True that Frank!!! ....huge, huge, huge, point. We could talk forever about that so-called dynamic, in politics at least....

I think the lesson here is that it only takes one emotion-injector to deflect logic. Emotion always wins. — frank

How is that the lesson? What 'logic' has been defeated here by emotion, I can't work out from your comment how it relates to the post it's in reply to.

True that Frank!!! ....huge, huge, huge, point. We could talk forever about that so-called dynamic, in politics at least.... — 3017amen

:up:

How is that the lesson? What 'logic' has been defeated here by emotion, I can't work out from your comment how it relates to the post it's in reply to. — Isaac

Thread title versus discussion

We agree. But the distinctions here are not following the laws in either instance.

1. It's unlawful to submit fraudulent tax returns
2. It's unlawful to pay someone without taking all the withholding taxes out . (Not to mention in the construction industry and other service economies workers-regardless of race & ethnicity - are paid 'under the table' with zero withholdings/ paid with cash.)

Thread title versus discussion — frank

Are you just going to reply in clause-less aphorisms all the time?

So the immigrant's employers would be the ones committing the crime. American citizens. So why deport immigrants for the crimes of their employers?

Are you just going to reply in clause-less aphorisms all the time? — Isaac

The present vein of discussion started with an emotional message from Maw about the cuteness of the OP's strategy. From there, we left off from the topic to discuss the contributions of illegal immigrants.

Per a number if political commentators, that is in line with the GOP strategy to re-elect Trump amid impeachment proceedings: derail to create the maximum confusion. Theyre hoping Democrats will broaden the scope of the charges and in the process, they'll sow the field thickly with ways to confuse.

I see. The starting point for me was

undocumented immigrants pay taxes — Maw

No emotion, just a bare statement of fact. Hence my confusion about your comment.

Correct, in those cases you would have no reason to... .

The present vein of discussion started with an emotional message from Maw about the cuteness of the OP's strategy — frank

Yeah I totally should have used a "logical" message

Yeah I totally should have used a "logical" message — Maw

If you wanted to be in keeping with the thread title, yes.

While we await more definitive news (which will happen this week; regarding 'unusual classified' file server transfers, Volker's -special Envoy to Ukraine who resigned Friday- testimony, reports of President Trump's comments about endorsing Moscow meddling 'because USA does it', and the like) I am adding two more into the so-called record:

14. Robert Mueller's testimony revealed his concern with foreign meddling in our elections, and I quote: "They're doing it as we sit here".

15. FBI Director Christopher Wray's testimony revealed, and I quote: "The Russians are absolutely intent on trying to interfere with our elections through the foreign influence... they haven't been deterred enough".

Feel free to parse and ponder.

While we await more definitive news and information (President Trump now reportedly wants to meet the Ukraine whistleblower) I am adding more factual information to the so-called record:

16. Directly from Mueller report : "[T]he investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts..."

17. Directly from Mueller report: "The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests."

Feel free to parse and ponder

While we await more definitive information on the Ukraine investigation, I am adding more factual information to the so-called record relative to abuse of power and personal interest:

18. Mueller Report Vol II Obstruction page 290 : "...when Sessions told the President that a Special Counsel had been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked.”504 .

19.Mueller Report vol. II, p. 157: "Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong."

I could post more from the Mueller report that speaks to the aforementioned obstruction and/or personal interest and/or abuse of power concerns, but will hold off until the results of the Ukraine testimony comes in.

In the meantime, as a house-keeping matter, the logic that we are using is essentially Modus tollens rule of inference. This isn't like a priori formal logic, instead it deals with probabilities and the likelihood of things happening. A couple examples:

If the watch-dog detects an intruder, the watch-dog will bark.
The watch-dog did not bark.
Therefore, no intruder was detected by the watch-dog.

If I am the axe murderer, then I can use an axe.
I cannot use an axe.
Therefore, I am not the axe murderer.

Feel free to parse and ponder.

I don't think the impeachment inquiry is going to focus on Mueller's report. It's going to be a narrow look at the attempt to use executive power for personal gain.

To what use will you put rules of inference?

Oh yes, I am aware of that. I actually think it's a mistake not to include it, but that's just my personal opinion. As you know, I look at things in totality and try not to dichotomize where possible. At the very least, it establishes patterns that can be corroborated. And it also helps the voter to make an informed decision in 2020.

To answer your question, here's an example:

1. Donald Trump had affairs, paid off a pornstar and a Playboy bunny and lied about it on air Force one (Subsequently his lawyer was found guilty of campaign funds violation/fraud.)
2. Donald Trump was caught on tape (TMZ interview) disparaging women's genitalia ("...you can do anything, grab them by the pu$$y...").
3. Over his career Donald Trump and while in office, has made other explicit derogatory remarks towards women.
4. Misogyny is partially described as sexual objectivication and bellitlement of women
5. Is it reasonable to infer that Donald Trump is a misogynist.

Is this what we want in a President or should we accept it as the norm(?)

I will argue not. I hold my public officials to a higher standard. We can't just give up on our leadership values.

Over his career Donald Trump and while in office, has made other explicit derogatory remarks towards women. — 3017amen

True, but he's also put women in significant roles of authority even 30 years ago when it wasn't so popular. His philosophy was that you get more for your buck if you hire women because they work so hard to prove themselves to counter sexism.

There was a recent poll that showed that Trump is losing the support of college educated white women (who helped put him in office in 2016). Their complaint isn't misogyny, but that he thinks he's above the law.

Logic for why he shouldn't be impeached:

Trump has taken a hard stand against China. If he's impeached, then the Chinese will just sit on the trade war instead of trying to negotiate.

And that will amplify a problem that democracies tend to have: changing captains so often, the boat zig zags all over the place. It's hard to be taken seriously and that can lead to hot war.

What do you think?

Hey Frank well thank you kindly for asking my opinion. First of all today, ironically enough, Trump just said and I quote:

"China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine,"

That is scary on many levels. One obvious concern would relate to easing up on the tarrifs in return for a political favor of investigating a political opponent for personal gain.

As you know tariffs are controversial. Some say in the long run they work others say they don't since they don't encourage production efficiency here in the states. And the temporary cost increases to the consumer usually never decreases back to where it was.

If you remember back in June Harley-Davidson said they were moving some of their production to Europe because of retaliatory tarrifs from EU. In response to Trump’s import tariffs on steel/aluminum, Europeans targeted Harley by raising the U.S. motorcycle tariffs from 6% to 31%. This percent increase adds nearly $2,200 to the cost of an average motorcycle over there. So they layed off workers here and moved some production over there to avoid the tax and stay competitive over there.

The big picture in politics is basically how do we want our politicians to spend the money. So instead of tax cuts for large corporations I would just give them other incentives. I mean look at all the incentives that the farmer's get...

This is what I think: its all screwed up. But it's always been screwed up.

Though blood and gore may be all around you, you can just sit on a hill and watch the clouds

if you want to.

Most economists agree that ideally it's best to have a free market. And deal with trade or economic disparities in other ways by policing regulations... At least then you wouldn't have cost increases from tariffs.

So maybe one question at least is, if Trump tries to negotiate tariffs for political favors then it was a big waste of time and people suffered economically for no reason.

UPDATE: I will be putting together some bullet points that outline the latest developments concerning; the whistleblower, I G's recent testimony, as well as the bombshell that occurred today relative to Trumps personal attorney Giuliani and his associates, being arrested for funneling foreign money and paying off a republican congressman to help influence a Ukraine official.

Stay tuned!

20. Trump's top diplomatic to Ukraine testified on 10/22/19, and revealed the so-called smoking gun/ quid pro quo in his opening statement:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vUI__sxL_fgzy5JYqaxB9cysOHwwQSE4/view

Agree with the overall tone and feeling of this article. However I’m still waiting for the logic and your use of the word “concern” is emotive.

Sure right now it's in the fact-finding phase of course... otherwise, Modus tollens rule of inference is being used here...

20. On 11-7-19: Judge ordered President Trump to pay $2 million to a group of charities on Thursday, ruling that the president had broken the law by directing the proceeds from an event advertised as benefiting veterans to his presidential campaign instead. The president admitted misusing money raised by the Donald J. Trump Foundation to promote his presidential bid, pay off business debts and purchase a portrait of himself for one of his hotels.

21. Longtime Trump associate Roger Stone was found guilty on Friday (today 11/15/19) of lying to Congress and other charges in a case that has shed new light on President Donald Trump's anticipation of the release of stolen Democratic emails in 2016 by WikiLeaks.

Stone, a political operative, was found guilty of all seven counts brought by the Justice Department, a victory for special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. Stone was found guilty on five counts of lying to Congress, one of witness tampering, and one of obstructing a Congressional committee proceeding.

Stone is facing anywhere between 5-20 years in jail.

should hopefully be the max sentence to make an example of chaotic tricksters like him.