump had told him over the phone that there was “NO QUID PRO QUO". This gave Trump the sound bite he needed that could be played endlessly by Fox News and Breitbart and echo through all of the other Trump propaganda outlets. This is why Trump was "pleased" with his testimony.

For example, Gordon Sondland testified that there was a “quid pro quo” between the U.S. and Ukraine, even though he said that Trump had specifically explained to him that there wasn't. So when he said there was a “quid pro quo” he was in fact only giving his own personal opinion. Sondland later went on to say that his statement that there was a "quid pro quo" was a presumption. This is what the media reported as a "bombshell".

No, the “bombshell” was that Sondland (a) testified that he had spoken to Trump by phone (on an unsecured mobile in a Ukraine restaurant no less) and during that call Trump had specifically asked him about the “investigations” into the Bidens, thus demonstrating that Trump was indeed very involved in the whole bribery scandal, and (b) he implicated all of Trump’s senior officials - Pompeo, Mulvaney, Pence, etc - in the scandal, thus implying that the whole thing was a coordinated affair from the very top.

The “presumption” part barely rated a mention, at least not in the serious media outlets that I read. This sounds more like a Fox News talking point to me, something that they made up in order to try and discredit the non-right media.

Again, with the way you describe these events, I have the strong impression that you are getting most of your information about the impeachment inquiry in a filtered fashion via the distorting lens of your favourite right-wing news sites, which, I presume, still includes the sewer known as Breitbart.

[Rhett]

I see it the other way. The extinction of the species is final; there is no coming back from that. Totalitarian regimes, on the other hand, are fragile and temporary; there is always the possibility that they can be overthrown and liberty can be restored.

It’s a no-brainer, really.

So, you have strong, solid evidence, that Trump will cause a global nuclear holocaust?

[Rhett]

What Rhett wrote about his experience sounds about right.

Rhett comes across as a kooky beta-male with anger issues and a desperate need to exert control. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the “dark communities” he speaks about were, in fact, perfectly ordinary communities that one might find anywhere in Australia and that the grief he experienced from them was generated by his own kooky behaviour.

Your hypothesis doesnt match the very limited data here (except yes, i do value control. If you arent in control, you are out of control, which is a beta state). Are you going to test your hypothesis with proper research? I have evidence that will refute it. Do you see yourself as an exemplar or critic of the scientific method?

Is this the beginning of a smear campaign? I started posting again here and almost immediately you have made nasty personal attacks. Are you angry? Where did the nice guy i used to know go? Why are you so hung up about worldly issues? Why are you hinging relationships on political views?

I am not interested in answers to any of these questions. This is a thread about Trump.

[Pam Seeback]

David Quinn about Rhett: Rhett comes across as a kooky beta-male with anger issues and a desperate need to exert control.

This could easily be a Trump tweet.

Rhett to David Quinn re the above: Is this the beginning of a smear campaign? I started posting again here and almost immediately you have made nasty personal attacks. Are you angry? Where did the nice guy i used to know go? Why are you so hung up about worldly issues? Why are you hinging relationships on political views?

Is this the beginning of a smear campaign? I started posting again here and almost immediately you have made nasty personal attacks. Are you angry? Where did the nice guy i used to know go? Why are you so hung up about worldly issues? Why are you hinging relationships on political views?

Perhaps David could use this wisdom pearl from Nietzsche - "If you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you."

[David Quinn]

I see it the other way. The extinction of the species is final; there is no coming back from that. Totalitarian regimes, on the other hand, are fragile and temporary; there is always the possibility that they can be overthrown and liberty can be restored.

It’s a no-brainer, really.

So, you have strong, solid evidence, that Trump will cause a global nuclear holocaust?

You mean, aside from his ignorance, recklessness, vindictiveness and all-round insanity?

No, of course I have no solid evidence that he will cause a global nuclear holocaust. How can I? There are far too many variables for anyone to be able to make such a prediction.

But given his psychology, I wouldn't put it past him. There is a dark streak of self-destructiveness in Trump's psyche, one that dovetails into his psychological addiction to recklessness and brinkmanship. The reason why he can afford to be so reckless all of the time is because a large part of him simply doesn't care if it all goes pear-shaped and he gets destroyed by it.

So I can easily imagine that if and when his presidency starts going down the toilet and he is staring at the prospect of being stripped from power, he could decide to take the whole world down with him. He has that in him.

In any case, the discussion with Kevin on this particular subject has been more to do with the (very real) environmental crisis, rather than an imagined nuclear holocaust.

Is this the beginning of a smear campaign? I started posting again here and almost immediately you have made nasty personal attacks. Are you angry? Where did the nice guy i used to know go?

I'm still that nice guy, but I like to troll sometimes. Get used to it.

Why are you so hung up about worldly issues? Why are you hinging relationships on political views?

From my perspective, there is no such thing as politics, at bottom. Everything boils down to character and quality of thought. It is those things that I hinge my relationships on.

[David Quinn]

David Quinn about Rhett: Rhett comes across as a kooky beta-male with anger issues and a desperate need to exert control.

This could easily be a Trump tweet.

It's too thoughtful and well-constructed. If it was a Trump tweet it would read something like:

• Little Kooky Rhett is a loser!! Many people are saying it (not just me!), we all remember what Kelly Jones said (wink, wink). Even she was a bigger man than he was. LOSER!!

Rhett to David Quinn re the above: Is this the beginning of a smear campaign? I started posting again here and almost immediately you have made nasty personal attacks. Are you angry? Where did the nice guy i used to know go? Why are you so hung up about worldly issues? Why are you hinging relationships on political views?

Is this the beginning of a smear campaign? I started posting again here and almost immediately you have made nasty personal attacks. Are you angry? Where did the nice guy i used to know go? Why are you so hung up about worldly issues? Why are you hinging relationships on political views?

Perhaps David could use this wisdom pearl from Nietzsche - "If you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you."

Having participated in this thread for the past few days, I can certainly relate to that quote.