Trump

[phil]

p1.
(This is a re-write to the best of my recollection. post never posted)

OK, when it comes to modern politics, we must be aware that all administrations and politicians carefully direct specific information depending on the audience. So I have a hunch from perusing posts on this topic that much of what is going on for instance on American television may not make it elsewhere/everywhere. For instance there is a cartoon possibly called the political circus of american circus, no-holds barred bashing and attempts to shame many Trump administration and Democratic personel, and its practically real time. Now besides the obvious, here in the USA it and other poli-comedy basher programs is intended (besides making primarily republicans look bad) to calm the base, the activists and voters, so as not to take the real political circus too seriously, keep violence to a minimum, and perhaps most importantly - if the rest of the world sees how our leadership tolerates being ridiculed by their constituents maybe they will follow suite in time and become less intense about such things. Also it is harder to believe that under these circumstances that an administration would be out for blood or war, important as comedy is for us here.
No doubt the content of news out of America is carefully selected when it goes beyond US borders thus what one might see and hear in India could be very different from the picture an average AUSTRALIAN gets of say Mr Trump.
Something to keep in mind.

Also, despite what it may seem out there away from the States, Trump answers to a great deal to the Republican party, they tell him shoot Iran, he does it. Worries about one man alone starting some major military nightmare are unfounded.
Trump is not from a military background and knows better than to use excessive force, in fact he wants to win over people with his charm and his word's worth as a business man. His interests are economic world prosperity, which requires people to get along and trust each other. Kevin is correct to say (did he say) that having Trump in the oval office for a time could be a very good thing, a shaking up. It has always been best for this country to ossilate from liberal to conservative presidents, though 4 more years could be very risky, imho. I hope he can achieve what he intended in this last year on capital hill.

Even if Trump is no longer president, being president has placed him in some potentially ideal circumstances, meaning economic growth not only for his portfolio but i believe he will continue to act on behalf of prosperity and the business of doing business as far reaching as possible.

But, Kevin, you mentioned he's what is it - anti-feminist and anti-SJW - Are you , is anyone aware what he has accomplished in these areas?? thanks
end p1



p2

For the worryers like David Quinn (the sky is falling!) take comfort in the following.
President Trump is highly controlled by the GOP or Republican party. There is not much he would do witout their consent, they own him.
Worst still (for him) he works with a divided congress, and without both HOR (house of reps) and the Senate concurring (which they rarely do) there is not a lot he can change, believe it or not.

Perhaps in Australia and other allied nations this President is pictured as having as much power to change things in the USA and the world as he has words to pontificate about them, but this is just to make a certain impression.
Stop basing things on much that is openly expressed - such rhetoric is meant to brainwash the multitudes.

You would be surprised what goes on when Trump meets up with the heads of other nations.
For Instance: " Hey glorious NK leader, what do you say we work together to ensure mutual economic prosperity. Lets make some secret verbal agreements and then we both can go back and tell the mobs that WE came out on top! Let's let them think we hate each other if that's what they prefer, but little by little lets be men of our words, trust each other and not divulge the quality of our friendship until the time is right, ok deal! "

Trump is about the mighty dollar. He is not out of the military. Trump wants to be the guy that ushers in a golden age of world economic prosperity, and if not then at least back at home.
Trump probably hit Iran recently at the urging of his party and other living presidents. He knows he is not the guy to make trigger decisions. Here he just does what he's told to order. All presidents like to make at least one or two shows of power during their presidency. To be able to take out a specific person may demonstrate advanced military capabilities, and says to each man standing "you live because I allow it".

more on next post

[phil]

Should be part 3


There is a long range secret Plan in the works for the nations and peoples of the world. One can imagine what it might be.
Presidents and high ranking and high minded citizens of the planet meet now and then and discuss how what we got now is going to adapt or fit or blend into what we hope to have later. Since the majority of the details of the Plan must be kept secret, what our governments do today or tomorrow may not seem like the best idea to the average onlooker.
(Why do you think no one has cared at all about the escalating USA national debt since the days of Clinton)

The environment: As I understand it, the concern is over-heating. Just a few degrees not like 50 degrees correct?
Well isn't it true that heating and cooling cycles have been a constant fixture of the planet? Wasn't the top half of Trumps America covered in ice 10,000 of so years ago. And didn't things warm up and might still be warming up. In other words the switch to a southerly moving cold cycle just hasn't happened yet? I hope to receive some feedback with this one.

The ocean doesn't stay at the same shoreline century after century. That's a fantasy. There are places under water now that used to be not under water. There are places that are dry that used to be under water. Back and forth it goes.

Regardless, if there is one painful truth that has become established as fact in my mind it's that we humans only change at the precipice. What that means for the air and even the water is that they will probably become a lot worse before becoming better. Perhaps when New York begins looking like Venice.......

And as to the Impeachment, what we are getting over here is that the Democratic led HOR knew they had the votes to impeach long before the formalities, but without the Republican majority Senate agreeing it's a no go, right?

So it is obvious to me that the Dems went through with it all to try to gain a few swing voters in November which might be all they need to win the high seat back.
I don't think they can Impeach without the senates majority, but most senators are on the presidents team.
Correct me if I am wrong.

Incidentally, I would think that in this computer age, that it would be rather simple to control the outcome, and it is possible that no matter the actual votes, that the people who truly run the country run the calculations and have decided long before election day whose going to win. After all, in a situation where millions of ill-informed and biased people are voting, isn't this so merely to give the population the feeling they control their own destiny? And there fore are responsible for their choices (i.e. forfeit any right to revolt).

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hi Phil, could you introduce your self perhaps a bit? You sounded familiar with the forum before.

here is a long range secret Plan in the works for the nations and peoples of the world. One can imagine what it might be.

If they told you about there being a plan, it's not really a secret plan any more, right?

Presidents and high ranking and high minded citizens of the planet meet now and then and discuss how what we got now is going to adapt or fit or blend into what we hope to have later. Since the majority of the details of the Plan must be kept secret, what our governments do today or tomorrow may not seem like the best idea to the average onlooker.

If so many well connected, public figures are involved, do you think perhaps some friends or family would talk about the secret? Or some disagreements might arise like they always do? If they're still discussing there's also no plan yet right?

(Why do you think no one has cared at all about the escalating USA national debt since the days of Clinton)

Debt is part of the economical system and usually represents how much growth or liquidity in the future is projected. Some doubt this growth.

The environment: As I understand it, the concern is over-heating. Just a few degrees not like 50 degrees correct?

Those few degrees are only global averages. This translates in more extreme fluctuations locally (like a country or state) and also changing weather patterns which will affect agriculture, flooding, drought conditions, animal habitat, smog alerts and so much more. Even changing global temperature is in itself not an issue but the projected speed of 50-100 years would not provide much time to adapt. And where to go if problems are everywhere at once?

Well isn't it true that heating and cooling cycles have been a constant fixture of the planet?

Even if there would have been short, fast peaks globally, it was in a time without billions of people and all our infrastructure and interlinked systems sitting there, most of which is not that great, especially in developing countries where most people actually live.

After all, in a situation where millions of ill-informed and biased people are voting, isn't this so merely to give the population the feeling they control their own destiny? And there fore are responsible for their choices (i.e. forfeit any right to revolt).

Democracy as a system has a few well known flaws and you are describing one of them. Perhaps a requirement should be that issues must be explained way better to the voters. But times are changing, more and more people want to make up their own mind on events even when these events and topics are in fact often very complex and would demand a lot of knowledge and experience to begin to understand the finer details. Not everything can be "boiled down". And this is where we are now: we demand stuff to be explained and proven but nobody wants to get a head ache. Perhaps it's the fall-out of our consumer mindset.

[phil]

What do I do, just type like this between your paragraphs and the system takes care of the rest?

Hi Phil, could you introduce your self perhaps a bit? You sounded familiar with the forum before.

I'm Phillip Springer from USA, you sound familiar but from a different forum ages ago, the forum is new to me, i seperated currently have two kids and a dog well my daughter has the dog my sons still in school but my daughter at 17 has graduated.
Nice to meet you all.

Incidentally, could any one point me to threads in this forum if tghere are any ,related to dealing with some of childers more dificult questions if you know what I mean. :)
What about you my man, I take you are all/most/some enlightened geniuses?

here is a long range secret Plan in the works for the nations and peoples of the world. One can imagine what it might be.

If they told you about there being a plan, it's not really a secret plan any more, right?

Diebert, I didnt say any one told me, i dont think.

Presidents and high ranking and high minded citizens of the planet meet now and then and discuss how what we got now is going to adapt or fit or blend into what we hope to have later. Since the majority of the details of the Plan must be kept secret, what our governments do today or tomorrow may not seem like the best idea to the average onlooker.

If so many well connected, public figures are involved, do you think perhaps some friends or family would talk about the secret? Or some disagreements might arise like they always do? If they're still discussing there's also no plan yet right?

(Why do you think no one has cared at all about the escalating USA national debt since the days of Clinton)

Debt is part of the economical system and usually represents how much growth or liquidity in the future is projected. Some doubt this growth.

ok

The environment: As I understand it, the concern is over-heating. Just a few degrees not like 50 degrees correct?

Those few degrees are only global averages. This translates in more extreme fluctuations locally (like a country or state) and also changing weather patterns which will affect agriculture, flooding, drought conditions, animal habitat, smog alerts and so much more. Even changing global temperature is in itself not an issue but the projected speed of 50-100 years would not provide much time to adapt. And where to go if problems are everywhere at once?

Diebert; Well Im no statistician but that seems as likely as winning the Lotto

Well isn't it true that heating and cooling cycles have been a constant fixture of the planet?

Even if there would have been short, fast peaks globally, it was in a time without billions of people and all our infrastructure and interlinked systems sitting there, most of which is not that great, especially in developing countries where most people actually live.

Diebert: Yes that is concerning, but those glaciers move up and down so damn slow, its happened several times in the last centuries down over northern north America, tghen the melt all the way back up.
Maybe these big icebergs that are sliding into the north oceans are merely the tail end of the current warming period. Maybe in 10 years the ice sheet will be heading down approaching Montreal with plenty of time to relocate people.

After all, in a situation where millions of ill-informed and biased people are voting, isn't this so merely to give the population the feeling they control their own destiny? And there fore are responsible for their choices (i.e. forfeit any right to revolt).

Democracy as a system has a few well known flaws and you are describing one of them. Perhaps a requirement should be that issues must be explained way better to the voters. But times are changing, more and more people want to make up their own mind on events even when these events and topics are in fact often very complex and would demand a lot of knowledge and experience to begin to understand the finer details. Not everything can be "boiled down". And this is where we are now: we demand stuff to be explained and proven but nobody wants to get a head ache. Perhaps it's the fall-out of our consumer mindset.

Yes

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What do I do, just type like this between your paragraphs and the system takes care of the rest?

Read this because it's hard to read if quotations do not appear to separate the people. If quoting fails, better perhaps not to quote at all and just repeat or rephrase instead, in my opinion.

Incidentally, could any one point me to threads in this forum if tghere are any ,related to dealing with some of childers more dificult questions if you know what I mean. :)

I think you might be looking for another kind of place. Even if there would be information, I would not take any advice on children from any one here. Kids ask a lot of times "why". Which is what this forum is also for, yes, philo-sophy!

What about you my man, I take you are all/most/some enlightened geniuses?

Me, I'm just a local mortician letting others dig their own graves around here.

If they told you about there being a plan, it's not really a secret plan any more, right?

Diebert, I didnt say any one told me, i dont think.

If nobody told you, or at least told the ones who told you, then you couldn't really know that there was a plan! As your claim was: "There is a long range secret Plan in the works for the nations and peoples of the world". Please try a bit harder!

Those few degrees are only global averages. This translates in more extreme fluctuations locally (like a country or state) and also changing weather patterns which will affect agriculture, flooding, drought conditions, animal habitat, smog alerts and so much more. Even changing global temperature is in itself not an issue but the projected speed of 50-100 years would not provide much time to adapt. And where to go if problems are everywhere at once?

Diebert; Well Im no statistician but that seems as likely as winning the Lotto

If you don't understand the mathematics at a basic level then why wonder about the numbers of climate science? If the average of a globe is a few degrees higher there will be many places with very big problems across that globe. What I meant is not that one individual wouldn't be able to find a better spot but more that populations could not migrate to a place with lesser problems that easy. What perhaps still was possible in the past.

Maybe these big icebergs that are sliding into the north oceans are merely the tail end of the current warming period. Maybe in 10 years the ice sheet will be heading down approaching Montreal with plenty of time to relocate people.

Such "tail end" still could be problematic on our time scales. Relocation of some town or coastline is possible but the problems are defined as being likely too many at too many places because of the global effects. However, we still need to see many of the predicted extremes starting to happen. The question is more that by that point, it could be way too late to turn the dial back. This is the climate change conundrum.

[phil]

Ok thanks for the procedural tip, dont laugh if I botch it.

If nobody told you, or at least told the ones who told you, then you couldn't really know that there was a plan! As your claim was: "There is a long range secret Plan in the works for the nations and peoples of the world". Please try a bit harder!

Well how could there not be!
Isn't that someones job.
Along with short range plans i would expect.

p

[jupiviv]

Well I have two problems with your position. First, it's not really your position.

It is indeed my position. The charges made against Trump are supposed to be "high crimes", but they aren't even crimes - even if the charges were true - which they don't appear to be.

They are crimes. BTW, *both* in a general-ethical sense and under US law. The manner in which you dispute that position doesn't indicate a single counter-position so much as multiple positions about different things (e.g. what source/s of info you want to trust) which are supposed to vindicate your general disagreement with said position and the things ascribed thereto.

So no, you don't have a position on this issue, at least not one I can discern. You don't even have sufficient basic knowledge about the issue, for example, what things like "law" and "impeachment" mean.

I don't think he has. What is your definition of "racist". He naturally won't apologize if he hasn't done anything wrong.

One recent noteworthy example is telling immigrant Congresspeople to go back to their countries of origin if they don't like the US.

I don't think that's racist or bigoted. He's telling people that if they prefer a culture from another country - possibly a country they come from, or their family comes from, or which they identify with, then they would be best off going to that country. It's a fairly sensible position.

That's not what he said. Not liking the US isn't liking everything that isn't the US or wanting to go there. Besides even your own inaccurate representation of the sentiment is xenophobic, although not necessarily racist. There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting one thing to become more like another thing, and thinking otherwise is not only irrational but hilariously self-contradictory in your case given your own writings about humans and their societies.

Telling people expressing aforesaid want/s to go back where they came from, not to mention assuming they naturally belong therein, whether on the basis of birth, appearance, "culture", etc., is blatantly irrational in any context. I don't naturally belong to Kolkata, Bokaro, Nellore, Allahabad and Delhi, as opposed to where I currently live, any more than you naturally belong to Tasmania as opposed to Dingo Creek or whatever Asstrayan town that isn't in Tasmania that you grew up in. Moreover, the naturalness of my existence in any place, culture etc. has no inherent relationship whatsoever to my approval of same. If a lawmaker, let alone a head-of-state, tells me or people in my position otherwise I'm 100% justified in judging her to be a dangerous figure who should be removed from office and rightfully so.

That is classic racist language . . .

I don't believe in the existence of "racist language". There is racism, which is "prejudice based on race", but words can't be racist, because they can't be prejudiced. Words can't think.

That isn't what "racist language" means. Prejudice and meaning can't think either, but exist nevertheless because they are caused by other things. Likewise for racist words and language, which are often caused by various kinds of racism, although in some rare cases they are wrongly thought to be so due to ignorance, delusion, cruelty, error etc.

How do you know what Clinton "obviously believes" from one comment she made 3 years ago?

Saying that half of Trump supporters are irredeemably deplorable, is very specific. She didn't say "Trump supporters", only "half of them". I don't think she would have said this if she didn't believe it was at least roughly true.

That isn't what "specific" means. Within the context of Hillary's full statement, as well as the amendment shortly following it, "half" is no more specific than "less than half" or "all", because she didn't apply it to a quantity. Moreover, even in her original speech, she explicitly prefaced her comments about Trump supporters by saying they might well be "grossly generalistic". It seems to me, given the lack of information, that the most sensible conclusion is she meant "half" as a figure of speech, as in "Trump supporters [whoever or however many they are] may be deplorable or non-deplorable".

She didn't specify whatsoever how many or what group/type of people comprise each of the "halves".

In the context of what she had been talking about, her "deplorables" comment at least referred to the so-called "alt-right", and anti-feminists like Milo, and Gamergate - which, ironically, was mostly left-wing.

If she was only referring to the alt-right I 100% agree with her. The overwhelming majority of them are deplorably irrational and immoral. You can say the same of fanatical Hillary supporters, but you can't call Hillary a uniquely bad politician for not voicing valid criticisms of her own supporters.

If I already have an opinion, and have verified that it is true, then what the media says doesn't make any real difference.

I know. That is why you are deeply deluded, or at least totally ignorant about the nature of empirical knowledge.

I don't regard the media to be an authority on empirical matters. It is mostly fake news.

Invalid empirical claim.

The notion that things are of "equal" or "different" value based on specific, isolated attributes makes no sense to me.

I don't believe that. You know that more money will buy you more things than less money. More money has more value when it comes to buying food.

Sure, but you've affirmed my argument. Quantity and utility in the purchase of food are attributes combining within a certain context to determine the value of money, as opposed to doing so noumenally, in a vacuum. Likewise other attributes/things.

Men are generally better at sport than women, which is why men's and women's sports are separate.

Category error. Men's considerably genetically superior average physical strength and stamina doesn't inherently determine the quality of their sports. There are divisions *within* the sports done by either gender; the evaluation of such can be and often is largely unrelated to physical or technical proficiency per se. If someone goes running everyday and considers that to be a "sport", and values it more highly than Olympic-standard endurance running, she isn't necessarily wrong to do so.

All of the groups I mention tend to think that all cultures are of equal value, except that their own culture is superior to all others, and that other cultures should be eliminated by force.

Doesn't make sense.

That's right, it doesn't make sense. That's why I don't believe in their "equality". Their "equality" is a lie. In reality they believe they are superior.

It doesn't not make sense because those groups believe in equality, which is indeed a lie just as much as anything deluded humans believe in or think about, like hierarchies, truth, value etc. It is your characterisation of them that is deluded, mendacious nonsense. Not only do the groups you mentioned not subscribe, in general, to the nonsensical definition of equality you have provided; they do not even share an identical definition of equality, let alone a common worldview.

. . .you haven't explained why it is inherently wrong for a govt employee to undermine their govt.

Public servants are employed by the government to serve the government. If they can't do the job they are paid to do, for any reason, then they should lose that job. They can work against the government if they want to, if they don't mind being sacked, and if they want to undermine the functioning of democracy.

Firstly, there is nothing inherently irrational or immoral about acting against a government or its interests regardless of whether one is employed by it or whether such actions are lawful. Secondly, the govt. employee in question wasn't acting against their government or its interests under the laws of that government.

[jupiviv]

The article says it plays/ed a role.

The snoops article reads "the law did not launch the massive rise in the prison population". Which I quoted as "mostly debunking" the claim that Biden was instrumental in the doubling since it shows the pre-existing trends and only in a limited way the law had some causal link. Plus it funded "other programs and made changes aimed at keeping people out of prison". This is the opposite of "instrumental", namely: not instrumental.

Yeah I don't see how a limited causal link is so distinct from playing a role or being instrumental that we need have a semantic argument about it. Especially when it concerns this guy.

Unrest of any kind often includes intent to change the structure of govt./society = abuse of democratic process acc to your def.

But what have sprawling, disrupting, often violent riots to do with any democratic process? This discussion was about for example voting in to power some kind of reformist party suggesting to change the foundations of the democratic process.

Because they have been historically deeply instrumental in shaping the development of various forms of democracy both extant and past.

In the end in '68 another election was held and the result was a massive victory for conservative powers.

Due to a mix of crackdowns, concessions, abuse of power etc. by the govt. & ruling party, both of which were subsequently restructured - hence illustrating my point.

Nobody challenged the fairness of those elections so your point is wholly imaginary; the riots however were actually abusive and illegal, by law!

Yes you imagined my point about the 69 elections being unfair. Speaking of which, a political movement #winning after kicking out the guy it's named after isn't exactly business-as-usual.

Crime has to be defined by more than criminal law for criminal law not to be the Mother of All.

But laws are a good way to agree on things without relying on feelings of the day, bribery, fashion, moral whims, mob justice and so on.

Une minorite a la ligne revolutionnaire correcte n'est pas une minorite. Anyway, within the context of wisdom, which by definition should be the *only* context, all laws that are created by deluded beings for deluded ends have no moral or rational bases remotely acceptable to wise men. Observance of them should be guided by hygiene alone.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

They are crimes. BTW, *both* in a general-ethical sense and under US law.

You mean charges of course, but never mind that. High crimes and misdemeanor are really about gross misconduct, if the Senate decided they, in fact, are deserving of the term. Until then, there are no crimes whatsoever at least in the context of the trial.

And what's a "general-ethical" crime? Something against the Democrat Party commandments of decency? Because only members of that party seems to be have the membership card to the right ethical behavior here, as nobody else is upset. Or you're implying it in any case. Unless you want to say the politics trump everything, which of course, we should apply across the board

Yeah I don't see how a limited causal link is so distinct from playing a role or being instrumental that we need have a semantic argument about it.

So you win by redefining language and shift the meanings so that "instrumental" now means "limited causal link" or "playing some role".

It's called: being in the funnel. It would be simpler just to concede the point and admit there was little to no evidence for the big claim.

[riots] have been historically deeply instrumental in shaping the development of various forms of democracy both extant and past.

There's' no freedom to riot in the so-called free countries either. Did you forget perhaps the original point? That free speech just like democracy promotes the very means of endangering it. Like a misguided population voting and supporting a government which moves to restrict democracy by law. Or free speech allowing hate to spread, including calls to limit free speech or forbid it. Nothing here was about breaking laws or windows.

Anyway, within the context of wisdom, which by definition should be the *only* context, all laws that are created by deluded beings for deluded ends have no moral or rational bases remotely acceptable to wise men. Observance of them should be guided by hygiene alone.

Same goes for calling anything racist then I suppose? Of did you mean feeling instead of personal hygiene?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Some articles of interest from the news and opinion pages (is there a difference still?). In general I like to see many different viewpoints written from all perspectives.This is about the internal dialectic, which is always a healthy sign to see included. The world is now simply too complex for singular absolute or static view on politics, climate or economy. One needs always to reflect on all the relevant angles.

Trump’s Art of the Steal (Politico editorial)

This, regardless of whatever else it is or means, is a remarkable and undeniable talent: hoovering others’ ideas, making them his, and in doing so growing a following uniquely his own that far exceeds the size of the even considerable original audience. It’s what got him elected. In some ways, too, it’s what got him impeached.

Trump Acts Like a Politician. That’s Not an Impeachable Offense. (Opinion piece in The New York Times)
Some Texas law professor arguing that politicians and presidents always are looking at their (re-)election in their politics and will opt for actions that can potentially benefit a nation and their own standing. It's not automatically abuse.

Impeachment: Republicans are in the tank for Trump, but Democrats aren't impartial, either (Zimmerman prof. history at Uni Pennsylvania)

Even so, should the president be removed for what he did? That’s a question of values, not of facts. And to remain true to my own values, I need to say what would change my mind about it?

This last article introduces an important element within all reason and especial the open-ended scientific approach. For a view to remain sound it needs to offer its own means to remain challengeable and falsifiable. In other words, it needs to include conditions for its own overturning.

[OneAware]

In the beginning of Mr. Trump's presidency, I advised him on Facebook a few times, he in turn thanked me by offering me out to dinner in which I declined considering I don't live in the U.S. I have no qualms about Mr. Trump, despite what he's said or done under pressure. In fact I admire him despite the world's judgement of him. But, suffice it to say I watched a video of a young "Trump" stating "I will be the President of the United States one day" The man has confidence in himself, he's a positive entity.

Mr. Trump endures world hatred of him, people's criticisms, and scrutinies, but he dishes it out ten-fold, he holds up quite well under the mighty pressure. One wonders the percentage of people for him and the percentage against him.

[phil]

Ok. The Impeachment attempt today, well before today as well.

It seems that there is not sufficient evidence to Impeach (at least not at this point like 1pm EST Jan 28, 2020).
It seems that calling in Bolton as a witness will amount to nothing and end up being worse for the House and its managers.
It is possible that the House Managers have been tricked. They were to find the NYT supposed Bolton book manuscript, and chase down the lead all the way - if necessary to protect the President - to the floor of Impeachment Hall.
There trust in Bolton is misplaced and designed.
It seems that permitting witnesses will not help at all.
It will just backfire and make the President appear fully examined and cleared.
At best the President gets a warning (later on) for looking out for him self on the job, essentially.
It's possible that the best thing the House Managers can do at this point, or as soon as allowed by the rules governing the tribunal of sorts, is essentially throw in the towel and apologize for essentially possessing insufficient evidence.
It appears that the House democrats are as they say out of their league with this one.
Proving all they are claiming to have proven is very difficult.
It barely matters what a witness claims to know.

What else?
Any questions?
Phil

[phil]

Allow me to add:

You cannot prosecute the President under USA law for bribing, or the like, a Ukrainian citizen.
At worst he may be punished - a warning - if it is proven that he held back funds for personal gain reasons.
Good luck proving that.

I'm not at top form, I apologize.
Phil

[phil]

On the other hand;

If the GOP wishes to replace their own president (with an actual politician that could not get elected but now serves as vice-president) well - here's their chance to do so.
No?
After serving as new president for several months, he may grow on the people and snatch the next election!
Back to all politicians in the White House.

[phil]

An Impeachable Offense is: Anything the President does that makes 67 or more Senators dislike him/her so much that they no longer will serve under him/her, and consequently force him to resign (in practice - since no president will stick around to be impeached).

[Flanker27S]

Back in 2016, I told my wife: "See, Trump is going to be either impeached or reelected, there's no middle ground".
And it turns out that he may well do both. Because the Democrats won't go for Bernie as an opponent to Trump, and every other Democrat candidate has the charisma of a cheap hot dog, and apart from Tulsi Gabbard who's Bernie-lite, they're all statu quo centrists who haven't understood that Hillary lost because she was a statu quo centrist.

But well, it looks to me like American politics just revolves around which face you want to see on TV, and whether you like, or dislike, gay people and marijuana. Because every other policy - economics, wars and imperialism, diplomacy... - is either going to be the same no matter whether you're voting Democrat or Republican (as Trump criticized Obama's aggressivity, but still bombed Syria and threatened Iran): the losing side will scream about how the winning side is establishing a Stalinist (if Democrats win)/Nazi (if Republicans win) dictatorship, Middle Eastern countries are going to get bombed, and Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman shareholders are going to drive in Lamborghinis and buy themselves things like this French Riviera real estate.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

An Impeachable Offense is: Anything the President does that makes 67 or more Senators dislike him/her so much that they no longer will serve under him/her, and consequently force him to resign (in practice - since no president will stick around to be impeached).

You are confusing impeachment with conviction on the articles of said impeachment, which then can lead to the removal from office. Perhaps just see impeachment as a serious question mark placed by the House and a conviction or subsequent removal as the answer or exclamation mark by the Senate. It also serves as a party's perceived duty to their voters.

As it stands now the impeachment procedure forced many Senators to take a stand or vote, potentially influencing their own state elections coming up. In some cases this could influence the Democrat presence in the Senate during the next presidency, which is probably where strategist in the Democrat camp are betting on right now, not just the idea of "removal" although they might hope some new dirt could emerge.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

... apart from Tulsi Gabbard who's Bernie-lite, they're all status quo centrists who haven't understood that Hillary lost because she was a status quo centrist.

US elections are increasingly decided by influencing independent, non-committed voter blocks without affiliation or many of the usual concerns like health care and taxes. Within this block there's a growing anti-interventionist, anti-conflict voting group which merged with some of the pro-capitalist, pro-trade reform block. Since the 2016 elections it seems this non-committed block has shrunk a bit because of increasing polarization: a chuck of non-committed voters have now the mind-set "everything but Trump" and others denounce the failed attempts to block Trump's presidency so far and interpret that as anti-democratic. Because of this shrinking group we saw in 2018 the Democrats win back the House comfortably.

However as you described, the Democrat party is heavily fragmented and the vast array of view on the political Left seems not to fit one large party any more, as there's a lack of a unifying thought or idea. This fragmentation was already there in 2008 but Obama was a unifying figure without tainted past who emanated the idea that he would find always the sane, human compromise. His African roots in themselves might already presented a more radical tone, as being the first one, a revolutionary by color!

But Obama's presence actually managed to hide a party system in decline. After Obama failed to change anything with regards to the ongoing wars and interventions, combined with the fall-out of the global banking crisis, the disillusionment only grew. So where are we today? The Clinton-Biden grip on the party establishment is being challenged and fragmentation increases like Tulsi Gabbard filing her $50 million defamation lawsuit against Clinton. She seems to be throwing her support to the Bernie campaign and they are natural partners.

But well, it looks to me like American politics just revolves around which face you want to see on TV,

This understanding is the reason Trump got an edge in 2016 although, according to leading Facebook experts, the unprecedented high quality Facebook campaign helped as well. Perhaps it's simply the realization that reason or fact has little to do with any vote outcome, at least not in great numbers. Politics across the isle always was about grandstanding and exaggeration but we all moved to (or realized the truth) that a voting population is steered mostly by imagery alone -- feelings invoked by images and associations. The problem for the Democrat Party or many of their voters, is that they like to believe that isn't so or at least that it isn't as much their way. That's a mistake.

[phil]

Right Diebert, yes I meant removed from office. He was indeed impeached.

Oh, and by the way, some red thing came up a while back, if that was about something I wrote poorly allow me now to apologize if anyone was offended, i don't recall what i wrote, probably trying to be funny at someones expense, forgive me please.
If you think that was harsh, check out the Comedy channel's occasional "Roast" of the more fortunate actors primarily.
One of the ideas is to toughen each others hide, burns from comrades that love and respect you ideally, and if they don't...well who gives a fuk what they think, right.

---------

Things don't change very much over here, no matter who is presiding. For those who don't know, on occasion the sides deadlock and the government actually shuts down for a time, unreal. Sure beats another civil war.
Anyway the name of that Showtime program is actually Our Cartoon President. Can you out-of-towners get it? Hope so.
Hilarious.

Here in the States we've learned to laugh at our problems, seems to be working well at keeping violence to a minimum.
Beats crying too.

It's a pity so many potentially excellent minds don't dare go into politics, that it only attracts...well you know.
There are plenty of them.

Seems likely that Bernie may be the voters' favorite this time around. With Warren or Klobuchar vicing the donkeys just might take it back in November.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Oh, and by the way, some red thing came up a while back, if that was about something I wrote poorly allow me now to apologize if anyone was offended, i don't recall what i wrote, probably trying to be funny at someones expense, forgive me please.

I've no idea, Phil. It probably was the automated forum systems picking up on something. Not sure if it ever was visible to anyone.

Seems likely that Bernie may be the voters' favorite this time around. With Warren or Klobuchar vicing the donkeys just might take it back in November.

If Bernie gets momentum, the only chance the Democrats have is to pair him with a major centrist candidate and stress the importance of becoming president for all Americans (and not wait until inauguration). He should separate his socialist background from the position he wants to take as president. If his PR team can get that message across, many voters are desperate enough to believe him and take their chances over Trump II.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This article is interesting as it relates what a once staunch serious lefty Democrat experienced at Trump’s rally in New Hampshire.

Now I do think this article steps way too lightly around the topic of the many "imperfections" of Trump but it does show the role of energy and feeling, including the positive vibes pushing the Trump movement. Now this might be similar to the vibe inside cults and based on a simple illusion but one has to ask the simple question: where's the overarching upbeat, hopeful message of the Democrat party or any other party? In my view, they won't have any because their political views are expired and yet have to renew themselves. Just with opposition speak it can't be done, not in the United States at least. And yes, maybe a major pull toward the radical and revolutionary is needed first. But it will take at least 4 or 8 other years.

[jupiviv]

Jupithustra has, once again, returned to this desert of the unreal to monitor the progress of his first and dearest apostle, Diebert...

They are crimes. BTW, *both* in a general-ethical sense and under US law.

You mean charges of course, but never mind that. High crimes and misdemeanor are really about gross misconduct, if the Senate decided they, in fact, are deserving of the term. Until then, there are no crimes whatsoever at least in the context of the trial.

... and is immediately disappointed. I was talking about the law which the acts of impeachment are based upon not the specific charges that were acquitted. And no it's not "really about gross misconduct" it's about crime, because that is what gross misconduct effectively means in this and all such contexts. The Senate doesn't decide the veracity of the charges, it decides whether or not to pursue them.

And what's a "general-ethical" crime? Something against the Democrat Party commandments of decency? Because only members of that party seems to be have the membership card to the right ethical behavior here, as nobody else is upset. Or you're implying it in any case. Unless you want to say the politics trump everything, which of course, we should apply across the board

Lol how about you read words instead of launching multiple Trumphobia-baiting red herrings hoping for whatever unfathomable reason (given all else I've written about such issues in the only place I've written about them, i.e. this forum) that one of them will trigger me?

Yeah I don't see how a limited causal link is so distinct from playing a role or being instrumental that we need have a semantic argument about it.

So you win by redefining language and shift the meanings so that "instrumental" now means "limited causal link" or "playing some role".

No, the significance of Biden's bill as a cause of mass incarceration is very much moot given you claimed it isn't a cause and the article did.

[riots] have been historically deeply instrumental in shaping the development of various forms of democracy both extant and past.

There's' no freedom to riot in the so-called free countries either.

That's right there isn't. But they have not only occurred but are intricately bound with what "freedom" came to mean in various countries. As are many other activities and attitudes that were once or are still considered illegal, but happened, effected change etc. On the other hand there are also many legally recognised freedoms that are actively suppressed if/when exercising them in a certain way, in a certain context, for good reasons or bad, righteously or malevolently, threatens the regime that legally recognises them as freedoms.

Did you forget perhaps the original point? That free speech just like democracy promotes the very means of endangering it. Like a misguided population voting and supporting a government which moves to restrict democracy by law. Or free speech allowing hate to spread, including calls to limit free speech or forbid it. Nothing here was about breaking laws or windows.

The point I made is demonstrating why your terms of debate are invalid. Free speech, it's provision or implementation, does not and has never functioned in the way you describe.

Anyway, within the context of wisdom, which by definition should be the *only* context, all laws that are created by deluded beings for deluded ends have no moral or rational bases remotely acceptable to wise men. Observance of them should be guided by hygiene alone.

Same goes for calling anything racist then I suppose? Of did you mean feeling instead of personal hygiene?

I'm wise and have decided racists are unhygienic. That my definition and use of the term racism corresponds with that of some deluded people but not others is irrelevant. No one said being deluded means being wrong about everything.

[jupiviv]

And so here we are. The world's out sick, a decadent system of wanton consumption based on shifting the costs thereof to somewhere and someone else for ever and ever, then making stuff up to cover up that simple reality, unravels as I speak. It's a shame Genius forum, its founders and members (except me) were not what they claimed they were, people who value wisdom above all else. Instead they valued the *feeling* of being wise, of having access to special insights, of speaking harsh truths that shock and confuse people, of passing simple, objective judgments about things they can't fully and exhaustively understand after 3 minutes of deep meditation.

They are all silent, now, at a time when wisdom is needed more than ever, because they never had it. They only ever managed to copy the Real Thing. Yet wisdom is silent too, because it lies precisely in the eternal silence of the mind before the real, which never is not. To observe, learn, act and speak without seeking or finding an end, led on by nothing more than a blind, mad faith in the ever-present, ever-absent end and being and birth of all - that is wisdom. Amen.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Jupithustra has, once again, returned to this desert of the unreal

Possibly nothing more than a bad remake though ;-) And actually you sound a bit more nervous and overcompensating than usual.

.... because that is what gross misconduct effectively means in this and all such contexts. The Senate doesn't decide the veracity of the charges, it decides whether or not to pursue them.

No, high crimes & misdemeanor simply means abuse of office. It's not part of the criminal law where crimes are legally defined and upheld by court.

Impeachments work exactly like indictment under criminal law and the Senate acts like the judge or jury, to determine if abuse has taken place.

the significance of Biden's bill as a cause of mass incarceration is very much moot given you claimed it isn't a cause and the article did.

So you forgot that this was about Chris Hedges claiming that Biden was instrumental in the doubling of prison numbers and that I posed a well documented fact check showing convincingly that there was no evidence for that claim at all. And that's what you try to oppose for some reason!

[riots] are intricately bound with what "freedom" came to mean in various countries.

That's just some obscure postulation. It's hardly any argument against my point that free speech is intricately bound to that, meaning that one is free to speak against such freedom. It's a paradoxical but essential feature in my view. If it's sustainable, that's another question. And what is "freedom"?

And so here we are. The world's out sick

Well 0.002% of the population is currently infected with 95% of those experiencing mild symptoms. The frozen economy might be the real sickness.

a decadent system of wanton consumption based on shifting the costs thereof to somewhere and someone else for ever and ever, then making stuff up to cover up that simple reality, unravels as I speak.

The self is a lot like that, too. But do you have something to compare this all with apart from obscure or experimental theories?

It's a shame Genius forum, its founders and members (except me) were not what they claimed they were, people who value wisdom above all else. Instead they valued the *feeling* of being wise, of having access to special insights, of speaking harsh truths that shock and confuse people, of passing simple, objective judgments about things they can't fully and exhaustively understand after 3 minutes of deep meditation.

You wasted a lot of time figuring that out. And what would make that you? The same but worse because nobody even believed they learned something from your own simple, objective judgements. So on the conman-scale, you'd suck way harder. It's more likely that you're really young and angry that you didn't get the superpowers you were after, like all young men desire!

They are all silent, now, at a time when wisdom is needed more than ever, because they never had it.

Perhaps they are silent because they already talked for decades on various media? In 2009 the swine flu infected between 700 million - 1.4 billion and between 151,700-575,400 died globally. It might get worse this time but it has little to do with "wisdom", trying to save the economy or reform it.

What could be interesting though is to map the psychological challenges for those people forced to change social rituals and dependencies.

[Dan Rowden]

And so here we are. The world's out sick, a decadent system of wanton consumption based on shifting the costs thereof to somewhere and someone else for ever and ever, then making stuff up to cover up that simple reality, unravels as I speak. It's a shame Genius forum, its founders and members (except me) were not what they claimed they were, people who value wisdom above all else. Instead they valued the *feeling* of being wise, of having access to special insights, of speaking harsh truths that shock and confuse people, of passing simple, objective judgments about things they can't fully and exhaustively understand after 3 minutes of deep meditation.

They are all silent, now, at a time when wisdom is needed more than ever, because they never had it. They only ever managed to copy the Real Thing. Yet wisdom is silent too, because it lies precisely in the eternal silence of the mind before the real, which never is not. To observe, learn, act and speak without seeking or finding an end, led on by nothing more than a blind, mad faith in the ever-present, ever-absent end and being and birth of all - that is wisdom. Amen.

And, for the record, this is why I couldn't be bothered replying to you in the other main venue thread - you're a lazy, vain, pretentious little twat who can't be bothered reading and absorbing and comprehending any of the wealth of content of this forum.

Have fun sparring with the bureaucrat.