Among all the terrible stuff Trump has done, the only part that is potentially comprehensible to Trump supporters is that he took a booming economy and turned it into a trillion-dollar deficit. No president in history has been that incompetent. There have been presidents who suffered catastophes and needed to run high deficits to dig themselves out of them and presidents who have been gifted booms and squandered most of the proceeds on wasteful wars, but no president bar none has managed to take an economy as good as the one Trump got handed on a plate and go that far into the red. It's a uniquely Trumpian failure, the result of which is a bunch of new billionaires laughing all the way to the bank while inequality skyrockets and the inevitable crash rolls around the corner.

That’s false. I avoid Fox unless an interview has occurred there because I know this fallacy will come my way. I try to use sources that are acceptable to anti-Trumpers. — NOS4A2

What fallacy was that? I'm pretty sure what I said was that I'm assuming you are going to multiple sources but pointing out you aren't assuming that of other people here.

I'm assuming that as a lot of the people on here are a lot more intelligent than your average person (including yourself) is reading news from both sides and centrist views as well as looking for unpolitically biased news outlets. — Mark Dennis

With your original comment:

But it’s not so independent when you’re reading the same news and falling for the same anti-Trump propaganda. — NOS4A2

So the fallacy you are claiming I'm making is in fact the one you seem to be making. What does cognitive dissonance and projection feel like as a phenomenon to the individual experiencing it by the way? You are probably the best person to ask that question.

Among all the terrible stuff Trump has done, the only part that is potentially comprehensible to Trump supporters is that he took a booming economy and turned it into a trillion-dollar deficit. No president in history has been that incompetent. There have been presidents who suffered catastophes and needed to run high deficits to dig themselves out of them and presidents who have been gifted booms and squandered most of the proceeds on wasteful wars, but no president bar none has managed to take an economy as good as the one Trump got handed on a plate and go that far into the red. It's a uniquely Trumpian failure, the result of which is a bunch of new billionaires laughing all the way to the bank while inequality skyrockets and the inevitable crash rolls around the corner. — Baden

Agreed. The whole "Oh but you have to seek investment and right now we are investing in the united states!" is a load of BS too. The investments went to the billionaires and the only thing that is going to come out of that is a negative jump in wealth inequalities and disparities. Dystopian demagogue bs will not win out the day.

What fallacy was that? I'm pretty sure what I said was that I'm assuming you are going to multiple sources but pointing out you aren't assuming that of other people here.

What I meant was your statement that what I mostly share is fox is false. Rather, I have mostly used sources that have been proven to employ DNC hacks and have endorsed the opposition party so as to avoid the common genetic fallacy. No, I did not say you committed a fallacy, so another falsity.

It was a neo-McCarthyite conspiracy theory. — NOS4A2

Nonsense.

I've never seen the US President be such a sycophant that conforms the Russian president's views as Trumpov has done. Whatever the reason is, I don't know, but sure it is strange.



But luckily Trump is such an inept president that he cannot steer his administration away from normal US foreign policy. Just rocking the boat isn't the same as changing it's course. And of course he first manned his cabinet with generals that weren't friendly to Putin (with one exception, that was gone in days). Luckily!

Stay on topic. You can't push Trumps criminality away with a barge pole so don't even try.

None of what I have said has been a falsity. Compared to the rest of us you are one of the fox contributors on here. Do you want me to go through your past comments and count them?

Get with the project here. Trump is right now claiming he committed no illegal act, as evidence of it including his own transcripts which he released the the testimony of his staff and emails all show Trump broke the law and now he is breaking more to try to cover it up. This is all publicly accessible corroborated evidence from multiple news outlets on all sides. It's almost getting to numerous to count and your evasion strains credulity to breaking point.

You can't stay on the issues raised at all. We are all just propaganda machines to you it would seem and I find that highly disrespectful to say the least. Why would any of us here wish to lie to you about what many here clearly perceive? Now, I know that there is such a thing as a benevolent dictator but waiting around for the right one is stupid because it's a power no one should have. Not even the greatest person on earth if there even is such a thing. Trump is NOT Benevolent though. Children are dying in camps down at the border right now and Trump is trying to kill Asylum. I've seen footage. Stop trying to gaslight us. I'd really rather not show you distasteful imagery on here but the evidence is out there if you would just break out of your bubble and ask questions of the groups you are a member of.

I honestly don't give a damn about democrats all that much, they have their own problems. I don't care if the next person is republican, dem or independent but it cannot be Trump. So long as Education, Housing and Healthcare are sorted out and real effort is made to fight climate change I'd be happy. No Dictators though, not now, not ever. I'd rather wait around for the right collaboration and conglomeration of people for the job of government than the right single person any day. That is Democracy, That is a Republic and that is the USA.

Yes, while true believers were happy, even giddy, with the spying and costly investigations into American citizens because some Russian trolls dared to tweet on Twitter, Trump had the crazy idea to make amends with Russia. While true believers pretended a hack on the DNC was tantamount to Pearl Harbor, Trump remained a little skeptical. It turns out only one side had the hair-brained idea.

You seem to live under the false assumptions I'm inundated in American news but I'm Dutch. And you assume that all these career officers are anti trump without a shred of evidence, while there's plenty of evidence of wrong doing by trump both in action and by his words. But I saw you chose to ignore his own comment on the matter. Cognitive dissonance? Why pass it up?

Cognitive dissonance? Why pass it up? — Benkei

Cognitive dissonance about cognitive dissonance? The mental acrobatics here are impressive in their own way sometimes aren't they? Almost flawless execution haha

You seem to live under the false assumptions I'm inundated in American news but I'm Dutch. And you assume that all these career officers are anti trump without a shred of evidence, while there's plenty of evidence of wrong doing by trump both in action and by his words. But I saw you chose to ignore his own comment on the matter. Cognitive dissonance? Why pass it up?

I know nothing about any of you, nor am I particularly interested. I am merely pointing out that you've presumed the same as those particular career officers.

We know that the whistleblower "painted a picture" of some sort of malfeasance by using public news reports. In particular, the canard that Trump intended to "pursue investigations that would help him in his 2020 election bid" was gleaned from this NYT article, which he cites in his report. Bill Taylor also admitted this was his source for that canard:

Zeldin: What was the goal of requesting investigations into 2016 election and Burisma?

Taylor: As I understand it from one of the maybe the article in the New York Times about Mr. Giuliani’s interest in Burisma, in that article, he describes, and I think he quotes Giuliani at some length, that article indicates that Giuliani was interested in getting some information on Vice President Biden that would be useful to Mr.Giuliani’s client. I think that’s what he says. He says he’s got one client, and he’s useful to the client.

Zeldin: And then it’s your inference that Mr. Giuliani’s goal would be the President’s goal?

Taylor: Yes.

Zeldin: And your source is the New York Times?

Taylor: Yes.

Zeldin: So do you have any other source that the President’s goal in making this request was anything other than the New York Times?

Taylor: I have not talked to the president. I have no other information from what the President was thinking.

We can check whether the article gives any evidence towards Trump's intentions that both the whistleblower and Bill Taylor gleaned from this article.

The author offers these sage inferences about Trump's intentions without evidence:

Mr. Giuliani’s plans create the remarkable scene of a lawyer for the president of the United States pressing a foreign government to pursue investigations that Mr. Trump’s allies hope could help him in his re-election campaign.

A little further on in the article the fairytale is made real in a definitive statement of Trump's motives, which he crafted from thin air.

Their motivation is to try to discredit the special counsel’s investigation; undermine the case against Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s imprisoned former campaign chairman; and potentially to damage Mr. Biden, the early front-runner for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

Of course, this fairy-tale contradicts Guiliani's and Trump's own explicit accounting of their intentions. For example:



So yes, it is safe to say these career officials are idiots and are falling for bad reporting. That the others share the same fantasies makes it all the more a obvious that this is anti-Trump hysteria at best, a coverup of corruption at worst.

An article from The Atlantic on why the Senate impeachment trial is a major milestone even if, as seems likely, the Republican Party will vote to acquit:

In the absence of any prospect of a sufficient bloc of Republicans voting to remove the president, it’s easy to write off the impeachment process as meaningless. It’s not. Done properly, the House’s amassing of a record and the Senate’s trial of the president will create a vivid account of Trump’s abuses of power and criminality on the national stage. It will force Republicans to shackle themselves to those abuses in support of the president. The stakes of whether a majority of voting Americans will vote for a party that has done so—or at least a majority in the states necessary to swing the Electoral College—are high. But a Senate trial of the president will pose the matter to the electorate with the starkness it deserves.

It will make Senate Republicans cast a vote for the proposition “LOL nothing matters ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”—thereby enabling the 2020 electorate to evaluate nihilism as the governing philosophy of a political movement.

What the impeachment is revealing about the Republican Party.

And again, you ignore Trump's own admission of quid pro quo that I quoted two posts before this.

None of which has to do with seeking political dirt on Joe Biden. If you’re arguing he held back aid to make sure we aren’t giving tax-payer dollars to a corrupt country, yes that’s his stated intention from the beginning.

And again, you ignore Trump's own admission of quid pro quo — Benkei

Why do you keep feeding the troll???

If you’re arguing he held back aid to make sure we aren’t giving tax-payer dollars to a corrupt country, yes that’s his stated intention from the beginning. — NOS4A2

Which was illegal and underscores what he said in the call with Zelensky. So we know what he meant with :

I would like you to do us a favor though... — Trump

He asks him to look into an alt-right conspiracy that had been debunked by every Western intelligence agency and ignore Russian meddling in the US election of 2016. It's insane. Right after he underscored how much Ukraine is dependent on military aid from the US. Leverage

Then be asks him to look into the next unsubstantiated tin foil hat conspiracy with regard to Hunter Biden. Yeah, nothing going on folks.

It's a good thing you're not in the maffia because being as obtuse as this would get you killed.

He asks him to look into an alt-right conspiracy that had been debunked by every Western intelligence agency and ignore Russian meddling in the US election of 2016. It's insane. Right after he underscored how much Ukraine is dependent on military aid from the US. Leverage

Then be asks him to look into the next unsubstantiated tin foil hat conspiracy with regard to Hunter Biden. Yeah, nothing going on folks.

It's a good thing you're not in the maffia because being as obtuse as this would get you killed.

It also underscores that he never sought dirt on his political opponent. He mentioned a few things regarding Ukrainian meddling, the DNC server and Burisma. Big deal. He asked a favor. Big Deal. He wanted Zelensky to speak to the Attorney General. Big deal.

This has been the modus operandi of anti-Trump conspiracy theorists since the beginning: search his words for crimes because you cannot find them anywhere else. We’re wasting taxpayer dollars, Congress isn’t working, and now diplomatic relations are in disarray, all because you guys cannot grow a thicker skin.

It also underscores that he never sought dirt on his political opponent. He mentioned a few things regarding Ukrainian meddling, the DNC server and Burisma. Big deal. He asked a favor. Big Deal. He wanted Zelensky to speak to the Attorney General. Big deal. — NOS4A2

It does exactly the opposite for anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the English language. The DNC server story is bullshit as Trump has been briefed repeatedly by his intelligence agencies. You simply don't seem to grasp the significance when you make military support dependent on a favour. That's quid pro quo, which, again, he already admitted too. Even without the Biden thing it's already a crime.

It does exactly the opposite for anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the English language. The DNC server story is bullshit as Trump has been briefed repeatedly by his intelligence agencies. You simply don't seem to grasp the significance when you make military support dependent on a favour. That's quid pro quo, which, again, he already admitted too. Even without the Biden thing it's already a crime.

Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the English language can see you’re twisting his words in order to prove he committed a crime. So what’s the crime?

Yes, while true believers were happy, even giddy, with the spying and costly investigations into American citizens because some Russian trolls dared to tweet on Twitter, Trump had the crazy idea to make amends with Russia. While true believers pretended a hack on the DNC was tantamount to Pearl Harbor, Trump remained a little skeptical. It turns out only one side had the hair-brained idea. — NOS4A2

But NOS4A2, I'm not talking at all about the time era the whole Mueller investigation was about. I'm not talking about the 2016 elections or earlier times. I'm talking about what a huge sycophant the US President has been towards Vladimir Putin.

But NOS4A2, I'm not talking at all about the time era the whole Mueller investigation was about. I'm not talking about the 2016 elections or earlier times. I'm talking about what a huge sycophant the US President has been towards Vladimir Putin.

Trump has been making deals for half a century so I suspect you have little clue what you’re talking about. You don’t like the way Trump acts—I get it. But routine snobbery does not cut it, especially knowing that many of us wouldn't be able to manage a confrontation with Vladimir Putin. Like most, they’re quite content virtue signalling from half a planet away.

Trump has been making deals for half a century so I suspect you have little clue what you’re talking about. — NOS4A2

What does Trump's deals in earlier life have to do with him being a sycophant to Putin as the POTUS?

Trump has a history of business failures so I suspect you have little clue what you're talking about. Obviously he does have skills with negotiating loans with banks. And a successful rich father. But still, that has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's devotion to Putin.

It's you that has the utter incapability of looking at Trump objectively. If anybody says something critical about Trump, all you see is snobbery, a leftist media attack, dems dissing Trump and Trump supporters, an example Trump derangement syndrome. In fact, any kind of critique of the guy makes you defend him. As I've said, you just see others as Trump haters. And basically you parrot your line just the same way as a social just warrior would.

It also underscores that he never sought dirt on his political opponent. — NOS4A2

Well, Giuliani, along with Parnas and Fruman, are being accused by a Ukrainian oligarch of "[promising] to use their connections at the Department of Justice to help him in exchange for dirt on Joe Biden."

Perhaps it's not true. Or perhaps they were acting on their own initiative. But then they did all meet with Trump, who allegedly "tasked them with pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden."

But then even if this is all true, clearly it has no connection to the withholding of military aid. Except for the fact that Giuliani, as multiple people have testified, and as Trump mentioned in his call with Zelensky, was the one primarily responsible for arranging for Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into Burisma which, as multiple people have testified, was understood to be an investigation into the Bidens, and which, as multiple people have testified, was the condition to receive military aid. And Trump himself even brought up investigating Biden during his phone call with Zelensky.

But, no, I guess this is all fake news and coincidence and whatnot. And no reasonable person could possibly infer the kind of conclusions that you think of as a Democrat hoax or whatever.

Can’t you see how philosophy forum has now been conscripted into the Trumpworld simply by engaging? There are thousands out there wanting to believe the ‘alternative reality’ and we’re feeding them too. The forum diverts all Trump comments into a single thread which is patrolled by a highly professional Trump troll advocate.

The forum diverts all Trump comments into a single thread which is patrolled by a highly professional Trump troll advocate. — Wayfarer

Contain and destroy.

We're feeding and nurturing.

I take no issue with any of that thinking except this part: “was understood to be an investigation into the Bidens”. Sure it was understood, but wrongly. This canard exists in the minds of the credulous, so credulous in fact that they believed it without any critical thinking, and then let fester in their minds, ultimately effecting their jobs and the country.

Two of those people, the whistleblower and the star witness Bill Taylor, used a New York Times article as the germ of the idea that Trump did anything for “political dirt” for the “2020 election”. The whistleblower cited it, as did Taylor. Taylor uses his newly acquired belief in his text with Sondland. Sondland had to correct him. One look at the article, however, shows that that particular idea is invented out of thin air. (Perhaps ironically, the author of that article was the same author of the Ukraine meddling politico story that Giuliani and Trump cite as evidence of Ukraine meddling).

So while Guiliani and Trump have been accused of peddling conspiracy theories for investigations, the DNC, the press, are in the process of actually investigating their political opponent based on a conspiracy theory.

Can’t you see how philosophy forum has now been conscripted into the Trumpworld simply by engaging? There are thousands out there wanting to believe the ‘alternative reality’ and we’re feeding them too. The forum diverts all Trump comments into a single thread which is patrolled by a highly professional Trump troll advocate.

Perhaps you’re just losing the argument. Those pangs are the cognitive dissonance.

You know I still get a notification every time you respond to me, probably in anger, and then you surreptitiously delete it, perhaps reminded of your own hypocrisy.

Taylor uses his newly acquired belief in his text with Sondland. Sondland had to correct him. — NOS4A2

And both Holmes and Vindman corrected him, testifying that Sondland specifically mentioned "the Biden investigation" after his call with Trump and when speaking to National Security Council staff and Ukrainian officials.

So either Holmes and Vindman are lying or Sondland is lying. If I had to guess I'd say that it's the man who was appointed as ambassador a year after donating $1,000,000 to Trump's inaugural committee and who already had to revise his private testimony weeks later.

I take no issue with any of that thinking except this part: “was understood to be an investigation into the Bidens”.

...

So while Guiliani and Trump have been accused of peddling conspiracy theories for investigations, the DNC, the press, are in the process of actually investigating their political opponent based on a conspiracy theory. — NOS4A2

‘Of course I did’: Giuliani acknowledges asking Ukraine to investigate Biden

Rudy Giuliani acknowledged on Thursday that he had asked top Ukrainian officials to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, an admission that comes as Capitol Hill Democrats investigate whether President Donald Trump and his personal lawyer are pressuring Ukraine’s government to dig up dirt on a 2020 election rival.

“So you did ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden?” CNN’s Chris Cuomo asked Giuliani in an interview on Thursday evening.

“Of course I did,” Giuliani shot back.

Trump’s intentions are explicit and they coincide with Mulvaney’s explanation as to why the aid was held, and which they do all the time (Mulvaney added that at the same time they were withholding aid for the triangle countries to no particular outrage. They also withheld aid to Lebanon.).