Gathering evidence to support taking such action is the responsibility of the House of Representatives. — aletheist
Nothing, but that is not what you said.Explain what is incorrect in stating that this is the first impeachment trial without witnesses? — 3017amen
There were witnesses for the House impeachment--although only certain ones that the Democrats wanted, and many of them testified only in secret--just none for the Senate trial.This is the first Impeachment without witnesses. — 3017amen
Or you could come by yourself, and if the police officer who issued the ticket did not show up, then the judge would find you not guilty. In this case, it was not the defendant who primarily wanted to call witnesses, but the prosecutors--because they failed to do a sufficiently thorough job with the grand jury (House) that produced the indictment (impeachment).If I get a ticket in traffic court and I want to exonerate myself I would bring witnesses. — 3017amen
3. They did not believe that additional witnesses would have revealed any new information that would have changed their assessment--President Trump's conduct did not warrant removal from office. Also, your #1 again suggests that emotion--not logic--is guiding your responses.Two inferences can be made:
1. They feared witnesses would incriminate and coobberate Dumpertrumper's behavior.
2. They would want to exculpate and thus exonerate their parties leader. — 3017amen
Nixon resigned before being impeached, let alone tried; I assume that you meant Andrew Johnson. And no, there is nothing "regular" about any Senate impeachment trial of a sitting president--especially one initiated by the House on a strictly partisan basis.Nixon and Clinton had a regular trial, right? — 3017amen
There were witnesses for the House impeachment--although only certain ones that the Democrats wanted, and many of them testified only in secret--just none for the Senate trial. — aletheist
Or you could come by yourself, and if the police officer who issued the ticket did not show up, then the judge would find you not guilty. In this case, it was not the defendant who primarily wanted to call witnesses, but the prosecutors--because they failed to do a sufficiently thorough job with the grand jury (House) that produced the indictment (impeachment). — aletheist
They did not believe that additional witnesses would have revealed any new information that would have changed their assessment--President Trump's conduct did not warrant removal from office. Also, your #1 again suggests that emotion--not logic--is guiding your responses. — aletheist
The Republicans in the room were not allowed to call any witnesses of their own, and were restricted in their questioning of the witnesses who did appear.It was a bipartisan hearing room. — 3017amen
Maybe in some cases, definitely not in others; but once again, this is an attempt to discern motives rather than sticking to facts.The Republican's fear retribution from Dumpertrumper because they want to get re=elected. Correct? — 3017amen
Says the person who refers to the duly elected President of the United States as "Dumpertrumper."The GOP is very emotional indeed! — 3017amen
The Republicans in the room were not allowed to call any witnesses of their own, and were restricted in their questioning of the witnesses who did appear. — aletheist
Says the person who refers to the duly elected President of the United States as "Dumpertrumper." — aletheist
That's a silly, political slogan that appeals to the ignorant.The Dems want to run health care for 300 million but can't count 170,000 votes in a small state. — fishfry
I'm a retired project manager and software developer. There are robust ways to run projects and develop software, and there are poor ways. Political ideology has absolutely nothing to do with it. — Relativist
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying this has no bearing on whether or not healthcare is manageable.If you're trying to say that the problems in Iowa are just accidental software deployment issues that could happen to anyone, you are politically naive and not following the up to the minute news out of Iowa. — fishfry
I'm saying this has no bearing on whether or not healthcare is manageable. — Relativist
No. That's a purely partisan perspective, and completely irrational to suggest the party and/or ideology had ANY bearing. This was poor project management. Quality project management has nothing to do with politics. And neither does it imply that complex systems are infeasible - corporate America utilizes complex systems every day, and would collapse without them.To say it has no bearing seems like an overstatement. If taken as a piece of data relevant to the government's (or democrats') ability properly manage complex tasks, it is clearly evidence against their ability to do so. That's not to say that it is very strong evidence. It is, after all, a small piece of data and, in isolation, it could easily be seen as inconsequential. — JohnRB
No. That's a purely partisan perspective, and completely irrational to suggest the party and/or ideology had ANY bearing. This was poor project management. — Relativist
Quality project management has nothing to do with politics.
And neither does it imply that complex systems are infeasible - corporate America utilizes complex systems every day, and would collapse without them.
Why are you even revering to "the government's" or "the democrats" abilities? Quality project management skills can be bought. In this case, it seems they were not - and it's fair to blame the individuals involved, but it is not fair to generalize this into a handicap from which all Democrats suffer. I'm a Democrat, and I successfully led projects, and I'm certainly not the only one.That this was poor project management does not entail that it was not relevant to the government's or the democrats' ability to properly manage complex tasks or to the problem of moral integrity. — JohnRB
In principle. Imagination doesn't establish correlation; rather it constitutes irrational prejudice when you apply it (it's trivially easy to image specfic ethnic group x as being lazy; I hope you see how ridiculous that is). Political philosophy has zero bearing on project management skills. 15 years ago, I took training something like this, and I assure you there is nothing in the methodologies or skills that is inconsistent with being a Democrat.Do you mean in principle or just in this specific case? If you mean in principle, I would disagree. It's trivially easy to imagine a scenario in which a specific political party has a political philosophy which itself leads to poor project management. — JohnRB
It's a different issue, which I thought you might possibly have in mind - namely, that even if Democrats are neither better nor worse than others at managing projects, the mistake is to try and tackle something so complex. If this were true, one might infer that a big government program is too complex to even consider tackling. I was simply conveying that this does not follow.And neither does it imply that complex systems are infeasible - corporate America utilizes complex systems every day, and would collapse without them.
I'm not sure how this statement is supposed to fit in relation to the others. — JohnRB
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying this has no bearing on whether or not healthcare is manageable. — Relativist
Through the lens of politics, it's unfortunate there were screw-ups. Even the alleged sticking of a thumb on the scales is a screw-up: processes should have been in place to prevent it. And actually, I understand that there actually were mechanisms to correct for this, but it takes time to correct through the paper trail.I agree it's a cheap clichéed talking point ("They can't run healthcare if can't even rig a small caucus"). On the other hand there's a lot of truth to it. In Iowa you had gross technical incompetence combined with crony contracts and a biased Democratic committee trying to influence the winner. All the things you DON'T want to see in the party trying to take over health care for 300 million people. I'll stand by my original remark. Cheap cliche, sure. Which in this case perfectly encapsulates a more complex and nuanced truth: That the Democrats are the last people in the world I want near the levers of power right now. And it's not just me. A lot of Democrats are starting to notice. I myself am a registered Democrat and just finished filling out my California absentee ballot. I voted for Tulsi. Now you know my politics. I"m appalled at the state of the Democrats and you should be too. — fishfry
Why are you even revering to "the government's" or "the democrats" abilities? Quality project management skills can be bought. In this case, it seems they were not - and it's fair to blame the individuals involved, but it is not fair to generalize this into a handicap from which all Democrats suffer. I'm a Democrat, and I successfully led projects, and I'm certainly not the only one. — Relativist
Imagination doesn't establish correlation
(it's trivially easy to image specfic ethnic group x as being lazy; I hope you see how ridiculous that is).
Political philosophy has zero bearing on project management skills.
It's a different issue, which I thought you might possibly have in mind - namely, that even if Democrats are neither better nor worse than others at managing projects, the mistake is to try and tackle something so complex. If this were true, one might infer that a big government program is too complex to even consider tackling. I was simply conveying that this does not follow.
You’re being an absolutist. — Noah Te Stroete
Through the lens of politics, it's unfortunate there were screw-ups. Even the alleged sticking of a thumb on the scales is a screw-up: processes should have been in place to prevent it. And actually, I understand that there actually were mechanisms to correct for this, but it takes time to correct through the paper trail. — Relativist
However, considering this is a philosophy forum, I think it's appropriate to apply reasonable epistemology and exercise critical reasoning. It is NOT good epistemology to treat this as a problem in the DNA or developmental environment of Democrats. Analyze what went wrong, identify what can be done to prevent a recurrence, and find ways to prevent it. It doesn't mean Democrats can't do complex projects right. It doesn't mean a public option for health care (or a single payer system) is a non-starter because of incompetence by Democrats or because the complexity is beyond human capability. However, it SHOULD wake everybody up to the fact that complex policy requires (non-partisan) expertise to implement right. It would also be good to educate Democrats in the law of Unintended Consequences/ — Relativist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.