Identity politics (and by close extension, anti-Trumpism) is, in my view, a consolation prize for those who missed the civil rights era. — NOS4A2

You're probably right. I'm very opposed to people pretending it's the 1960s because that stands in the way of objective progress on actually going back to the 1960s.

I have a job at GM waiting for me. I can't deal with all this global warming, which, let's face it, has Ukrainian involvement.

I'm in favor of nuking everything from Moscow on eastward. Arent you?

You're probably right. I'm very opposed to people pretending it's the 1960s because that stands in the way of objective progress on actually going back to the 1960s.

I have a job at GM waiting for me. I can't deal with all this global warming, which, let's face it, has Ukrainian involvement.

I'm in favor of nuking everything from Moscow on eastward. Arent you?

I suspect you would welcome the end of the earth so long as it meant Trump’s impeachment. Schadenfreude is strong enough for that.

What? I'm on your side.

I have yet to be bitten. In fact that ol’ dog is working night and day to make the reasons I voted for him a reality. That’s all that I ask for in a president. — NOS4A2

Thought you weren't an American. But if that's your standard for a president, you shouldn't have, be allowed to, or even want to vote - you are incapable of judging even your own self-interest father than 12 inches away. Trump is a kind of storm . The mariner is always prepared, and indeed understands the possibilities of storms. You ignore/deny them. That you have yet to be bitten, as an expression of your creed and m.o., says it all.

Thought you weren't an American. But if that's your standard for a president, you shouldn't have, be allowed to, or even want to vote - you are incapable of judging even your own self-interest father than 12 inches away. Trump is a kind of storm . The mariner is always prepared, and indeed understands the possibilities of storms. You ignore/deny them. That you have yet to be bitten, as an expression of your creed and m.o., says it all.

I am not concerned about my own self-interest as I am about the country. I would argue it is the last beacon of liberty on this planet.

The storm is well needed, at least to wash away the pests and parasites now bleeding the American experiment dry.

That's great you feel that way Nosferatu. Sadly, the facts aren't on your side on the issue as to whether Trump is a net good or detriment to upholding American ideals about governance and foreign policy.

You might as well bash me for being an independent or Democrat and not a libertarian or some such nonsense.

The facts aren’t on your side. We won’t know whether Trump’s presidency is a net good until his term(s) are over. History might tell us, as anti-Trumpists presume, that his term is an aberration. I happen to suspect it will be the other way about.

I’m not going to bash you.

On the Ukraine matter, Ambassador Kurt Volker’s prepared remarks should be read before the spin-machine poisons the well.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6454114/Volker-Prepared-Remarks.pdf

It looks like Adam Schiff received 4 Pinocchios for his false claim that he or his committee didn’t speak to the whistleblower before the complaint was lodged. Why would he lie about that? DNC fingerprints all over this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/04/schiffs-false-claim-his-committee-had-not-spoken-whistleblower/ — NOS4A2

So the Washington Post is not fake news?

Those concerned with the Ukraine scandal should read in full the text messages of the ambassadors of Ukraine, and then observe the spin of the media.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/ukraine-text-messages-volker.html

Thanks. I've started reading some Geuss and like it a lot. So far, the gist seems to be that 'politics is not applied ethics' because there is no universal ethics that can be applied.

When you say, "When politics is confused with morality, people fucking die. Morality is for those who can't think.," what I think you mean is that people who hold to a moral framework unquestioningly can be easily manipulated. Trump may be a good example of this. It doesn't appear to make sense, for example, that Trump has captured the amount of support from Evangelicals that he has, being the 'bad person' that he is. However, Trump supports issues that are important to Evangelicals, such as being anti-abortion. Does Trump actually care about abortion or is it merely a means to an end for him? Do Evangelicals actually care if he cares? I doubt it. So where is the true morality in any of this? Nowhere.

Liberals have their own sort of carrots and hypocrisies, of course.

That's great you feel that way Nosferatu. Sadly, the facts aren't on your side on the issue as to whether Trump is a net good or detriment to upholding American ideals about governance and foreign policy. — Wallows

The facts aren’t on your side. We won’t know whether Trump’s presidency is a net good until his term(s) are over. History might tell us, as anti-Trumpists presume, that his term is an aberration. I happen to suspect it will be the other way about. — NOS4A2

Provide some facts that support the notion that Trump is upholding American ideals. Be sure to state the ideals he is upholding.

Provide some facts that support the notion that Trump is upholding American ideals. Be sure to state the ideals he is upholding.

Why would I provide facts for something I have never argued?

I've started reading some Geuss and like it a lot. So far, the gist seems to be that 'politics is not applied ethics' because there is no universal ethics that can be applied. — praxis

In the introduction to "Outside Ethics" he says the essays are bound by:

... a shared skepticism about a particular way of thinking about what is important in human life which I take to be characteristic of contemporary European societies.

That particular way of thinking is one that is timeless and universal. His particular way of thinking about what is important in human life is historical or genealogical.

Why would I provide facts for something I have never argued? — NOS4A2

You must not have read the post from Wallows before you responded to it. There is ample evidence that Trump is a detriment to American values, and yet you indicated it's unknown if history will deem him a net good or net bad TO AMERICAN VALUES (that is the implication of the context).

To what American values is Trump a detriment to?

he facts aren’t on your side. We won’t know whether Trump’s presidency is a net good until his term(s) are over. History might tell us, as anti-Trumpists presume, that his term is an aberration. I happen to suspect it will be the other way about. — NOS4A2

You make the fundamental error - based in what I don't now - that the bad man will do the good thing. He won't, because he cannot.

You make the fundamental error - based in what I don't now - that the bad man will do the good thing. He won't, because he cannot.

I believe it is you who makes the fundamental error, to be more precise, the fundamental attribution error, the assumption that what Trump does reflects who he is.

I believe it is you who makes the fundamental error, to be more precise, the fundamental attribution error, the assumption that what Trump does reflects who he is. — NOS4A2

?

Isn't what you actually do define what you are?

No?

So now it's something else.

. It doesn't appear to make sense, for example, that Trump has captured the amount of support from Evangelicals that he has, being the 'bad person' that he is. However, Trump supports issues that are important to Evangelicals, such as being anti-abortion. Does Trump actually care about abortion or is it merely a means to an end for him? Do Evangelicals actually care if he cares? I doubt it. So where is the true morality in any of this? Nowhere. — praxis

This is partly what I mean when I say that Trump supporters are generally far better attuned to the things that matter: they grasp - however cynically and nihilistically - the importance of power. They understand - in a way liberals are laregely clueless about - the instrumentalities of politics entirely unsubordinated to moral injunctions, even if they use the latter in service of the former. This is partly why the perpetual confusion of Trump opponents over how such an alliance between him and evangelicals is possible is itself so exasperating.

When Trump supporters are treated as dupes - again, a debilitating personalization of politics - and not as eagle-eyed clear about what they are doing, the only idiots here are aghast liberals who, in thinking themselves superior and immune to being hoodwinked, are the only clueless ones in the room. Without a proper understanding of power, Trump opponents will flounder and even play right into the hands of all they apparently hate. Treating the political as a space of morals and individuals is fatal, absolute suicide.

This is partly what I mean when I say that Trump supporters are generally far better attuned to the things that matter: they grasp - however cynically and nihilistically - the importance of power. They understand - in a way liberals are laregely clueless about - the instrumentalities of politics entirely unsubordinated to moral injunctions, even if they use the latter in service of the former. This is partly why the perpetual confusion of Trump opponents over how such an alliance between him and evangelicals is possible is itself so exasperating.

When Trump supporters are treated as dupes - again, a debilitating individualization of politics - and not as eagle-eyed clear about what they are doing, the only idiots here are aghast liberals who, in thinking themselves superior and immune to being hoodwinked, are the only clueless ones in the room. Without a proper understanding of power, Trump opponents will flounder and even play right into the hands of all they apparently hate. Treating the political as a space of morals and individuals is fatal, absolute suicide. — StreetlightX

I'm a bit fascinated now by asymmetrical warfare. I consider what the evangelicals and Trump-supporters in general are doing asymmetrical warfare as anything Trump does to them gets a pass, but if a Democrat like Obama did any ounce of what Trump did, he would have been impeached long ago. That kind of unjust double standard is the odious part. A strong democracy where all that matters is the majority who have power is indeed not a strong one after all. I disagree with this idea that it's just playing better politics. If that's the case, why even have a democracy? This corruption can work under any format and corrodes the idea of living up to any ideals. There is a difference between cynicism of human tendencies and then indulging them as what should be the case.

if a Democrat like Obama did any ounce of what Trump did, he would have been impeached long ago. — schopenhauer1

They were muttering impeachment when he wore a tan suit to the press briefing. Imagine the outrage if he’d stood on the White House lawn and called on China to investigate Mitt Romney. I just shows what stinking hypocrites those Republican senators and white evangelicals are.

The difficulty is fighting lies by legal means. If you get into the ring with someone who will kick you in the balls and gouge your eyes out while you have to play by gentlemen’s rules, then you’d better have some pretty good moves.

The difficulty is fighting lies by legal means. If you get into the ring with someone who will kick you in the balls and gouge your eyes out while you have to play by gentlemen’s rules, then you’d better have some pretty good moves. — Wayfarer

Being that this is mainly a political battle over what is considered an Abuse of Power, it is up to both parties to a) come to an agreement of what that means and b) interpret facts using the same methodologies. Well, prior to trump it would have been more than an outrage if a president was openly asking help from a foreign country to help win an election. Nixon only used domestic spies, for example.

Now, people might get confused here. Nixon's crime was not that burglers broke into some random hotel room. They broke in on political opponents to the president. Even then, it may be argued Nixon was unaware of the original break-in. Rather, it was the cover-up that he got caught up in that was found out. Unlike today, JUST a cover-up of an attempt to spy on political enemies was eventually seen by Nixon's own party (the Republicans) as worthy of impeachment (and thus Nixon resigned). However, today, Trump not only covered up an attempt to get dirt on an enemy, it is clear in the transcripts that indeed, he asked a foreign government to help dig up dirt on a political opponent. That in itself is an Abuse of Power. As far as I see it, you don't even have to prove "quid pro quo" (which actually seems to have been the case too) to prove this was an Abuse of Power. But with asymmetrical warfare, the party in power does not hold its own party to any standard (or pay lip service to it, even if they themselves don't care), so that this clear Abuse of Power is overlooked or the standard is raised to an unbelievably narrow standard. High Crimes and Misdemeanors as I see it, are not the same as actual crimes, but is a term used for officials in power who corrode the very system they are in charge of.

I don’t see it as a political battle, but a battle for the rule of law, respect for the constitution, and preservation of the office of the Presidency. If it were a dispute over policy then it would be political. But it’s happening because the incumbent is demonstrably unfit for office and has failed to lawfully exercise his duties as President.

Trump will look right into the camera and lie - and enough people will believe him to enable him to keep going. But in this case, with the acknowledged utterance ‘I want you to do us favour’, he’s been caught dead to rights. Let’s just hope the machinery of law can produce the knockout blow. I’m still hopeful it will.

I don’t see it as a political battle, but a battle for the rule of law — Wayfarer

Well, that is basically what my last post was trying to say..

If it were a dispute over policy then it would be political. But it’s happening because the incumbent is demonstrably unfit for office and has failed to lawfully exercise his duties as President. — Wayfarer

I agree very much. What I meant by political battle is, at the end of the day Congress will have to get over its own partisanship and even perhaps their own constituency to hold up the Constitution as anything but a joke right now. If this matter isn't resolved properly, indeed the message is some people are above the law. To not recognize this as an Abuse of Power, and one that is worthy of impeachment means there is no rule of law and that all that matters is the party in power.

A strong democracy where all that matters is the majority who have power is indeed not a strong one after all. I disagree with this idea that it's just playing better politics. If that's the case, why even have a democracy?

Because to 'play politics' is to 'play democracy'. There's nothing democratic about the 'odious' focus on the backroom deals and personalities of the rich and powerful. The issues are to change the conditions under which truth, lies, and significance circulate in society. the If you don't address those conditions, no amount of dewey-eyed nostalgia for a time when there were Good People will do anything. Systemic problems require systemic solutions, not shitty psycho-individual tinkering. The latter is simply complicity - you may as well be a Trump supporter.

Because to 'play politics' is to 'play democracy'. There's nothing democratic about the 'odious' focus on the backroom deals and personalities of the rich and powerful. The issues are to change the conditions under which truth, lies, and significance circulate in society. the If you don't address those conditions, no amount of dewey-eyed nostalgia for a time when there were Good People will do anything. Systemic problems require systemic solutions, not shitty psycho-individual tinkering. The latter is simply complicity - you may as well be a Trump supporter. — StreetlightX

Well, I did say a lot more than what you decided to quote. How would you take from what I wrote, that I wouldn't be for systematic solutions? And what systematic solutions are we proposing? Limit campaign money contributions (Super PACs)? Congressional term limits? Less signatures to get on the ballot? Electoral college abolition? Equal election funding? Promote third-parties?

Anyways, even with all these systematic changes- hell, even with very exact wording of what Abuse of Power entails or High Crimes or Misdemeaners.. My main claim that the party that is in power can do what they want as long as they don't hold themselves to standards. In the US Constitution as it stands, only Congress can impeach and basically remove the President from office. As a congressman, you can either find any escape route to keep the person in your party in power, or you can try to be as fair as possible when looking at matters of abusing power. One great litmus test is, "Would I allow this to go on if someone from the other party did this?". That is one really big test they can use. I guarantee 95% of Republicans would be calling for impeachment if this was seen to be the case with a Democrat. As someone mentioned earlier, Obama wore a tan suit and got lambasted. What else can you say? This is asymmetrical warfare. How do you propose to combat this type of entrenched power politics?

My main claim that the party that is in power can do what they want as long as they don't hold themselves to standards. — schopenhauer1

And? What is anyone supposed to do about this? This is as banal a claim a 'bad people do bad things (and they shouldn't)', or our idiot contributor above who figured that 'xenophobes will act in xenophobic ways' counted as a 'sophisticated' point. I simply don't care about any of these political inert points: it allows no way forward, they are politically disabling and only lend themselves to people enjoying the feeling of their own moral superiority. It's like Wayfarer who keeps asking 'how could the GOP be so hypocritical?' as though he expected any answer of substance. But it's a rhetorical question - he knows it, everyone who reads it knows it - so the only thing it is a statement of masturbatory political commentary. It's a psychological feel-good mechanism and nothing more.

In a word: truisms are unhelpful and counterproductive.

It's like Wayfarer who keeps asking 'how could the GOP be so hypocritical?' as though he expected any answer of substance. — StreetlightX

Why wouldn't there be an answer of substance?

But it's a rhetorical question - he knows it, everyone who reads it knows it - so the only thing it is a statement of masturbatory political commentary. It's a psychological feel-good mechanism and nothing more. — StreetlightX

The first step in change is recognizing what is fucked up.. It looks like he is just trying to get people to recognize what is fucked up..

But to my previous point, what do you suppose to do systematically, as you were stating? Right now, I don't see much else except outrage at Wayfarer's outrage. That in itself can be called masturbatory.. maybe masturbatory squared even!

When Trump supporters are treated as dupes - again, a debilitating personalization of politics - and not as eagle-eyed clear about what they are doing, the only idiots here are aghast liberals who, in thinking themselves superior and immune to being hoodwinked, are the only clueless ones in the room. — StreetlightX

Of the little Raymond Geuss that I read today, the notion that there’s such a stark duality between being ‘eagle-eyed clear’ and being ‘hoodwinked’ seem entirely alien. I do believe that Trump, and those like him, know what they’re doing, in terms of attaining power. I don’t believe that Trump’s interests and the vast majority of his supporters interests ultimately align.