The Impeachment Thread

[Yuurei]

Enough with personal insults-especially of the passive-agressive, and baseless generalization-variety.
I already sent one to the OT thread and will do the same with anymore.
If you find it truly impossible to have a civil discussion without insults you will be removed from this thread.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

We can get into the why, but it's important to first acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with people who think differently- I think that's what we have been working on so far. You're going to need to reciprocate my acknowledgment of that first.

Yeah, I have no problem acknowledging that. And I have no problem admitting that groupthink isn't specific to one side or the other; it's just human frailty in all its glory. I know people on the left who tend to get swept up in some righteous wave that's seemingly gained momentum from willfully (albeit not consciously) misinterpreting facts; e.g. Melania's "I don't care" jacket (which was stupid to wear, but it's highly unlikely she intended the malicious meaning that a lot of people read into it and grabbed their pitchforks about).

But I mean, I've read/seen the impeachment evidence. And sorry-not-sorry, but it doesn't make sense to me for anyone to feel completely confident saying the evidence doesn't exist unless that confidence is fueled by groupthink and/or echo chamber. Even several GOP Senators said "Yes, he's guilty of what he's been charged with - but it doesn't merit removal from office." This isn't meant as a personal ad hominem attack to dismiss/discredit you (if you try to look for me quoting someone to accuse them personally of only believing something because of confirmation bias/echo chamber/groupthink, you'll find that I haven't done that - you have, in response, but I haven't). When it comes to certain beliefs though? Yes, I've posted that it seems like it *must* be fueled by echo chamber conviction, because that is the only thing that makes sense to me. And the point I tried making in my last post was: explaining how the belief actually does deserve merit is a way more effective approach to defending the belief (and a way more worthwhile way to spend time) than simply saying "No YOU'RE groupthinking!" which just looks like a defensive, compulsive attempt to shut down what I'm saying.

I know that I've been looking for some point of view that would make it make sense to me. I've yet to see a single person insisting the impeachment was a "partisan sham" who can prove they paid enough attention to the evidence to warrant having such strong conviction about it.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Meanwhile...

Apparently this is a law?

Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
​

Not that I imagine anything will come of it if it is. But it's still good to know.

 

[Yuurei]

Meanwhile...

Apparently this is a law?

Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
​

Not that I imagine anything will come of it if it is. But it's still good to know.

Does it matter?

If the recent trials proved anything it was that no, no, it doesn’t.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Does it matter?

If the recent trials proved anything it was that no, no, it doesn’t.

I think the key is to remember that it does matter, without expecting that value to be reflected in the current administration (unless of course they find/manufacture an opportunity to use it on any opponent...), and to quietly/calmly make note and add it to the tab.

 

[Maou]

I would say my entire basis in defending Trump originated in my perception of fairness. I percieved false information in the media, in stark contrast to what I saw myself. And it has only piled on for years. I saw how Democrats forgave the same attocities in their own, that they accused Trump of. I saw incredible amounts of devisiveness, and appeal to emotion to abuse the audience's sense of morality. But at the same time, I understand and appreciate different personality types. Everyone has flaws, everyone can be a jerk. I am far more tolerant of people with bad personalities, than the side who preaches tolerance and acceptance. If the Left actually practiced what they preach, they'd accept that Trump's personality, while harsh and arrogant, is not entirely his fault. What happened to "Be yourself"? What if you are an asshole? It's not fair, in my opinion. So this had me questioning, what else does the Democrat party and Liberals believe that contradict their words? Mind you, I didn't even start following politics till 2015. But boy did it open my eyes to the deceits that preys upon the American public. The media's subtle psychological manipulation, with the use of authority in areas like Universities, and proclaimed scientists and professors. I knew there was hardly and recognition and double checking these facts, but they were already espoused as truth. Layers and layers of deception, half truths, manipulation, and straight up lies.

I don't blame anyone that fell for them, the majority of people have. The more you try to untangle it, the more half truths and lies you uncover. There is no end to it. It is too complicated for anyone to do so. So to approach this, I looked at it from a human nature perspective. I gauged actions based on my common sense, and loyalty and intentions. I didn't have to unravel the infinite lies, to see and predict what people were doing wrong in the moment. Trump has been consistant in his actions, and acts strategic to control how the media reacts to him. He could wave his hand, snd get a weeks worth of coverage by a single tweet. Then while the media is distracted, he'd do something great like pass a law, and the media didn't cover it because they don't want to give him positive coverage. Trump is completely justified in these tactics, because the media and his opponents play dirty. The Impeachment started on an illegitimate basis, and was shot down because of such. The FBI violated Trump's constitutional rights. Trump's actions be damned, two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I would say my entire basis in defending Trump originated in my perception of fairness. I percieved false information in the media, in stark contrast to what I saw myself. And it has only piled on for years. I saw how Democrats forgave the ssme attocities in their own, that they accused Trump of. I saw incredible amounts of devisiveness, and appeal to emotion to abuse the audience's sense of morality. But at the same time, I understand and appreciate different personality types. Everyone has flaws, everyone can be a jerk. I am far more tolerant of people with bad personalities, than the side who preaches tolerance and acceptance. If the Left actually prscticed what they oreech, they'd accept that Trump's personality, while harsh and arrogant, is not entirely his fault. What happened to "Be yourself"? Whst if you are an asshole? It's not fair, in my opinion. So this had me questioning, what else does the Democrat party and Liberals believe that contradict their words? Mind you, I didn't even start following politics till 2015. But boy did it open my eyes to the deciete that preys upon the American public. The media's subtle psychological manipulation, with the use of authority in areas like Universities, and proclaimed scientists and professors. I knew there was hardly and recognition and double checking these facts, but they were already espoused as truth. Layers and layers of deception, half truths, manipulation, and straight up lies.

I don't blame anyone that fell for them, the majority of people have. The more you try to untangle it, the more half truths and lies you uncover. There is no end to it. It is too complicated for anyone to do so. So to approach this, I looked at it from a human nature perspective. I gauged actions based on my common sense, and loyalty and intentions. I didn't have to unravel the infinite lies, to see and predict what people were doing wrong in the moment. Trump has been consistant in his actions, and acts strategic to control how the media reacts to him. He could wave his hand, snd get a weeks worth of coverage by a aingle tweet. Then while the media is distracted, he'd do something great like pass a law, and the media didn't civer it because they don't want to give him positive coverage. Trump is completely justified in these tactics, because the media anf his opponents play dirty. The Impeachment stsrted on an kllegitimate basis, and was shot down because of such. The FBI violated Trump's constitutional rights. Trump's actions be damned, two wrongs do not make a right.

There's a little more to it than just letting Trump "be himself". There's a good reason that, say, Rahm Emmanual (similarly foul-mouthed and arguably a political bully, not unlike Trump) isn't equally reviled.

 

[Maou]

There's a little more to it than just letting Trump "be himself". There's a good reason that, say, Rahm Emmanual (similarly foul-mouthed and arguably a political bully, not unlike Trump) isn't equally reviled.

If you want yo excuse his personality, and discuss policy as a seperate thing we can. But far as I have seen, his policies have done nothing but good for the economy. Which is what I voted for. I would say people like Trump, because his policies work, and they are noticing. They can overlook how he talks. Big picture, not face value.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

If you want yo excuse his personality, and discuss policy as a seperate thing we can. But far as I have seen, his policies have done nothing but good for the economy. Which is what I voted for. I would say people like Trump, because his policies work, and they are noticing. They can overlook how he talks. Big picture, not face value.

Let's start with his proposal to ban willing transgenders from serving in the military. Then we can move on to immigration policy.

If you just want to talk about how he's supposedly saving the economy, let's look at the steel tariffs next. Tell me why his policies have hurt domestic steel production. Not to mention the tariffs' impact on the overall (not just steel) supply chain. Next let's talk about why Trump feels the need to take credit for economic growth that has largely continued on the same trajectory it was on during Obama's tenure (republicans love to take credit for economic growth begun under democratic predecessors. When the fallout of their costly tax "reforms" and protectionism starts to be apparent, a democrat has usually entered office, and guess who gets the blame? Voters have such short memories for this stuff, and unfortunately the effects of economic policy don't always seem to occur in real time, so people tend to blame anything on the current party in power)

 

[anticlimatic]

Yeah, I have no problem acknowledging that. And I have no problem admitting that groupthink isn't specific to one side or the other; it's just human frailty in all its glory. I know people on the left who tend to get swept up in some righteous wave that's seemingly gained momentum from willfully (albeit not consciously) misinterpreting facts; e.g. Melania's "I don't care" jacket (which was stupid to wear, but it's highly unlikely she intended the malicious meaning that a lot of people read into it and grabbed their pitchforks about). But I mean, I've read/seen the impeachment evidence. And sorry-not-sorry, but it doesn't make sense to me for anyone to feel completely confident saying the evidence doesn't exist unless that confidence is fueled by groupthink and/or echo chamber. Even several GOP Senators said "Yes, he's guilty of what he's been charged with - but it doesn't merit removal from office." This isn't meant as a personal ad hominem attack to dismiss/discredit you (if you try to look for me quoting someone to accuse them personally of only believing something because of confirmation bias/echo chamber/groupthink, you'll find that I haven't done that - you have, in response, but I haven't). When it comes to certain beliefs though? Yes, I've posted that it seems like it *must* be fueled by echo chamber conviction, because that is the only thing that makes sense to me. And the point I tried making in my last post was: explaining how the belief actually does deserve merit is a way more effective approach to defending the belief (and a way more worthwhile way to spend time) than simply saying "No YOU'RE groupthinking!" which just looks like a defensive, compulsive attempt to shut down what I'm saying. I know that I've been looking for some point of view that would make it make sense to me. I've yet to see a single person insisting the impeachment was a "partisan sham" who can prove they paid enough attention to the evidence to warrant having such strong conviction about it.

So democrats say the impeachment uncovered legitimate wrongdoing by the president, and republicans say it's a partisan sham to be discarded. What if they're both right? What happens then? It plays out in two courts- legal court, and the court of public opinion. The legal process is close to being somewhat impartial, except for the stacked jury (congress), which still might be swayed by public opinion. The same public that stacked the jury in the first place by voting them in. The end result is that the people voted a system in place that supports the president in this situation- but not completely. If he offended the average person enough, he would get screwed. So what did he do? He pressured another country to announce it was looking into corruption associated with a political rivals son. So how much offensive gravity does that carry objectively, and is it enough to push the public court from "leans in support" to "leans against supporting?" How strong was the pressure? Not very, since the president can show the aid began flowing without the announcement. How direct was the effort intended to help trump with no benefit to the American public? 50/50 if there was actual reason to suspect corruption that the public would want to know about, which he can argue. End result of the accusation? A weak and ultimately ineffective attempt by the president to do something that would help him politically and possibly help target corruption. Two more things that could both be right at the same time. Objectively, that is not going to be enough for anything other than the acquittal result we got. Since we can both agree that groupthink is common across the boards, it seems reasonable to me to just take that one completely off the table and pursue explanations elsewhere.

More to say, but that's my time, and I need to get back to work.

 

[Jaguar]

Interesting take.

Thanks. But do me a favor, if you're going to keep posting to me, do better than using the logical fallacy of appealing to authority when it suits your narrative: "Ooooo all of those 'authorities' couldn't be wrong, could they?" Yes, they all can be wrong. Which adds an additional fallacy to avoid - arguing from a position of "all those." Just because a large number of people think X, doesn't make it true. "God has to exist, look at how many people believe!"

 

[Maou]

Let's start with his proposal to ban willing transgenders from serving in the military. Then we can move on to immigration policy.

If you just want to talk about how he's supposedly saving the economy, let's look at the steel tariffs next. Tell me why his policies have hurt domestic steel production. Not to mention the tariffs' impact on the overall (not just steel) supply chain. Next let's talk about why Trump feels the need to take credit for economic growth that has largely continued on the same trajectory it was on during Obama's tenure (republicans love to take credit for economic growth begun under democratic predecessors. When the fallout of their costly tax "reforms" and protectionism starts to be apparent, a democrat has usually entered office, and guess who gets the blame? Voters have such short memories for this stuff, and unfortunately the effects of economic policy don't always seem to occur in real time, so people tend to blame anything on the current party in power)

Well for one, Transgenderism is a liability. If you know what transgenders have to go through daily, you can see why its illogical to have them in a job where they are on the field for weeks at a time with no rest. They cannot do or maintain their essential medical needs. It becomes a problem similar to if you allowed diabetics in the military. They need injections they have to manage their new parts. Hormone injections cause a slew of health related problems as well. It has no place in an enviroment that requires your full attention, health, and a physical ability. I have nothing against trans people, as I have two siblings who have gone through SRS. I know what it entails.

For your second argument. Immigration. What kind of immigration ard you referring to for clarification? Illegal is self explanatory. Legal immigration, depends on what you believe America should focus on. Since I wish to improve America's economy, and skill market. I think its better to only let skilled people in. Just like Japan, who's policies have proven to be effective on preventing crime, and allowing skilled workers in.

Now for econlmics. The "Steel tariffs" and production is misleading. Trump wants to create jobs. To do that, he has to make steel profitable in the USA. China, which is a competitor offers lower prices, for an inferior product. (Which is s big issue in the automotive industry, and contributer to recalls). To combat this, he introduced tariffs, to force companies to buy American. There are seversl types of steel companies. Some process ores, and make steel. Some just sell steel they buy from overseas. Trump's policy helps one, but not the other. The money made from those who sell Chinese steel, goes back to China. The money American steel makes, goes into the economy. Think of it as major corporations being forced to make due with better products, and the money stays in America. Not to mention, they probably can't make as much profit, by charging the same price as a better product.

The whole "economic credit" thing is bullshit, and you know it. I can't even think of a single economic policy Obama did. If you want to play that card though, its probably just recovering by itself and nothing either of them did made it better. But I believe its maintained the momentum due to Trump.

We shall see in the long run, sfter Trump enacts all his desired policies. He is playing the long game.

 

[Jaguar]

He is playing the long game.

He lives life in the moment and wouldn't know how to play the long game, even if his life depended on it. What he said Monday doesn't matter since it's Tuesday. What he said Tuesday doesn't matter since it's Wednesday. There is no long game. He doesn't have the brain for it.

 

[Totenkindly]

He lives life in the moment and wouldn't know how to play the long game, even if his life depended on it. What he said Monday doesn't matter since it's Tuesday. What he said Tuesday doesn't matter since it's Wednesday. There is no long game. He doesn't have the brain for it.

I watched him for some seasons on The Apprentice (this would have been, oh, early 2000's?), because I wanted to grasp how he thought since he had become a pop culture figure.

What you say is exactly what was observable back then, even before he entered his period of decline and ongoing stress on the national stage.

He would start with his conclusion about who to fire, then find a semi-rational justification to support it. So you could agree yes, maybe so and so deserved to be fired based on that logic; but his priorities would change from episode to episode. it was not at all consistent. he'd fire someone for one reason one weekend, then fire someone else for a different reason the next even if someone else did the same stuff that the prior fired person had. It all depended on what he wanted to prioritize that moment, who he didn't like, who pissed him off in the boardroom, or who he wanted to get rid of at some point.

Maybe the only consistent thing was who would make the Trump name look bad at that time / reflect poorly on him. But basically it was "in the moment" logic.

I can't believe he has a long game either, and we've spent the last three years watching him do things without concern for the effects of the next week or even the next day. He just trusts his ability to slip out of any noose he inadvertently sets for himself.

 

[anticlimatic]

Thanks. But do me a favor, if you're going to keep posting to me, do better than using the logical fallacy of appealing to authority when it suits your narrative: "Ooooo all of those 'authorities' couldn't be wrong, could they?" Yes, they all can be wrong. Which adds an additional fallacy to avoid - arguing from a position of "all those." Just because a large number of people think X, doesn't make it true. "God has to exist, look at how many people believe!"

Safety your rifle, cadet. There's no battle here. I was curious why you disagreed with that part of what I posted, because I've found it to be true in my life but I'm always open to new perspectives. When I asked if you disagreed I was curious for your perspective on why- I wasn't baiting you out just to gun you down.

 

[Jaguar]

Safety your rifle, cadet. There's no battle here. I was curious why you disagreed with that part of what I posted, because I've found it to be true in my life but I'm always open to new perspectives. When I asked if you disagreed I was curious for your perspective on why- I wasn't baiting you out just to gun you down.

I think you're confused.

 

[Maou]

I watched him for some seasons on The Apprentice (this would have been, oh, early 2000's?), because I wanted to grasp how he thought since he had become a pop culture figure.

What you say is exactly what was observable back then, even before he entered his period of decline and ongoing stress on the national stage.

He would start with his conclusion about who to fire, then find a semi-rational justification to support it. So you could agree yes, maybe so and so deserved to be fired based on that logic; but his priorities would change from episode to episode. it was not at all consistent. he'd fire someone for one reason one weekend, then fire someone else for a different reason the next even if someone else did the same stuff that the prior fired person had. It all depended on what he wanted to prioritize that moment, who he didn't like, who pissed him off in the boardroom, or who he wanted to get rid of at some point.

Maybe the only consistent thing was who would make the Trump name look bad at that time / reflect poorly on him. But basically it was "in the moment" logic.

I can't believe he has a long game either, and we've spent the last three years watching him do things without concern for the effects of the next week or even the next day. He just trusts his ability to slip out of any noose he inadvertently sets for himself.

I really do not think its fair to judge someone based on what you see on TV. I see his arrogant brash personality as mostly an sct, snd being in showbusiness as long as he hss. It is second nature. But I also think there is a reason he uses that personality. Marketing. He portrays himself as the billionaire everyone thinks he is, that they want to be. People look up to pop culture idols, and emulate them. I do not think this is inherently wrong either. I have reason to believe most billionairs, or rich elites are assholes by default to get where they are now. Trump is from NYC, and acts just like people from there are portrayed. But his actions and supposed "luck" and myserious "power" over the Plutocracy sounds just as conspiratorially as what the Democrats accuse Trump in cahoots with Russia.

 

[Maou]

He lives life in the moment and wouldn't know how to play the long game, even if his life depended on it. What he said Monday doesn't matter since it's Tuesday. What he said Tuesday doesn't matter since it's Wednesday. There is no long game. He doesn't have the brain for it.

He wouldn't be a billionaire if he didn't have foresight and ability to read markets. What he says on TV is entirely a mind game to piss off his opponents forcing them to fact check him, intentionally, then finding out the real facts are better that what he was trying to portray.

 

[Jaguar]

He wouldn't be a billionaire if he didn't have foresight and ability to read markets.

Aside from there being zero logic in that statement, prove he's a billionaire. Got a balance sheet of his assets and liabilities? No. You do not.

 

[Maou]

Aside from there being zero logic in that statement, prove he's a billionaire. Got a balance sheet of his assets and liabilities? No. You do not.

Do you have something proving he doesn't have those assets? What about the Trump tower? Or all those hotels the media brings up? Why does he have a net worth? Why is his nsme on s lot of things? If you want to claim illogical, yours is just as mine.