The Impeachment Thread

[anticlimatic]

Read: There's nothing nebulous about it unless you had a stroke over Christmas, perhaps cutting off blood supply to the brain.

I hope you don't swallow every potential edible thing you come across with the same easy abandon as you swallow what politicians say. "The facts are uncontested." Must have missed the part where Trump just rolled over and agreed with her on that instead of, you know, contesting them. But like I've said, I don't watch the news...

 

[Z Buck McFate]

How about the house presents some specific cogent details that prove their own accusations

They did.

We can confidently assert our own side is "clear" back and forth all day. All I know is that if a Democrat did the things that Trump did, I'd still be for impeachment.

And since I've yet to hear a Trump supporter list the actual evidence (to prove they've heard it) and still employ catch-alls like "impossibly nebulous" to dismiss it (listing the evidence would prove they came to that conclusion themselves, instead of simply parroting the party narrative they're being fed), I don't know how else to make sense of it than to assume they're simply parroting the party narrative.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

So you're saying that they both play a part.

I am frustrated because I believe these discussions would benefit from holistic interpretations of information and concerted dialogue.

Boy Howdy. I always try to remember that the best way to head into dialogue is to try to understand the other side well enough that you could make their point for them. What I wouldn't give for some conservative point of view that would help make sense of this mess, instead of constantly feeling like someone is trying to pass me kool-aid whenever I try. (I'm not saying my own approach to listening is immaculate, I'm just saying I wish the God of All Communication would throw me a bone here).

 

[Jaguar]

I don't watch the news...

Then why are you here? You have no idea what was divulged in the hearings.

 

[Tellenbach]

How are people defending a man like Trump? Like seriously, what good has he done?

1) Lowest unemployment among African Americans, Asian Americans, and hispanic Americans in 50 years.

2) Wages have gone up; they were declining under Obama.

3) Record gains in the stock market.

4) Over 300,000 manufacturing jobs created.

5) Remains of Korean War veterans returned.

6) Right to try legislation passed, enabling dying patients to try new drugs.

7) Letting veterans seek medical care from private hospitals.

8) US consulate moved to Jerusalem.

9) ISIS caliphate decimated; ISIS leader killed.

10) Much less reliant on foreign energy; not quite energy independent, but getting there.

11) Getting NATO partners to increase defense spending ($100 billion).

Of course, supporting Trump means not supporting the Democrat agenda which includes:

1) banning fossil fuels, which would drive up food prices and all consumer products and we'd have to row a boat to visit Hawaii.

2) banning cows, which would mean much more expensive cheese burgers, driving even more consumption of carbs, resulting in even fatter Americans.

3) Like your doctor; like your plan? Warren and Sanders say you can't keep your doctor or your plan.

4) Gun confiscation; many of them are closet gun grabbers like Beto O'Rourke.

 

[Warrior]

1) Lowest unemployment among African Americans, Asian Americans, and hispanic Americans in 50 years.

2) Wages have gone up; they were declining under Obama.

3) Record gains in the stock market.

4) Over 300,000 manufacturing jobs created.

5) Remains of Korean War veterans returned.

6) Right to try legislation passed, enabling dying patients to try new drugs.

7) Letting veterans seek medical care from private hospitals.

8) US consulate moved to Jerusalem.

9) ISIS caliphate decimated; ISIS leader killed.

10) Much less reliant on foreign energy; not quite energy independent, but getting there.

11) Getting NATO partners to increase defense spending ($100 billion).

Of course, supporting Trump means not supporting the Democrat agenda which includes:

1) banning fossil fuels, which would drive up food prices and all consumer products and we'd have to row a boat to visit Hawaii.

2) banning cows, which would mean much more expensive cheese burgers, driving even more consumption of carbs, resulting in even fatter Americans.

3) Like your doctor; like your plan? Warren and Sanders say you can't keep your doctor or your plan.

4) Gun confiscation; many of them are closet gun grabbers like Beto O'Rourke.

response: wages are going down under trump, labor participation rate lowest its ever been in 50 years (hint hint, not the same as unemployment rate, i guess somebody didn't study economics, due to people not looking for jobs and lack of immigration, economy busting the poor and children being held in cages and tiny rooms and raped at the border, most gained jobs are low wage and dont keep pace with inflation according to PBS, were "energy independent" because we stole dakota lands under the dakota access pipeline and illegally polluted land, and i guess somebody doesn't believe in climate change? that scientists are in cahoots? dude, have you been to a science convention? they hate each other! us consulate moved to jerusalem was barely internationally recognized and was merely to appease ultra zionist lobby that owns most politicians (except bernie sanders, but the ultra brand doesn't own many democrats), and is the cause of instability in the midle east and confiscation of palestinian land. Obama killed bin laden, your point? isis was on its way out.....al qaeda AND ISIS grew under trumpster dumpster. after isis was "destroyed" military remains, ill give you that. healthcare? under trumpcare thousands would die and many would lose medicaid and medicare. good day.

 

[ceecee]

Haha!

So you're saying that Trump would be representing the vacuousness of his Republican constituency.

What I'm saying is that if Trump killed a baby on live TV, Trump supporters would interpret it as a hoax concocted by the news media.

Yes, I would definitely lean more towards the "fake news" dismiss.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

In this particular case it seems.we.hava a president who is a malignant narcissist in office. Halo or not, it's not a good thing for the country or the world.

Whatever. I don't even really see the issue as being about Trump per se. I was going for a "meta" thing here. I see the Halo Effect thing more as an explanation for why people are so partisan in general: We're partisan because partisanship is kind of baked into our nature.

Each side of a political divide likes to imagine that their own partisanship is reasonable and rational whereas the other side's partisanship is unreasonable and fanatic in nature. But it makes more sense to look at the phenomenon of partisanship itself and maybe consider it in terms of a cognitive bias such as the Halo Effect--and specifically a cognitive bias that's aggravated by the superficiality of modern mass media and sound bites. Partisanship and black-and-white thinking are baked into our nature as a species, and it's an easy, comfortable way for all of us to picture the world around ourselves.

Of course, some people will blame today's hyperpartisanship on Trump specifically and his divisive nature. And of course, there are some things unique to this era (such as social media on the internet) that are amplifying the partisanship and causing people to vent more. But this kind of partisan divide isn't the first, and it won't be the last. It won't end with Trump's departure from the political scene. Cognitive biases like the Halo Effect would help explain the tribal/partisan aspect of politics on a multi-generational or even species-wide scale.

Anyway, I was just pointing the idea out for anyone who might be interested. (I'm 3/4 of the way through Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow"). Meantime, as you were. Carry on.

 

[Jaguar]

Each side of a political divide likes to imagine that their own partisanship is reasonable and rational whereas the other side's partisanship is unreasonable and fanatic in nature.

Considering I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat, what are you going on about? Stop thinking in terms of sides. It's why this country is in the toilet right now.

 

[highlander]

Whatever. I don't even really see the issue as being about Trump per se. I was going for a "meta" thing here. I see the Halo Effect thing more as an explanation for why people are so partisan in general: We're partisan because partisanship is kind of baked into our nature.

Each side of a political divide likes to imagine that their own partisanship is reasonable and rational whereas the other side's partisanship is unreasonable and fanatic in nature. But it makes more sense to look at the phenomenon of partisanship itself and maybe consider it in terms of a cognitive bias such as the Halo Effect--and specifically a cognitive bias that's aggravated by the superficiality of modern mass media and sound bites. Partisanship and black-and-white thinking are baked into our nature as a species, and it's an easy, comfortable way for all of us to picture the world around ourselves.

Of course, some people will blame today's hyperpartisanship on Trump specifically and his divisive nature. And of course, there are some things unique to this era (such as social media on the internet) that are amplifying the partisanship and causing people to vent more. But this kind of partisan divide isn't the first, and it won't be the last. It won't end with Trump's departure from the political scene. Cognitive biases like the Halo Effect would help explain the tribal/partisan aspect of politics on a multi-generational or even species-wide scale.

Anyway, I was just pointing the idea out for anyone who might be interested. (I'm 3/4 of the way through Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow"). Meantime, as you were. Carry on.

Interesting comments. I guess it is also like confirmation bias in a way. Since my partisan values Republican policy positions then me being on the democratic side as of late supporting impeachment seems to be an anomaly with respect th this theory. Correct?

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Interesting comments. I guess it is also like confirmation bias in a way.

Yes, confirmation bias feeds into it. The Kahneman book talks about all that stuff and shows how they all feed into one another and create different biases.

Since my partisan values Republican policy positions then me being on the democratic side as of late supporting impeachment seems to be an anomaly with respect th this theory. Correct?

No, I would disagree. The Halo Effect is a reaction to the individual.

If you have values that align with the Republican party, then candidates with traditional Republican party membership may give you greater confidence because you know what to expect from them; especially when compared to Democrats. But within the party, you may intensely like or dislike particular figures. Witness how the Democrats are sorting out their feelings toward the primary candidates as they try to figure out whom they'll back in 2020 based on limited exposure from a few debates and some policy papers.

Also, Trump comes from outside the Republican party and has his own separate history as a result of decades as a major public figure (a "mover-and-shaker") in NYC and New Jersey. And he was a Democrat (a "limousine liberal") most of his life. When he belatedly joined the Republican party to run in the 2016 elections, he incited both love and hate among Republican party loyalists. Take the example of the "never-Trump" faction within the Republican party, who hate Trump even more than the Democrats if that's possible. Some of them did like you and exited the party entirely rather than back Trump.

Anyway, it's important to remember that the Halo Effect is personal. That's why candidates from outside the party (third-party candidates) or from its outer "wings" have the power to realign the parties and cause big shifts in the membership and party values: They carry emotional sub-currents not traditionally aligned with the party center.

Something like that, anyway, as I see it.

Anyway, stop trying to make my post about you and your personal feelings about Trump. Like I said: I intended my post as a "meta" thing, not as a way of pointing my finger at individuals.

The theory works better on a mass basis; it's overkill for me to try to read your mind individually without even knowing you and figure out why you may or may not like this or that particular public figure.

If the theory interests you, read Kahneman's book. He's the expert on the subject, and he deals with the Halo Effect and other cognitive biases for 500 pages. Look in the back index: He makes numerous references to the Halo Effect throughout the book, besides devoting a section entirely to it. Plenty there to chew on.

 

[Jaguar]

So much for focusing on big ideas . . .

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

The petty sniping in this thread mirrors the bickering that goes on between primary candidates.

 

[The Cat]

Thread closed for cleaning. Use this time to think about better things to say to each other.

 

[Yuurei]

It’s funny; so many of you insist on calling yourselves ‘intellectuals’ yet struggle with the simple concept of
‘ constructive and civil discussion.’
Just as many of you threw a fit when we closed down the politics sub forum, yet have continued the very same behavior which lead to itbeing shut down.

Since so many of you seem confused about what is considered acceptable adult behavior, I welcome you to toddle on to the GY and veiw the vast galleries of what not to post. I hope you all learn something as I worked quite hard on it.
If you are still confused about this, I guess continue to bicker, continue to make absurd personal attacks based on nothing but an apish concept of ‘us v them’ and you’ll earn yourself a time out- no blankies, no animal crackers.

Tl;dr you are adults. Start behaving like it our we’ll have to spend even more of our day handing out yet more thread bans.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Murkowski had gone on record to say she's disturbed by McConnell's pledge to "coordinate with White House defense", and Collins has stated that she finds it inappropriate. We need more GOP senators saying this. Because it's fucked up. Even if all the accusations about Democrat partisan motivations were correct, it would still be fucked up.

Also we need more senators overall demanding the witnesses (that the White House are blocking) testify.

 

[Nicodemus]

Murkowski had gone on record to say she's disturbed by McConnell's pledge to "coordinate with White House defense", and Collins has stated that she finds it inappropriate. We need more GOP senators saying this. Because it's fucked up. Even if all the accusations about Democrat partisan motivations were correct, it would still be fucked up.

Also we need more senators overall demanding the witnesses (that the White House are blocking) testify.

Murkowski may actually vote her conscience, but I expect Collins to fall in line with the herd in due time. She has no more integrity than any of the other Republicans, she just has fewer brainwashed constituents.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Murkowski may actually vote her conscience, but I expect Collins to fall in line with the herd in due time. She has no more integrity than any of the other Republicans, she just has fewer brainwashed constituents.

I agree with this, though I think Collins simply speaking up - as a GOP Senator - to say McConnell's approach is inappropriate is helpful. However slightly. (Anything that makes the kool-aid remotely questionable coming from the GOP is helpful).

***

Trump wants Pelosi, Schiff as impeachment witnesses

I think Pelosi should agree on the condition that Trump *and* the witnesses he blocked from the House testify as well. He'll decline it, but it will highlight his own unwillingness (read: his own need to hide the truth will supercede the benefit of the Pelosi/Schiff distraction, whilst relatively proving that Pelosi/Schiff have nothing to hide themselves).

 

[ceecee]

I think Pelosi should agree on the condition that Trump *and* the witnesses he blocked from the House testify as well. He'll decline it, but it will highlight his own unwillingness (read: his own need to hide the truth will supercede the benefit of the Pelosi/Schiff distraction, whilst relatively proving that Pelosi/Schiff have nothing to hide themselves).

This. And then keep adding, publicly, his gazillion methods for distraction and lying, plus potential criminal activity. Not the Ukraine/Russia stuff but she can get on TV every day and say..

Day 35(or whatever it is) Trump Reportedly Authorized Soleimani Killing 7 Months Ago

So that "imminent threat" was a lie and the SoS and VP went around and spread this lie to the American people and by increasing military presence in the region, places US solders in unnecessary danger as well as additional burdens on US taxpayers. So we'll be adding that to the growing list of impeachable offenses.

And keep it going. Every day.

 

[Coriolis]

Murkowski had gone on record to say she's disturbed by McConnell's pledge to "coordinate with White House defense", and Collins has stated that she finds it inappropriate. We need more GOP senators saying this. Because it's fucked up. Even if all the accusations about Democrat partisan motivations were correct, it would still be fucked up.

Also we need more senators overall demanding the witnesses (that the White House are blocking) testify.

Imagine an ordinary trial of an ordinary citizen, in which the judge said he was coordinating with the defense team and expects acquittal. Onlookers would be screaming about the unfairness of it, as well they should.