Impeachment Hearings

[iNow]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Exactly how is this cheating in the election? You claimed he was cheating, did you not?

You asked me there about 2016 Russian meddling. That’s what I responded to when saying there was obstruction (as evidenced by Mueller).

When I spoke previously of cheating in this upcoming election in my exchange with jajrussel, the context was different. I was referring there instead to the president this year extorting leaders of foreign nations to investigate his political opponents for personal gain (more specifically, he only wanted them to announce an investigation on CNN to smear the Biden name and didn’t actually care about the investigation itself). 

Does this clarify and address your question, or do you perhaps feel I’m being somehow dishonest, illogical, or even just inconsistent?

Edited November 22, 2019 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

You asked me there about 2016 Russian meddling. That’s what I responded to when saying there was obstruction (as evidenced by Mueller).

When I spoke previously of cheating in this upcoming election in my exchange with jajrussel, the context was different. I was referring there instead to the president this year extorting leaders of foreign nations to investigate his political opponents for personal gain (more specifically, he only wanted them to announce an investigation on CNN to smear the Biden name and didn’t actually care about the investigation itself). 

Does this clarify and address your question, or do you perhaps feel I’m being somehow dishonest, illogical, or even just inconsistent?

That clarifies. Your answer was inconsistent with what I asked.

10 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

@INow

There was apparently some Russian meddling in the 2016 election. There is no evidence that Trump or his organization was cheating (in that regard). Or are you suggesting something else?

 Note the sentence with the question mark.

I didn't ask about the Russian meddling. I asked about what you meant by the cheating you referred to.

 

I honestly was after simple clarification (now provided, and thanks)

[iNow]

Glad we sorted that out, mate. I was confused where the confusion was and happy that all is now well once more with our shared understanding. 

[iNow]

Same framing as what I’ve shared, but done more eloquently:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/12/case-against-trump-seven-words/

Quote

They are important questions, but the case for impeachment is even more straightforward. Asking us to wait until the election to remove him from office is like asking to resolve a dispute based on who wins a game of Monopoly — when the very crime you’ve been accused of is cheating on Monopoly.”

 

[koti]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Same framing as what I’ve shared, but done more eloquently:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/12/case-against-trump-seven-words/

 

On Wednesday cameras go live with the Trump impeachment hearings and theyr'e launching "The Irishman" on Netflix in the evening. Plus 4th episode of "The Mandalorian" on Friday, this will be a good week  

[MonDie]

On 11/18/2019 at 9:14 AM, CharonY said:

Slightly beside the point, but in some ways this thread seems like a microcosm of what postmodernist philosophers have predicted since the 80s. Instead of a common meta-narrative, knowledge is fragmented and used as a commodity by various actors (Lyotard refers specifically the issues of computerization and who determines which information is stored and disseminated-  a thought that can be easily extended to tech companies as the new gate-keepers of knowledge).

While we are dealing with exactly the same event, theHere associated strands of knowledge appear to be very different, resulting not only a different viewpoints, but in fact in parallel strands that do not cross over. It reminds me a bit on the concept of Language games where players agree to use certain rules to create meaning from uttered words. In the postmodernist world, according to Lyotard, we have created many parallel language games, each of which are legitimized by their respective institutions. So we may have politically affiliated language games, in which certain fragments of information carry entirely different meanings and which are self-referenced and amplified by the use of different communication channels (say, social media). Even when we discuss the same things on this board, we arrived to our conclusions using different lines of information. There is ultimately not thinking for oneself, unless one plays the solitaire equivalent of a language game. 

Here is a battle plan.

1.  We rule by consensus, and we have consensus goals for society.

2. Influential people have influence by consensus, and appeal to influential people is meant to be a cognitive shortcut toward what the consensus should ideally be.

3. The consensus will inevitably be that statecraftsmen should have certain skills, education, and goals.  Any other attempt to manipulate consensus is akin to shooting steroids before the big game.

1L32 PM CST November 24th

See: tactical framing

---

What is the date? I miss having my computer. 2:01???

[iNow]

5 hours ago, koti said:

On Wednesday cameras go live with the Trump impeachment hearings

As far as I know, last week was the last of the currently scheduled hearings. Are you sure you have the date right, or maybe there’s a delay before you can see them in your country?

[Curious layman]

"On Wednesday cameras go live with the Trump impeachment hearings"

Could be on repeat. I tuned in to the impeachment hearings last night on BBC, they were 'live' apparently. Took a while to realise they weren't. 

[Airbrush]

Here is what will most likely happen:

1  House impeaches Trump

2  Senate excuses him

3  Up until the elections Trump constantly boasts that he beat the impeachment attempt

4  Voters finally decide on election day about president, and the members of the senate that supported him

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Here is what will most likely happen:

This strikes me as most likely, too. The key things which may change the calculus here, though, are if the courts require Secretary Bolton and Chief or Staff Mulvaney to testify (since they were directly involved and represent a gap in current evidence... Trump stonewalling congress is actually a smart tactical decision here, but the courts could force their hand)...  or if it gets confirmed that Devon Nunes, who served as the minority leader on the Judiciary Committee during the hearings, was himself involved in trying to dig up dirt on Biden. 

Edited November 26, 2019 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

This strikes me as most likely, too. The key things which may change the calculus here, though, are if the courts require Secretary Bolton and Chief or Staff Mulvaney to testify (since they were directly involved and represent a gap in current evidence... Trump stonewalling congress is actually a smart tactical decision here, but the courts could force their hand)...  or if it gets confirmed that Devon Nunes, who served as the minority leader on the Judiciary Committee during the hearings, was himself involved in trying to dig up dirt on Biden. 

Unless they get new evidence from sources such as you suggest, I think they are more likely to censure Trump instead of go for impeachment.

A somewhat hollow victory (or loss, whatever), but this would avoid putting it in the hands of the Senate, where the Democrats would not just likely lose the trial, but very likely the political game, especially if Biden gets the Democrat nomination.

Going for censure would be somewhat cutting their losses at this point (assuming they can't get further testimony significantly detrimental to Trump) but has a couple of redeeming side effects:

It takes pressure off many Democrats in swing states that regret the position impeachment puts on them...

...and puts pressure instead on Republicans that disagree with Trump's "antics", but find them to be less than impeachable.

Edited November 26, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Unless they get new evidence from sources such as you suggest

Why wouldn’t they?

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Why wouldn’t they?

I think they could. But the question is will it be significant enough? (think in terms of amount of damning evidence per witness rather than further accumulation of damning evidence...because that is likely closer to how it will be weighed)

By and for Senators...and then voters.

If they aren't sure they have sufficient evidence...they aren't playing their hand very well.

...and they certainly haven't played it well up until now, IMO.

Note: read sufficient as sufficient to accomplish the goal of Trump removal by January 2021, not whether you think it should be.

[iNow]

I’m increasingly convinced there is no evidence whatsoever that would satisfy the GOP and convince them to remove, despite him being an obvious example of what the founders feared. Shooting someone on 5th Avenue and all that. 

This doesn’t mean Democrats should ignore their own responsibilities in the matter and their oaths. 

Edited November 26, 2019 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, iNow said:

I’m increasingly convinced there is no evidence whatsoever that would satisfy the GOP and convince them to remove, despite him being an obvious example of what the founders feared. Shooting someone on 5th Avenue and all that. 

Then they should go for censure. Even if it is to some degree admitting a weaker hand than they've so fervently claimed.

I bet they get some level of bipartisan support, including all Dems.

...and it avoids the GOP controlled Senate taking over.

The question is "are all factions of the Democrats smart enough to accept that?" (just my opinion)

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Then they should go for censure. Even if it is to some degree admitting a weaker hand than they've so fervently claimed.

I bet they get some level of bipartisan support, including all Dems.

No, the Republicans need to get off their asses and throw the bum out instead of grasping at any straw to avoid their culpability in all this.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

No, the Republicans need to get off their asses and throw the bum out instead of grasping at any straw to avoid their culpability in all this.

 

My suggestions are aimed at what might be plausible.

Don't forget "the bum" has been no worse than expected...he's no more despicable today than he was in 2015...no less fit for the office.

...and the Democrats may or may not be better...(insert Yang promotion here)

[rangerx]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My suggestions are aimed at what might be plausible.

Don't forget "the bum" has been no worse than expected...he's no more despicable today than he was in 2015...no less fit for the office.

...and the Democrats may or may not be better...(insert Yang promotion here)

And again, this has nothing to do with the Democrats other than it's their house and their rules.

Let's talk about Devin Nunes instead. WTF is he still doing on that committee after implicating himself in the fake news/invent dirt scandal at the taxpayer's expense?

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

And again, this has nothing to do with the Democrats other than it's their house and their rules.

Let's talk about Devin Nunes instead. WTF is he still doing on that committee after implicating himself in the fake news/invent dirt scandal at the taxpayer's expense?

Defending Trump...with Schiff assisting in making it sound reasonable in comparison.

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Defending Trump...with Schiff assisting in making it sound reasonable in comparison.

So no culpability then?

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, rangerx said:

So no culpability then?

I wouldn't know. Other than I know there are some accusations. How would I know?

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How would I know?

Well seeing how you seem certain about what the democrats need to do, I figured you might have some insight what the republicans need to do.

Apparently not.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

Well seeing how you seem certain about what the democrats need to do, I figured you might have some insight what the republicans need to do.

Apparently not.

Sorry to disappoint.

[rangerx]

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

Sorry to disappoint.

That's what we've come to expect.

So much for the personal responsibility thing.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, rangerx said:

That's what we've come to expect.

So much for the personal responsibility thing.

You feel I should be personally responsible for the Republicans?