Trump

[Kevin Solway]

Watch one of his campaign rallies and tell me this is not a drivelling narcissist;

Anyone who wants to be president of the U.S is probably going to be a narcissist of some sort, so I don't find that argument persuasive.

And given the amount of success Trump has had, it's hardly surprising that he boasts about it.

The question is, which side is the lesser of two evils? And you know which side I think is currently the lesser of the two evils.

I'm not interested in political opinions, preferences, and diagnosing other people with mental illnesses. I'm only interested in facts.

[Kevin Solway]

Trump Ordered to Pay $2 Million to Charities for Misuse of Foundation

That's good. You need to provide evidence when you accuse someone of a crime.

Unfortunately the punishment they gave him probably won't achieve anything since he'll probably reduce the amount of money he gives to charity elsewhere, to make up for it.

[Kevin Solway]

Regarding the charges of "obstruction", which I think are the best chance the Democrats have of winning the election - poor as it may be . . .

I think that if Mueller had found any compelling, or strong evidence of obstruction, then his report would have focused on that. He would have pinpointed it and made a big deal of it, and not provided distractions from it. By contrast, having discovered that the Russian Conspiracy theory the Democrats have been pushing for three years was a lie, he then tried a "scatter gun" approach, of making many accusations, or suggesting many possible crimes, using the philosophy that if you throw enough shit then some of it might stick.

I think that the majority of the American public will see through this technique. We'll have to wait and see.

[David Quinn]

Trump Ordered to Pay $2 Million to Charities for Misuse of Foundation

That's good. You need to provide evidence when you accuse someone of a crime.

I already provided this evidence weeks ago on this thread.

But you know, thanks for the patronizing advice and the additional smear.

I'm only interested in facts.

No, you're not.

I'm not interested in political opinions, preferences, and diagnosing other people with mental illnesses.

Great, I'll let Greta Thunberg know.

I'm only interested in facts.

No, you're not.

Regarding the charges of "obstruction", which I think are the best chance the Democrats have of winning the election - poor as it may be . . .

I think that if Mueller had found any compelling, or strong evidence of obstruction, then his report would have focused on that.

The obstruction charges in the impeachment article have nothing to do with the Mueller Report.

I'm only interested in facts.

No, you're not.

Anyone who wants to be president of the U.S is probably going to be a narcissist of some sort, so I don't find that argument persuasive.

And given the amount of success Trump has had, it's hardly surprising that he boasts about it.

To my ears, these are the obsequious words of an easy mark who wants to be conned.

But at least you have finally recognized that Trump is a criminal. That's something at least. But it's like trying to draw blood out of a stone.

I'm only interested in facts.

No, you're not.

What you're interested in is losing yourself in buffoonery. That's become crystal clear in your behaviour here. And I think I know why.

[Dan Rowden]

Your 'editing' of interlocutors' (and your own) points is staggering in its intellectual dishonesty.

Show me how I "edited" your fallacious "in plain sight" argument.

I did not.

I simply explained why it is a fallacious argument.

And I don't agree that quoting people is the same as "editing".

When you don't fully quote people you are of necessity, 'editing'. We see you on that score. And you did not 'explain' how my 'in plain sight' point was fallacious. You offered a vacuous analogy that has no intellectual force of any kind, and, as always, rests on an epistemic and evidentiary standard you do not apply to anyone other than your perceived political 'opponents'.

[Dan Rowden]

Watch one of his campaign rallies and tell me this is not a drivelling narcissist;

Anyone who wants to be president of the U.S is probably going to be a narcissist of some sort, so I don't find that argument persuasive.

I'd nominally agree with that, and add that they are likely somewhere on the psychopathy spectrum. But this is a matter of scale. I suspect you privately understand this.

And given the amount of success Trump has had, it's hardly surprising that he boasts about it.

Are you kidding me? Success at what? He's been bankrupt no less than 6 times, got bailed out by Deutsche Bank in the 90s (lots to be observed about that dynamic - hello Wilber Ross). He's a multiple-times proven fraudster and con-man and you think because he remains wealthy he's got something to boast about? Yes, he's been highly successful at manipulating a system that overtly allows for men like him to manipulate it. I'm not sure where your ethical standards went, Kevin, but they've certainly gone somewhere.

The question is, which side is the lesser of two evils? And you know which side I think is currently the lesser of the two evils.

And this is a discussion I think we should be having because it's quite reasonable. And I don't entirely disagree with you about the 'evils' of the intersectionalist, neo-Marxist 'left', but I'm not sure how that specific discussion can advance if you won't concede what an awful person Trump is, because that's become an issue of your current capacity for sound judgement.

I'm not interested in political opinions, preferences, and diagnosing other people with mental illnesses. I'm only interested in facts.

You've always been perfectly interested in assessing other people's level of consciousness and sanity. And for a bloke not interested in political opinions you seem to have quite a few of them. Been dragged kicking and screaming into that dynamic, have you?

[Dan Rowden]

Regarding the charges of "obstruction", which I think are the best chance the Democrats have of winning the election - poor as it may be . . .

I think that if Mueller had found any compelling, or strong evidence of obstruction, then his report would have focused on that. He would have pinpointed it and made a big deal of it, and not provided distractions from it. By contrast, having discovered that the Russian Conspiracy theory the Democrats have been pushing for three years was a lie, he then tried a "scatter gun" approach, of making many accusations, or suggesting many possible crimes, using the philosophy that if you throw enough shit then some of it might stick.

I think that the majority of the American public will see through this technique. We'll have to wait and see.

An infinite eye-roll is the only possible response to that 'analysis'.

[David Quinn]

David Quinn wrote: If you try to quench the emotions or passions without understanding your true nature, your mind will only become constipated and you will get nowhere.

In my experience, it isn't possible to quench the emotions or passions until one understands one's true nature. Which means, if I am correct in my understanding of the process, one who remains passionate may have received some wisdom of the infinite but has not (yet) fully realized wisdom of the infinite.

I would appreciate hearing your understanding of how passion fits into realized wisdom of the infinite.

It's like what happens when a rocket finally escapes the earth's gravitational pull and hurtles into space with unstoppable momentum. The power needed to escape the earth's pull is no longer required, but its effect continues on regardless.

So when Jesus, say, passionately rebuked the Pharisees, he was operating, not with emotion, but with unbridled passion for wisdom. (Assuming, of course, that he was perfectly enlightened during that moment).

There is no reason for this momentum to ever be halted. Having gone through all the effort to power the rocket ship out into space, to suddenly try and halt its progress would be contrived and pointless. Likewise, to try and freeze one's mind in order to make it conform to a conventional conception of enlightened indifference would be an act of pointless stupidity.

The Buddha gave the world the four noble truths: the truth of suffering (passion), the truth of the cause of suffering (passion), the truth of the end of suffering (passion), and the truth of the path that leads to the end of suffering (passion), that of the eightfold path. Ergo, buddhas do not experience passion.

Upon realization of one's infinite subjective-objective nature, what 'replaces' the appearance of passion as the mover of 'self?' This is difficult to express, but probably the best representative word would be 'will' as in Thy loving will be done.

It is the unchecked momentum of someone who sees no reason to stop valuing enlightenment and the truth.

[Kevin Solway]

I'm not interested in political opinions, preferences, and diagnosing other people with mental illnesses.

Great, I'll let Greta Thunberg know.

Not finding Greta Thunberg interesting isn't the same as diagnosing her with a mental illness. I'm not sure how you think that she is relevant to your point.

The obstruction charges in the impeachment article have nothing to do with the Mueller Report.

Yes, they must have agreed with me that the ones in the Mueller report were too weak.

But the claim of obstruction they went with - "defiance of subpoenas" - is just as weak as those Mueller identified, if not more so.

In the impeachment of Bill Clinton, his wrongdoing was convincingly shown - to bipartisan support, at least - and it was also shown that he was trying to cover up that specific wrongdoing, and obstruct the investigation. In the case of Trump, wrongdoing hasn't been convincingly shown, and nor has it been shown that he is trying to cover up a wrongdoing (that hasn't been shown to exist).

I'm only interested in facts.

No, you're not.

Ok, to be perfectly accurate, I'm mostly interested in facts, and I'm somewhat interested in opinions based on facts, and I'm not at all interested in opinions not based on facts.

Most of the opinions in this thread are not based on facts. That's my opinion!

[Kevin Solway]

And given the amount of success Trump has had, it's hardly surprising that he boasts about it.

Are you kidding me? Success at what?

I mean the success he's had as President. To name a few things:

Booming economy
Massive job creation. Lowest jobless claims in 50 years.
Lowest black unemployment in all of history
Lowest unemployment for women in about 70 years
Many fewer people reliant on social security and living in poverty.
Much reduced illegal immigration
Asian-American unemployment at record low of 2 percent
Youth unemployment at lowest level in more than 50 years.
In 2018, job satisfaction among American workers hit its highest level since 2005.
Home-ownership among Hispanics is at the highest rate in nearly a decade.
Confidence in the economy among the public is near a two-decade high
Many important Judicial appointments
People massively awakened to the existence of the fake news media.
Good approval ratings
etc

Of course, he'll be focusing on the positives, and not the costs, like the cost to the environment, or cuts to social security.

[Dan Rowden]

Wow, Kevin, for a guy mostly interested in facts and barely in political opinions, you'd make one hell of a political spin-doctor. Can you show a causal link between any of those economic outcomes and a Trump administration policy?

And, sorry, but your point about important judicial appointments is laughable, if not actually sickening. I take it you lifted that point from some conservative or GOP website. Hannity, perhaps?

[Kevin Solway]

And you did not 'explain' how my 'in plain sight' point was fallacious. You offered a vacuous analogy that has no intellectual force of any kind

My first sentence, before the analogy, was "Things which are "in sight" can be perceived differently depending on where you view them from."

Therefore what is "in sight" changes depending on where you are viewing it from. In other words, the more facts you have at your disposal, or the more of reality that you can factor into your assessment, then what you perceive will change. I am sure you will agree with this, since it is basic.

So when a person says "It is plain to me" or "It is obvious" or "I strongly believe" or "I fucking well see it", it is not a valid argument, since you don't know that the person has all the facts. Even "Everyone believes it" is meaningless, since you don't know that "everyone" has all the facts.

I am sure you would agree that the argument was fallacious if the person making the argument was a Christian. For example, "That God exists is simply plain to see, and anyone who can't see it has something wrong with them", or "It is plainly obvious to any rational person that God exists", or "I fucking well see that God exists, along with all other good people". Or "Everyone knows that God exists". On hearing these arguments, you would immediately think, "That's not a valid argument", or probably "That's a load of crap!".

If the Christian claimed that they are not in fact making an argument, you wouldn't believe them, because they are indeed making an argument. That are asserting that God exists, and they are trying to justify their belief with fallacious reasons.

[Kevin Solway]

• "I don't see anything interesting about her. I think she reads from a script and that she has been created by the media."

Your words here are clear and unmistakable. Greta Thunberg is a mindless puppet. A piece of media froth like Kim Kardashian. She is vacuous. She is nothing.

I'm not saying that at all. I think she is a very young woman who has been seized-on by the media and taken for a ride she may one day come to regret. I think she is intelligent, not "vacuous". A person shouldn't be judged as "vacuous" or "annihilated" based only on a few words they say when thrust in front of the cameras for a few minutes - and especially when they are only young and have a lot to learn.

If I read some of her essays, for example, then I might think she is more interesting, but I haven't done that. I can only go by the little I've seen, and the little I've seen doesn't impress me. It may be that the only thing I'm not impressed with is the image of her that has been created by the media - and I'm thinking of the left wing media.

. . . you proceed to complain elsewhere on this thread - again and again and again - about how awful it is that people engage in personal attacks, insults and smears......

You asked me what I thought about her, and I told you what I thought about her - so you can't complain.

numerous alt-right lynch mobs

As far as I know the alt-right hasn't been lynching anyone. I don't know where you are getting your news from.

Breitbart

I very much doubt that Breitbart has been talking about "Alt-right lynch mobs".

Can you provide a link?

With Thunberg, words like “mentally-ill child”, “spoiled brat”, “mindless puppet”, “crisis actor”, etc, seem to pop up a lot.

Mostly in your posts from what I've seen!

I don't think there's any justification to make all those assertions. Even if she has a mental illness, people with mental illnesses can still speak the truth.

Just thousands and thousands of people piling into her.

It's probably the same phenomenon that Jonathan Pie refers to. If you scowl at people, or regard people with disdain, or seeming hatred, or actual hatred, or blame complete strangers for destroying your childhood, then those people are probably not going to react very warmly towards you, especially when they get that treatment from the media every single day.

As far as celebrities go, I'm more on the side of Kanye West, who says we should treat people with more love and understanding.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam Seeback: I would appreciate hearing your understanding of how passion fits into realized wisdom of the infinite.

David Quinn: It's like what happens when a rocket finally escapes the earth's gravitational pull and hurtles into space with unstoppable momentum. The power needed to escape the earth's pull is no longer required, but its effect continues on regardless.

David Quinn: So when Jesus, say, passionately rebuked the Pharisees, he was operating, not with emotion, but with unbridled passion for wisdom. (Assuming, of course, that he was perfectly enlightened during that moment).

I am not claiming that Jesus' burst of anger was emotionally driven, I acknowledge it was a display of passion for wisdom, but my argument to you (which you have ignored twice) is that he wasn't perfectly enlightened when he passionately rebuked the Pharisees. My argument was that when Jesus passionately rebuked the Pharisees, he had not yet experienced the great sorrow of doubt in the Garden of Gethsemane, nor had he experienced being mocked and spit upon by the Jews wherein he asked the Father for their forgiveness, and most importantly, he had not yet surrendered his identity as the Son of man unto the spirit of the Father so as to be resurrected as the Son of God.

David Quinn: There is no reason for this momentum to ever be halted. Having gone through all the effort to power the rocket ship out into space, to suddenly try and halt its progress would be contrived and pointless. Likewise, to try and freeze one's mind in order to make it conform to a conventional conception of enlightened indifference would be an act of pointless stupidity.

From previous comments you have made, I assume you are referring to my conception of enlightenment in your second statement above. If so, please provide evidence of "Pam trying to freeze her mind." If I recall, I have many times referred to the spirit as being eternally restless, as never standing still, was not my previous moniker "movingalways?" I have mentioned temporarily stilling the mind's inner dialectic so as to realize the eternal restless spirit (akin to 'entering' the void) but that is not the same reality as desiring to halt spirit's movement.

Pam Seeback: The Buddha gave the world the four noble truths: the truth of suffering (passion), the truth of the cause of suffering (passion), the truth of the end of suffering (passion), and the truth of the path that leads to the end of suffering (passion), that of the eightfold path. Ergo, buddhas do not experience passion.

Upon realization of one's infinite subjective-objective nature, what 'replaces' the appearance of passion as the mover of 'self?' This is difficult to express, but probably the best representative word would be 'will' as in Thy loving will be done.

David Quinn: It is the unchecked momentum of someone who sees no reason to stop valuing enlightenment and the truth.

I don't see where you answered directly my relating of passion as suffering to the Buddha's assertion that the passion of suffering can be ended.

[Dan Rowden]

I am sure you would agree that the argument was fallacious if the person making the argument was a Christian.

That is not an equivalent scenario. An equivalent and analogous scenario would be Naomi Wolf coming along and continually telling you 'that's just an opinion and I think it's wrong', or 'you don't have all the facts' or 'how you perceive SJWs is just your perception, you could be mistaken and deceived by your senses or confirmation bias', or 'it's just a magic trick that you're not seeing the truth of, or 'if you had more facts you might think differently', or 'SJWs do not interrupt or interfere with anyone's free speech, they are just exercising their own' - etc, etc, etc ....

That's the equivalent of what you're doing. And the truth is you would know Wolf was full of it.

Whether, for example, Trump is a proven fraudster is a black and white matter. It's a yes or no state of affairs. But you're so far down the rabbit-hole you'll want to argue the Judges could simply have gotten both cases entirely wrong.

[David Quinn]

Pam Seeback: I would appreciate hearing your understanding of how passion fits into realized wisdom of the infinite.

David Quinn: It's like what happens when a rocket finally escapes the earth's gravitational pull and hurtles into space with unstoppable momentum. The power needed to escape the earth's pull is no longer required, but its effect continues on regardless.

David Quinn: So when Jesus, say, passionately rebuked the Pharisees, he was operating, not with emotion, but with unbridled passion for wisdom. (Assuming, of course, that he was perfectly enlightened during that moment).

I am not claiming that Jesus' burst of anger was emotionally driven, I acknowledge it was a display of passion for wisdom, but my argument to you (which you have ignored twice) is that he wasn't perfectly enlightened when he passionately rebuked the Pharisees.

It looks like we are using the word "passion" in different ways. I don't normally equate it with suffering in the way that you seem to do. Let me change my above remark to:

"So when Jesus, say, strongly rebuked the Pharisees, he was operating, not with emotion, but with an unbridled devotion to wisdom."

My argument was that when Jesus passionately rebuked the Pharisees, he had not yet experienced the great sorrow of doubt in the Garden of Gethsemane, nor had he experienced being mocked and spit upon by the Jews wherein he asked the Father for their forgiveness, and most importantly, he had not yet surrendered his identity as the Son of man unto the spirit of the Father so as to be resurrected as the Son of God.

Okay, you're basically saying that the rebuking was an act of immaturity. You might be right, or you might be wrong. It's impossible for us to judge from our perspective, two thousands years on, what was actually motivating Jesus in each incident of his life - particularly as the accounts we have of him are very unreliable. If I were you, I would be wary of making judgments based on the artistically-embellished, Hollywood-style plot-lines weaved into the Gospels by second-hand witnesses decades after his death.

All I can say, from the perspective of my own knowledge and experience of wisdom, is that enlightened rebuking can be just as valid and as pure as enlightened forgiving. It all depends on the circumstances.

[Dan Rowden]

In Brisbane, many years ago, Tibetan Buddhist monks created sand mandalas each year for the purpose of teaching non-attachment. They would create these elaborate works of art then casually destroy them. Though I never got around to it I recall expressing the idea of walking in and sweeping it up with a broom 3/4 the way through its production and watch the monk's horrified reaction, thereby giving a true teaching in non-attachment and exposing the fakery of theirs.

From the perspective of outsiders such an action would be regarded as highly emotive, destructive etc etc etc.

[Kevin Solway]

An equivalent and analogous scenario would be Naomi Wolf coming along and continually telling you 'that's just an opinion and I think it's wrong'

That would be a perfectly valid criticism from Naomi Wolf if I was offering an opinion and trying to support it with fallacious reasons, or no reasons at all. I wouldn't mind the criticism.

If I said that something was true because it is "in plain sight" or "obvious" or "every rational person believes it", then these would all be fallacious reasons, and so the criticism would be valid.

or 'you don't have all the facts' or

If I'm not presenting the facts, or a rational argument, then they would naturally assume that I don't have the facts - especially if they have good reason to think that what I'm saying is wrong. If people have the facts, they tend to present them. And if they don't have the facts, they don't present them, because when they would try to do so it would quickly become obvious that they don't have the facts.

'how you perceive SJWs is just your perception, you could be mistaken and deceived by your senses or confirmation bias'

That is actually true. That's why the facts need to be discussed. What "facts" are SJWs putting forward, or appear to be putting forward, and are they indeed "facts"? This is what needs to be discussed - not how bad SJWs generally are. The only thing that matters is whether SJWs are speaking the truth in particular instances. Even then, you can't absolutely know what SJWs believe, since they might just be repeating a script, for example.

This principle is why I can get along with people from the right. I judge them only on whether they are speaking the truth in particular instances, and not on their political affiliation, or what names they are called.

'if you had more facts you might think differently'

This one is actually absolutely true in the case of empirical matters - such as whether Trump committed a crime, for example.

This is why there was a big problem with the impeachment hearings, which was rushed through, because they weren't concerned with any facts, and didn't want to give Trump a chance to defend himself. They had already made their mind up before they even started, and nothing was going to change it. They made their mind up as soon as they lost the election, three years ago. Any reason at all would be enough to impeach him, since they've now foolishly decided that bipartisan agreement is no longer necessary.

Latest news is that Trump hasn't been impeached at all, since a person can't be found "guilty" without a trial, which happens in the senate. The whole thing is a huge deception.

That's the equivalent of what you're doing. And the truth is you would know Wolf was full of it.

Only if I knew that her facts were wrong, in specific instances.

Whether, for example, Trump is a proven fraudster is a black and white matter.

I don't care what names we give to people, whether we call them criminals, or mentally ill, or fraudsters, Nazis, or whatever. I only care about whether they are speaking the truth in particular instances. The facts.

It would be logically fallacious to say that a person can't speak the truth because they have been found guilty of a crime, or labelled a Nazi.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam Seeback: My argument was that when Jesus passionately rebuked the Pharisees, he had not yet experienced the great sorrow of doubt in the Garden of Gethsemane, nor had he experienced being mocked and spit upon by the Jews wherein he asked the Father for their forgiveness, and most importantly, he had not yet surrendered his identity as the Son of man unto the spirit of the Father so as to be resurrected as the Son of God.

David Quinn: Okay, you're basically saying that the rebuking was an act of immaturity. You might be right, or you might be wrong. It's impossible for us to judge from our perspective, two thousands years on, what was actually motivating Jesus in each incident of his life - particularly as the accounts we have of him are very unreliable. If I were you, I would be wary of making judgments based on the artistically-embellished, Hollywood-style plot-lines weaved into the Gospels by second-hand witnesses decades after his death.

I am saying that the way in which Jesus rebuked was an act of his Son of man identity that interprets good and evil thinking not his Son of God identity that knows they are the Alpha and Omega of every thought.

Of course no one knows what motivated Jesus, all we have two thousands years later is the narrative of the living myth as we apply it to our consciousness. This same reality of second-hand wisdom applies to Gautama the Buddha and Lao Tzu and Nagarjuna but that doesn't stop you or I from reasoning scriptures attributed to their wisdom. All dead philosophers fall into the same category of 'we can't know', even those who left their own words behind. Your love for and application of Kierkegaard's three spheres of existence as the cure for despair is a good example. As an aside, where Kierkegaard failed to become a Son of God was in his idea of the returning Knight of Faith as one who grasps the finite. It is here where he demonstrates the very act deemed by the Buddha to be the cause of suffering, that of attachment to the finite.

All I can say, from the perspective of my own knowledge and experience of wisdom, is that enlightened rebuking can be just as valid and as pure as enlightened forgiving. It all depends on the circumstances.

As I said above, I don't argue that rebuking is a valid part of enlightenment, it is what you and I are doing in this thread. But where your rebuking includes the dividing of self into good and evil (Thunberg's view vs. Trump's view, David's view vs. Kevin's view) invoking the necessary passion to keep the opposites apart and at eternal war with one another, mine does not.

What do you think of the spiritual concept of reconciling or uniting the opposites, something akin to returning or lifting up one's (now enlightened) fallen devil to heaven wherein he once lived?

[David Quinn]

As an aside, where Kierkegaard failed to become a Son of God was in his idea of the returning Knight of Faith as one who grasps the finite. It is here where he demonstrates the very act deemed by the Buddha to be the cause of suffering, that of attachment to the finite.

No, you’ve misunderstood Kierkegaard here. When he talked about “grasping the finite on the strength of the absurd”, he was actually expressing the wisdom of non-attachment. He was in alignment with the Buddha.

All I can say, from the perspective of my own knowledge and experience of wisdom, is that enlightened rebuking can be just as valid and as pure as enlightened forgiving. It all depends on the circumstances.

As I said above, I don't argue that rebuking is a valid part of enlightenment, it is what you and I are doing in this thread. But where your rebuking includes the dividing of self into good and evil (Thunberg's view vs. Trump's view, David's view vs. Kevin's view) invoking the necessary passion to keep the opposites apart and at eternal war with one another, mine does not.

And yet here you are, in opposition to my point of view, just as I am in opposition to yours. It takes two to disagree.

What do you think of the spiritual concept of reconciling or uniting the opposites, something akin to returning or lifting up one's (now enlightened) fallen devil to heaven wherein he once lived?

We have to be careful not to conflate different principles here.

On the one hand, we can’t mix good with evil without destroying the good, just as we can’t mix truth with falseness without destroying the truth. Polar opposites are polar opposites. “Whoever is not for me is against me”, as Jesus once said.

But what we can do is recognize that good, evil, truth and falsness are part of the All and thus equally empty of their own nature. They are illusory manifestations created by God, if you will. The enlightened person naturally embraces all of these things as part of his embrace of God Himself.

And yet the fact remains: we can’t mix good with evil without destroying the good, and we can’t mix truth with falseness without destroying the truth.

[David Quinn]

I've decided to bow out of this thread.

There is an unreachable chasm that cannot be crossed. It would be foolish to keep trying. I can see no benefit, only harm.

Kevin was once a good dharma teacher and he left a great work with Poison. That's how I prefer to remember him.

I don't like seeing him like this.

[Kevin Solway]

I don't like seeing him like this.

Again, you're not making a rational argument, so what you're saying is completely pointless.

[Dan Rowden]

Latest news is that Trump hasn't been impeached at all, since a person can't be found "guilty" without a trial, which happens in the senate. The whole thing is a huge deception.

Impeachment is a Congressional Indictment; it's the parliamentary equivalent of the laying of charges. The actual 'trial', as you note, happens in the Senate. Impeachment is a 'charge'; not a conviction. Trump has, irrefutably, been impeached. It's a FACT. The only 'deception' is in the minds of the ignorant and GOP and MAGA confabulists.

He will not be convicted because important GOP Senators have already declared their intention to not be impartial in any evidentiary deliberation, despite the oath they take to so be.

"Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official."

[Kevin Solway]

Impeachment is a Congressional Indictment; it's the parliamentary equivalent of the laying of charges. The actual 'trial', as you note, happens in the Senate. Impeachment is a 'charge'; not a conviction. Trump has, irrefutably, been impeached.

You are correct that impeachment is a charge, and not a conviction, but charges need to be made through a formalized process.

If an attorney doesn't lay charges with the court, then charges haven't been laid, and in this case a person hasn't been charged.

The democrats, without bipartisan support, have created some "articles of impeachment", which are things they would like to charge. But the charge hasn't been formally made, and may never be made.

It's possible that there was never any intention to lay charges. It may have just been a grotesque theater to try and manipulate ignorant voters into thinking that Trump has done something wrong.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Trump has, irrefutably, been impeached. It's a FACT. The only 'deception' is in the minds of the ignorant and GOP and MAGA confabulists.

However, then Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor is another ignorant confabulist. Since he was also one of three constitutional scholars to testify in favor of impeachment by Democrats, it would mean the Democrats base their view on confabulists? Which should worry you! And yes, many others disagree with him. But lets stop capitalizing the word "fact" like shouting children who don't get their way each and every time.