Sure but many don't. You have the numbers by chance?

Could not agree more Maw!

Ironically enough I was just making the case for that very thing over the weekend. I think the media is overthinking it.

For instance, let the checks and balances process play out viz impeachment hearings so that the voters can be more informed and better equipped in 2020 regardless of outcome.

Great question!.

As an Independent Moderate, with few exceptions, I am opposed to killing of any kind. Don't support death penalty; but don't support a cushy prison life either. I believe practicing deterrence (in all its forms whether it's crime or public safety laws or gun control et.al.) first and foremost.

That's a more reasonable approach in my view. I can give you specifics... .

I WILL BE UPDATING THE SYLLOGISTIC POINT LIST VIZ. THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY SHORTLY.

Sure absolutely not, as a Independent Moderate I can make a case to support your view.

To answer your concern, what I was referring to were illegal immigrant's not paying taxes. I don't think you would take issue with that.

... An important point to add when you say breaking point, it was a combination of many things over time. Regarding our elections, he supported Russian meddling in 2016 and is attempting to do the same again...

As they say, fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me.

It's a good question and I'll give you a quick example of an exception, for a public servant.

God forbid if a plane carrying 50 people was going to hit a tall building with 5,000 people, I would acquiesce to shooting down the plane with 50 to save the 5,000.

Being a moderate independent, I'm okay with enforcing immigration laws and deportation of illegal immigrants not paying their share. And the previous administration did a great job with deportations of same.

Do you think some of the people who elected Trump knew he was a shady character, but chose him for other reasons?"

Sure I can understand what a protest vote means...should it mean that one sells their souls at all costs, or recognize their errors and cut their losses?

Is that what you want from your public servants?

"They can be. ". Really, how so?

Are public servants above the law then?

If the doctors is a public servant he must follow the law no?

I would need a little bit more information. Is the doctor a public servant? And is he trying to cure clinical narcissism?

What if the doctor didn't tell you he was breaking the law?

(Would you care to know?)

Cool, thanks.... certainly worth another thread to explore....

Bayesian probabilty? Are you absolutely sure that refers to Sociology and Political Philosophy, not to mention human behavior relative to cooberation viz. judicial process?

My desire is to keep this thread specifically about political empeachment. I'm approaching this in a bullet-point syllogistic style, so that one can draw reasonable inferences from the premises or facts stated. Inductive reasoning relates to probabilities or likelihoods of things being true.

Even though other developments are happening guickly, relative to polical Agency heads resigning, file server cover-ups, possibilities of leveraging funds for political and personal advantage, I am not going to provide any bullet points for those at this time. I will await more information on those, from hearings scheduled this week.

In the meantime I am not opposed to a very brief detour in the philosophy of the so-called epistemic elements that I think both of you all are referring to...certainly worth devoting another thread to for sure.

I will then resume posting my enumerated bullet points when we get more information very shortly...

Sorry I'm just trying to dot the eyes and cross the t's and get caught up. Thank you for pointing out your previous concern me, accordingly I corrected the record in the OP thus:

"Like Andrew Johnson , Clinton, and to a lesser degree Nixon ( resignation before impeachment), presidents before us sometimes do not work out."

Thanks... Just to be clear it's my understanding that an impeachment inquiry in itself is necessary to preclude executive privilege over release of certain documents and information. In a sense the Democrats had no choice, they were backed in the corner if they wanted to get to the truth.

Otherwise unfortunately we have seen the White House restrict and mislead the public about similar information. It's sad and it really sucks honestly.

I must say your argument is very persuasive...

It's kind of funny ( and ironic) his base is all against political correctness and you hit the nail on the head accordingly...

I appreciate your comments and I know we're all pontificating.... As an independent moderate myself , there is no disagreement about foreign meddling and abuse of power for personal gain particularly in light of the fact that he promised the voters he would drain the swamp and be different.

Further in my opinion I don't think it's an all or nothing proposition. I think you can do both... Because unfortunately having an impeachment inquiry is the only way to educate the public on whether or not to vote for him in 2020

Well to be clearer, most supporters including independent moderates like myself never had an issues with separating families as a deterrent to illegal immigration. The concerns would be two-fold:

1. Last year why didn't he just hold a news conference and explain to the public his rationale for tough love treatment/deterrent, and impart his deep empathy of such treatment. He could have sold it better to the public, but it can't seem to separate public relation skills versus negotiation and diplomacy.

2. Since he sold to the voters he would enforce our immigration laws , it appears contradictory since his deportation numbers are below the previous administrations numbers.

Once again fair enough. But, Trump's deportation numbers are down compared to the previous administration.

With all due respect are you trying to intimidate me (with your derogatory comments)?

Fair enough. But it begs more questions:

1. Trump used the Mexican border wall payment promise to help get elected.
2. He was largely unsuccessful at that campaign promise.
3. Donald Trump said he was going to drain the Swamp from such broken promises.
3. Arguably he is now part of the Swamp team.

Honestly does that concern you?

Your party may be imploding a little bit:

1. During the campaign Donald Trump promised that Mexico was going to pay for the wall.
2. The US Department of Defense is diverting an estimated $3.6 billion in military construction funds to help build the wall.
3. It appears Donald Trump once again lied to the American people.

Are you concerned? If not, share with the taxpayer your logic?

Sure that's why we have the various processes in place for vetting as it were.

Sure it's an interpretation issue Trump's lawyer will have to defend. Abuse of power for personal gain however will be difficult to overcome. Stay tuned!

Agreed. In politics that's why we have hearings to help confirm plausibility.

Ha, of course. And the reason why it can be construed as such is because the statute is 'high crimes misdemeanors and other...'

Abuse of power is 'the other'

Then what does deductive logic do?

That's correct, it's called the abuse of power standard.

13. Ukraine: Trump has leveraged his authority for personal political gain and therefore is an abuse of power hence meets the empeachment standard.

Once again feel free to parse it.

Fast forwarding , 'High crimes and misdemeaners ' may be appropriate here.

10. Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani solicited a foreign government for political advantage.

11. Donald Trump use the word " favor" in approaching the Ukraine government about reopening an investigation.

12. An interview with ABC news Donald Trump said that he would take information from a foreign government for political advantage and ' maybe report it'.

Feel free to ask me questions as to the soundness of those propositions.

Induction can prove a normative. You're thinking deduction.

And I will cover more stringent criteria that relates to the president putting his personal gain over national security interests

Correct, this is a political forum not a legal forum.

Again look at history: Nixon, Clinton, et. al.

Of course BC! I understand that.

9. During Muellers testimony , Mueller was asked specifically whether he felt Trump had lied to him and he said I quote: "generally".

Please feel free to question me on whether that proposition is sound.

5. Michael Flynn who was Trump's campaign director plead guilty to Russia collusion.
6. Six individuals were found guilty of wrongdoing all of whom were part of Trump's 2016 campaign. And some are in jail.
7. Trump destroyed the transcripts from the Putin summit.
8. The Mueller report did not find collusion, but found Russia meddling with our election on his watch.

Please feel free to question me as to whether those propositions are sound.