[jedrider]

The significance of the impeachment is Trump is guilty. Now, the histrionics will be in the Senate. The Nancy Pelosi withholding of the articles seems like some gamesmanship that Republicans started by withholding votes on Supreme Court candidates when Democrats propose the candidate.

All very interesting to see how a government implodes in slow motion. I'm not sure what will come out on the other end, but certainly, consensus may be gone forever.

[Cog]

Guilty before trial? I hope your law school refunds your tuition because you were surely defrauded. The Senate trial will determine guilt or innocence. The House impeachment articles are an accusation, nothing more.

[Newfie]

Trump is far from ignorant. He is inarticulate and inflammatory. Those get confused with ignorance.

[Ibon]

I doubt very much Trump is "ignorant". He made tens of millions into a billion, probably has lost and made that much a few times. He runs scads of companies and was able to win the Presidency against all odds. He has put China on its heals (albeit at a cost to the US) which was needed) and has told the UN to go get stuffed (which was also needed). He may come off as someone a bit rough around the edges but don't think that doesn't mean he is extremely sharp and knows what he is doing. His superpower may be that the left woefully underestimates him.

You misunderstood my reference to Asimov's quote. I did not mean that Trump is a member of the ignorant. I meant he nourishes or baits the anti intellectual legacy Asimov alludes to. He is masterful at duping the ignorant and making the ignorant feel they have a leader in their tribal affiliation with anti intellectualism. He makes the ignorant feel proud of their ignorance, vindicated. Ignorance legitimized. Trump is brilliant at this, but as I have alluded to, the one trick pony show has a shelf life that is limited because at the end of the day there is a saturation point of grievance baiting and when the collective has had enough Trump will be exposed as nothing more than a con man that some of us recognized all along.

The tide may turn soon, or it might take 4 more years, but when it does turn it will be the very thing that marks Trump's legacy.

[Newfie]

Ibon,
So then the D’s are the smart ones?

Trump has been far less militaristic than Obama or Hillary. He is taking a lot of heat for trying to disengage from foreign interventions.

And it’s getting pretty hard to deny that the DOJ/FBI suffered massive corruption which Trump is exposing. That was the work of the “smart” ones?

I know that the country is polarized but I really draw back from making distinctions such as you did above. This starts to lean towards the kind of propaganda where you dehumanize you’re enemy, which permits the killing fields.

I know that’s not what you intended, but it is a consequence of that logic.

[Cog]

People who live in the "intellectual" centers on the east and west coast dismissively refer to the rest of us in fly-over land as ignorant hayseeds who don't know what is best for us. Those of us who do live in fly-over land, resent the implication that we are somehow inferior to the rest of self-declared "intellectual" class and we responded in our deplorable fashion by rejecting your candidate.

Given the preview of the 2020 election so far, I see the Democrat party still has not learned why they lost in 2016.

[evilgenius]

What I don't get is how the people on the very site which ought to see just where Trump has broken trust with the United States, seem overwhelmingly in favor of his position. Do you not get that peak oil is the foundation of part of what Trump has betrayed. I'm not talking some fool notion that peak oil will work itself out in one season, like so many think, when they talk about everything falling apart so quickly. I'm talking about the strategic interests of the country. When the peak hits, and it will, if there is no replacement energy provision, then the US will need to be in a certain strategic position. All these wars the US has been fighting over the last several decades are part of that. The Ukraine is part of that. When the US eventually faces Russia, in whose direction these wars have been taking it, the Ukraine will be pivotally important. If you can't see that, then please just think about it.

Trump has not only been brazen when it comes to the Ukraine. It's just that what he did there actually crossed a line. He worked against the interests of the US, in order to further his re-election chances. In other areas, such as his anti-globalization stance, he has been equally brazen. But, there, he has a real argument that he is seeking what is best for the country. We have to trust him on that one. It's one of those things where nothing about what someone in charge is doing makes the least bit of sense, but then you can find that they had a plan. When things work out, in those situations, they usually can't talk too much about the reasoning behind what they were doing when they were doing it, or it might have worked against them.

I have to give him time. I have, also, to say that I do not believe that he actually does have a plan. I believe he is simply pandering to the rust belt segment of his base, who pine for lost job sectors. When the country would be best served by someone who came along and stuck a pin in the balloon that is forming over educating people to work in the last paradigm, not the high tech one, instead he panders to those disaffected by the changes that high tech has wrought. We do not produce enough highly specialized people who are ready to work in the workplaces of the future. Instead of fixing that, Trump wants to make those who belong to the old order happy. Additionally, he could be getting ahead of the basic income idea and turning it into a set of things designed to handle the very people he seems to be speaking to, and put a conservative shape upon it.

In other words, he could be the first conservative to be brave enough to change the dynamic that has been going on over education, where the people are made deliberately dumb. This works for conservatives. It helps them get elected. They only have to point out this or that list of commonly held talking points. A nation of reasoning minds is harder to get to come with you so easily. Changes that spread opportunity around a little more might have to actually take place, if that were the case. People would have to see what was in it for them rather than just keep taking satisfaction from the words they heard concerning one social issue or another.

It looks more like Trump is just into pumping up the national debt in order to keep the economy going strong. He hasn't got anything to say about facing the future, except to tout his space force. Is he just another of those who believe that the US military is best used in order to keep dollar hegemony intact? Meanwhile, the country needs changes that someone like him, who appears to be a loose wheel that nobody wants to stop, could probably have some success with. The country needs to move into the 21st Century, in many respects. If he really wants to get way ahead, like he said about the space force, then he might consider trying to get those parts of it to the 22nd Century far ahead of those with whom they have to deal rather than to try to go backwards so fast.

[Newfie]

Evil,

While much of what you say has merit you are missing half the picture.

First recall that Trump was elected in a forced choice run off with Hillary. Hillary was promising to be a continuation of the Obama presidency. And she insulted and ignored the very people she was asking to vote for her. In her hubris she asked an audience “Why aren’t I 50 points ahead?” Why indeed, and why not ask that of yourself?

Now we have the situation where the D’s have claimed Russian interference, to be proved my Mueller. Except that didn’t happen. Instead we have the IG proving the FBI/DOJ with gross incompetence, as a minimum, with a more forceful investigation ongoing.

Then we have the Afghanistan Papers showing that successive administrations have lied to us. And Trump is trying to get us out of these foreign entanglements while not starting new ones.

So looking from that perspective it’s no wonder many folks support Trump IN COMPARISON TO MAIN STREAM DEMOCRATS.

One needs to reflect back upon the above examples of how the previous administrations (both D and R) have broken trust with the American people.

So yeah Trump is a bull in a China shop, but he is a break from the last line of corruption. And that’s a breath of fresh air.
Mad a country we should be able to do better, but the political parties seem to have it all screwed up.

[Plantagenet]

Nancy Pelosi is refusing do her duty and send the articles of impeachment to the Senate because she is demanding a quid pro quo from the Senate first.

Can we impeach Nancy Pelosi for that?

Cheers!

[evilgenius]

Whatever he does that goes too far, you don't get to take that back. That's the only problem with someone who comes off as an enemy of the state in such a way. You'd dismiss him, as quickly as any corporation would its own executives, who acted so willfully outside of what was best for the corporation. But you can't dismiss him so easily, using only half measures. This one is too arrogant for half measures. He doesn't get subtlety, nor innuendo. What have people got left?

[Ibon]

Ibon,
So then the D’s are the smart ones?

.

WHy the fuck do you instantly genuflect to the assumption that I exonerate the D's of their own misdeeds?

You are deeply stuck in polarization my friend. Can we not hold two positions at the same time anymore? Holding Trump accountable for his shit independent of all else and .........at the same time we recognize the shortcomings of the D party?

The D party has their own set of dysfunction but it is not anti intellectualism which was the point I was addressing with Asimov's quote.

Can we not just stick to the point without having to drag the D's into the topic.

WTF?

[Ibon]

I am arriving at the end point of my involvement with this site. I have almost no more respect for the vast majority of posters here

Let's face it, this site has acted as a filter since years with the only ones left posting being those that require some twisted sort of ersatz social digital contact to vent their positions.

Most of you sorely lack organic community...... it is so obvious.

Enough said.

The level of stupidity demonstrated here on this site................... no words left.

[Cog]

See you tomorrow Ibon.

[Newfie]

Whatever he does that goes too far, you don't get to take that back. That's the only problem with someone who comes off as an enemy of the state in such a way. You'd dismiss him, as quickly as any corporation would its own executives, who acted so willfully outside of what was best for the corporation. But you can't dismiss him so easily, using only half measures. This one is too arrogant for half measures. He doesn't get subtlety, nor innuendo. What have people got left?

Then would also admit that Obama was equally corrupt but he just lied nicer?

Summary execution of an American citizen
Authors rise a raid on a country we are not at war with -Ali is
Lie to the American Public about progress in Afghanistan
Allow the corruption of the DOJ/FBI

IF, and only if, you admit that Obama was equally corrupt and impeachable does your argument carry weight. If not then your argument becomes simply a matter of STYLE.

[Newfie]

Ibon,
So then the D’s are the smart ones?

.

WHy the fuck do you instantly genuflect to the assumption that I exonerate the D's of their own misdeeds?

You are deeply stuck in polarization my friend. Can we not hold two positions at the same time anymore? Holding Trump accountable for his shit independent of all else and .........at the same time we recognize the shortcomings of the D party?

The D party has their own set of dysfunction but it is not anti intellectualism which was the point I was addressing with Asimov's quote.

Can we not just stick to the point without having to drag the D's into the topic.

WTF?

Ibon,

If you don’t want to come across as a partisan then it’s important to note that you would apply the same standards to a Democrat. See my post above.

Was Obama impeachable?

Now this is an important point, to separate STYLE From substance. I’m not arguing anything in support if Trump. The guy is a nut case. The question is “Do we hold both parties to the same objective standards?”

[evilgenius]

Whatever he does that goes too far, you don't get to take that back. That's the only problem with someone who comes off as an enemy of the state in such a way. You'd dismiss him, as quickly as any corporation would its own executives, who acted so willfully outside of what was best for the corporation. But you can't dismiss him so easily, using only half measures. This one is too arrogant for half measures. He doesn't get subtlety, nor innuendo. What have people got left?

Then would also admit that Obama was equally corrupt but he just lied nicer?

Summary execution of an American citizen
Authors rise a raid on a country we are not at war with -Ali is
Lie to the American Public about progress in Afghanistan
Allow the corruption of the DOJ/FBI

IF, and only if, you admit that Obama was equally corrupt and impeachable does your argument carry weight. If not then your argument becomes simply a matter of STYLE.

That's simply not true. Obama, being an ex-president, is as thoroughly removed from office as conviction upon impeachment would be for Trump. You have to limit the potential damage. People like Trump take nations like the US into war, because they don't think before they speak. Trump is the next thing to insane. He is a solipsistic nightmare. He measures the future prospects of his country according to how low he can get the corresponding representative of a foreign country to bow to him. He offers offense to people we will need to rely upon, probably sooner than later. He is not thinking about the best future for the country, unless that has something to do with rewriting school books, so that he can come off as the best president since sliced cheese.

[Cog]

The Constitution specifies what are impeachable offenses. That Trump offends people, nations, and cultures is not an impeachable offense. We have elections for that sort of thing.

[Newfie]

Evil genius wrote:

That's simply not true. Obama, being an ex-president, is as thoroughly removed from office as conviction upon impeachment would be for Trump. You have to limit the potential damage.

I think we are talking last one another. I agree that we can not now impeach Obama because he is removed from office.

My point was that there should be a consistent standard for impeachment. Do you not agree?

People like Trump take nations like the US into war, because they don't think before they speak. Trump is the next thing to insane. He is a solipsistic nightmare. He measures the future prospects of his country according to how low he can get the corresponding representative of a foreign country to bow to him. He offers offense to people we will need to rely upon, probably sooner than later. He is not thinking about the best future for the country, unless that has something to do with rewriting school books, so that he can come off as the best president since sliced cheese.

There is something to what you say. Yet, Trump has in effect been LESS militaristic than his immediate predecessors. Consider this, just because someone thinks about a problem does not mean they make the correct choices. It may well be that in the process of “thinking” they are really constructing some justification for the action they re about to commit. There is a great deal of research that shows we make the majority of our decisions without much conscious thought, off the cuff. That can be curtailed if you have a rigorous process for making the decision.

I read a long article about Obama’s decision to attack Lybia, the regular army. Obama was extensively quoted and the article was very flattering of the great man with weighty decision upon his shoulders. Obama talked about having all his advisors around him providing alternatives but what caused him to call for the attack was the concept of the masses column of regulars ready to defend upon the rebels cut off from retreat by the sea. He foresaw a massacre and decided to stop it, by ordering a different massacre.

At first glance it seems Trump is more impetuous, and he may be. But the differences are small. Obama was surrounded by alternatives and yet went with his gut. My assertion is that Trump has a strong personal dislike for killing and seeks alternatives, that’s his gut. I have less sense of Obama’s gut but it seems it is more open to hostility.

Point one is the historical record is that Trump’s ACTIONS have been more passive than Obama’s.

Point two is that the impeachment documents say nothing about Trump bring us to war. If that is the reasoning behind impeachment then it should be surfaced and discussed.

PLEASE NOTE: NONE of this is to support Trump. I’m trying to support logic and the constitutional process.

[jedrider]

People who live in the "intellectual" centers on the east and west coast dismissively refer to the rest of us in fly-over land as ignorant hayseeds who don't know what is best for us. Those of us who do live in fly-over land, resent the implication that we are somehow inferior to the rest of self-declared "intellectual" class and we responded in our deplorable fashion by rejecting your candidate.

Given the preview of the 2020 election so far, I see the Democrat party still has not learned why they lost in 2016.

That's complete bullshit Cog and you probably know it, but you enjoy flinging the shit. Ignorance and willful ignorance knows no bounds. And, don't you live on the West coast?

[jedrider]

Guilty before trial? I hope your law school refunds your tuition because you were surely defrauded. The Senate trial will determine guilt or innocence. The House impeachment articles are an accusation, nothing more.

The House procedures were clearly more than just an accusation, but the Senate does get the final say and I look at it as sentencing. Trump may just get a slap on the wrist (already delivered). I doubt if the Senate has a real trial as Republicans won't want to rehash the basis of all the accusations. Does anyone remember how it went for Clinton?