A Democratic dynasty wouldn't put us in a much better position. We need fission and fusion power if possible. Democrats wouldn't support that. — frank

Nuclear power and beyond is controversial for those who are interested in it; I don't think democrats are in a position to discount possible energy sources as solutions. (the stigma around nuclear power is not unearned, and debating modern safety standards is really really complicated; I at least believe that the dems would be open minded, and I believe the republicans are more interested in keeping regulations on fossil fuels low because jobs).

We'll deal with peak oil and climate change when we get there. — frank

Not being proactive about mitigating problems, and preparing for their effects, is how catastrophic failure occurs in large organizations. Peak oil and climate change are visible on the horizon (the expenses of climate change have arguably begun to roll in). Human society is not invincible, and there is really a serious risk of mass death if we aren't prepared for the future (a bigger risk than ever before given our population size and the unsustainability of our current activity). I'm mostly worried about food shortages emerging from combinations of eroding soil quality, erratic weather and climate changes, and sourcing the energy we need to run our massive farms (apparently our mono-cultural style of farming is mainly what destroys soils (to where we only have roughly 60 harvests left before it becomes useless)).

Now is not the time to conserve the status quo, therefore, where applicable, fuck conservatism. We need radical values and methods changes, so fuck the democratic party while we're at it (the self-serving panderers that they are).

Right off the bat an anti-Trump talking point I’ve heard many times, even in this very thread—Had Trump done such and such with his money he’d be a lot wealthier. Of course this sort of counterfactual thinking is unprovable, more a catharsis for those who believe they could do a better job. — NOS4A2

Actually we can just look at the return rates that have been realized by low risk investment funds since the 70's. He has performed more poorly than the market average, objectively. Like his steaks, Trump is sub-prime...

“Trickle-down” economics is a Democrat-invented mischaracterization of supply-side economics. Right from the get go we expose ourselves. Of course it’s a straw man. — NOS4A2

How is it a straw man? Corporations have continuously gotten better at allowing fewer profits to leak down to their employees and competitors. It's only in the recent few years that management theory has begun to seriously consider that businesses should focus on creating value for their customers, employees, and society, rather than simply being a profit vacuum for shareholders. In any case, the wealth gap is fucked, and poverty is becoming a reality for more and more Americans.

What good is a Walmart job if it is part time, offers no benefits, and has no chance of ever improving?

If the cost of living is rising, but the earning power of the lower class is not rising, then homelessness will rise.

4 bankruptcies out of nearly 500 businesses. So much for “most of them” being failures. — NOS4A2

Trump doesn't own 500 businesses, he leases his name to over 200 businesses in the Trump organization. It's more of a brand sharing consortium than the actual work of Donnie. He only runs a few of the businesses himself (or has run) as far as I know. Apparently he made some good hotel deals back in the 80's, but that's really the only major success of his I can find.

Neither Trump nor his family have been convicted of refusing to rent to black people. He was sued and it was settled. No, Trump has not been convicted of any crimes. His Trump U was a civil, not a criminal suit. — NOS4A2

Actually the court did convict them, but that conviction was appealed and a settlement reached.

We know that he refused to rent to blacks. That's a crime. He did the crime, so he's a criminal.

Littering is a crime, and if someone is a prolific litterer, then I am only speaking the truth by calling them a criminal. Civil torts are crimes too: who'da thunk it?

It’s perfect that with all the bullshit you oppose you serve up a big steamy platter of it yourself. — NOS4A2

What can I say?

I'm not stupid enough to have taken a clown seriously, so I don't find myself in the current predicament of needing to defend it.

Sometimes i wonder if always Trumpers would rather see America fail than admit to what Trump actually is. He was elected to drain the swamp of liars, but he is lyingest president of all time. So they cling to the idea that it is all one big attack by the democrats, and make unfathomably hypocritical post hoc decisions and justifications about what they think is right and decent...

P.S. Want to know how I knew Trump's presidency would come to this? It's not because democrats are reliably sore losers (they are), it's because Donald Trump is reliably ridiculous, short-sighted, narcissistic, and megalomaniacal. He is an absolute clown, his campaign was an absolute circus, and his presidency has been nothing short of an intensifying continuation of that circus. There's only so much mental contorting Trump's supporters can do to keep the faith, and there's only so much that the likes of Pelosi are willing to sacrifice for the sake of political expediency (she did not want to impeach because Trump was going to be the dem's 2020 spring-board, but it became clear that not-impeaching (or at least not trying) was too costly to American values and American interests).

Tax returns? The man paid $38m in 2005, more in one year than you or I would ever pay in 5 lifetimes. — NOS4A2

He owns a lot of properties, and in years where he doesn't spend or lose too much money he sees a return. In 1978 he was apparently worth 100 million dollars, which if invested then in a typical retirement savings fund would be worth 6 billion today, so his returns since then definitely have not been great (generous estimates of his wealth are around 4 billion, mostly in NY real-estate).

Most of his businesses? There are nearly 500 business entities currently running under the Trump organization. If most have have failed as you claim, why won’t you prove it? — NOS4A2

Well, Trump owns the Trump Organization, but he does not own all the Trump Organization's organizations. He merely leases his name (his brand) to many of them. His brand is one of the few valuable things he has to offer (especially in entertainment), despite various and infamous failures which have damaged it. The 4 bankruptcies resulting from failed casino ventures are one. His failed foray into American football is another. Trump University was shuttered in 2010 after a class action lawsuit was filed against him claiming fraud and deceptive practices, which he recently settled (im not sure if there are still on going cases regarding Trump U).

Check out the website, which is still active for some reason: Trump University. It's literally just an image file of a login screen...

Isn't it perfect that a bull-shit artist founded a school of bullshit art, and that the school itself turned out to be bull-shit?

What have we learned?

He’s fucking America? America hasn’t seen an economy like this in over half a century. Jobs, wage growth, record low unemployment, the biggest oil producer in the world—America is winning. — NOS4A2

Slashing corporate tax rates makes stock markets rise, but it doesn't help the non-elites like you reckon it should. Trickle-down economics doesn't seem to be working.

Why then does homelessness appear to increase between 2017 and 2018, where before it has always decreased (since the great depression)? Obama didn't cause homelessness to rise, so what gives?

A criminal? Name one criminal offence he has been convicted of. You can’t, because there are none. — NOS4A2

Well... He has been sued many times, and lost many times. Back in the day he and his father were convicted of refusing to rent to black people. The Trump U fraud is also demonstrably criminal. In 91 he and others were found guilty of conspiring to avoid paying union pension and welfare contributions to workers. Before that he was involved in an undocumented and unpaid worker scandal (and another unpaid worker scandal has just emerged). He has also been fined for anti-trust violations, and many other reasons...

Fines are issued for criminal acts, therefore he is a notorious criminal according to the legal definitions of "crime" and "criminal".

Because beneath the typical anti-trump propaganda is a story you’d never tell: the truth. — NOS4A2

I notice you didn't bother to address the bit about Trump being a national embarrassment of unprecedented scale, which is rather my point...

Fail at everything? He’s the most powerful man in the world. If that is failure I’d love to see what you consider success. — NOS4A2

The man wouldn't even release his tax returns, likely because it would show he doesn't even have a billion dollars (or at the very least, that he has paid no taxes in roughly the last decade because he has been hemorrhaging wealth). For all we know, he as done nothing but make shitty deals and lose daddy's money for his entire life. And now he is fucking America itself, just like he did to most or all of his so called businesses.

As far as winning the election goes, he did manage to prove that there is a serious hatred of Hillary and DNC corruption, but that's about all he proved (maybe he also demonstrated that abusing "sudafed" is a good way to stay energized for campaign rallies). For many voters, Trump was the extreme version of spoiling the ballot. He is a monkey wrench thrown into the works. Otherwise, i don't see how pandering to southern conservatives with nonsense about a wall somehow sticks it to the elites.

The elites got their tax cuts after-all. Is taxation on the ultra wealthy the real evil we need to confront?

P.S, success would be not becoming the single greatest national embarrassment in American history, not compromising American interests, or at least not being impeached for obvious corruption and greedy criminality. Not only is he a criminal, he is really bad at it. He's bad at everything except entertainment, which was how he defeated the ultra-charismatic likes of Ted Cruz et al. back in the 2016 Republican primaries.

If Trump is your vision of success, what would constitute failure?

and a scholar too! :lol:

He’s as American as apple pie. — NOS4A2

If apple pie was born into extreme wealth, and then proceeded to fail at everything but entertainment, then I would agree with you.

How has trump rebuked the elite power mongers? It's seems like he was one of them all along (or worse, he is their useful and idiotic clown).

Our swamp runneth over...

@Wayfarer even Nixon had more spine...

We shouldn't judge though, maybe it's on the count of Trump's bone spurs!

This is a very critical moment. I’m just of the mind that American politics needs eroding. We’re watching the death throes of the politically-correct, public relations, corrupt Ivy-league style of politics as they lose their grip on power.. The elites are exposed. Washington is no longer getting rich at the expense of the rest of the country. Good riddance in my opinion — NOS4A2

But for you, trump is a knight in shining armor who came to slay the black knight and his dragons.

For me, Trump is the naked emperor, parading through the streets as if wearing feathered robes of highest quality.

Tell me, what do you see when you look at Trump?

I think Andrew Jackson was worse (Indian Removal Act). There was no 24 hour news cycle then though. — frank

Jackson was actually the only candidate that came to mind as potentially worse. Trump seems to be a kind of digital-age Jacksonian (with the rabble rousing and all). That said I don't know enough to make a salient comparison beyond their populism.

I'm not super comfortable with your iconic view of the US. We talked about that before. — frank

I can't recall the specifics of your discomfort, but I'm guessing at some point I said "It's the best worst system we have"....

Keep in mind I am a reformist, and I am interested in large scale and radical changes to current democratic processes. That said, there's no societal dry-dock where we can afford to park our affairs while we work out something better; we exist on the open water and any changes we undertake mustn't cause us to sink in the meantime.

Could Trump cause that by himself? I dont think so. That sort of thing happens because of drastically concentrated wealth (I think). — frank

It's more about mismanagement, priorities, and complacency than concentrated wealth (some would say that such occurrences are what helps to concentrate wealth in the first place), but it's all related in complex ways. Essentially I agree with you, and I never said Trump will single-handedly cause a catastrophe. He's more like a poison; the longer he is in the system, the more he will ruin it, and the more America's eventual fuck-up is hastened.

Consider that if Trump gets another 4 years, it might have the side-effect of cementing the Republican party as dip-sticks for a septic tank of corporate interest... Let's say this leads to fewer environmental regulations and lower taxes (higher profits for Walmart!). The wealth gap will grow, quality of life will stagnate and decline, and we might not be prepared for the effects of climate change or the end of oil. That puts America into a vulnerable situation, where natural disasters are ruinous, civil unrest is rising, and the union itself is called into question.

How fuck the rest if the world? — frank

The economic or militaristic failure of America would have so many complex ramifications across our inter-dependent globalized markets and security infrastructures that the entire world would enter a period of adjustment as a result. And while at the end of it more people might be better off, in the interim it would be marked by loss. (and since we're dealing with so many other global issues over the next century, I don't know if we can afford it)

Secondarily (purely politically) the goings on of America serve as example and litmus test of what to do or not to do. It's what (or was) what many populations aspire to have, and what many governments aspire to be. The more America fails, the less true that becomes, and the more other nations start trying non-"democratic" approaches to governance...

just remember he's not the worst president we ever had. — frank

I'm straining to to understand how this could be true...

So for the last 3+ years I've been anticipating Trump's impeachment...

I actually wanted Trump to win the election, to grind his unhinged organ for all to see, and to then get impeached in inglorious and lasting infamy. I've said it many times over the last few years: Trump is the entire pack of cigarettes we're being forced to smoke; it's a drastic measure to course correct political culture, and instigate categorical reforms...

It's taken twice as long as I estimated for us to get this far (I drastically over-estimated the stubbornness that is inherent in a two party battle-front), and it now occurs to me that we're at a developmental cross-roads:

If Republican house and senate representatives keep sticking their stink-holes in the air, in their chorus of party uberalles, the republican base which desperately needs this experience (as cathartic ipecac) might just be successfully inducted deeper into the shit (in which case, we're probably in for a double dose of flimflam's patented Trump-oil).

If Nunes, McConnell, Lindsey et al., don't flinch, and if Fox News continues to (treasonously) obfuscate, then I think America is inexorably fucked, which will inexorably fuck the rest of the world, and likely be the beginning of the end of democracy.

@NOS4A2 it's not that I think Trump will himself fuck America (in degrees beyond what he has already done), it's that the cultural principles which hoisted Trump to office (and more importantly, which cause Republicans to cling to Trump's ass-hole), being thereby amplified, will erode American politics beyond repair or reform. The moment a national or global emergency/crisis of large scale and immediate threat emerges, powers will be taken which will then never be given up; we're standing on a greased incline.

And the rest of the world watches closely to see the outcome of this great political experiment; the outcome of which, either way, will send unambiguous signals: leaders, dictators and strong-men will see that they too can get away with it, and maybe even decide that they ought to. Dissatisfied populations will simply see the failure of democracy, and either be more accepting of the bull shit governments they're living under, or decide that they should merely erect a dictatorship of their own.

TL;DR: the upcoming trial of president Donald J Trump is perhaps the most culturally and politically critical test of "the rule of law" in all of human history. If we fail this exam, I fear we're going to eventually drop out...

P.S: Maybe I'm over-blowing it, maybe not. I do believe we're seeing one of the most critical moments in American history.

Oh my!

So it's just a shitty attempt to silence and censor via frivolous litigation, which is exactly why he filed it in a state with no anti-SLAPP laws. (strategic lawsuits against public participation, for those who didn't see the John Oliver segments about them).

For anyone who does not know, anti-SLAPP laws are meant to provide a way to terminate frivolous lawsuits that merely attempt to silence 1st amendment protected speech (exactly the kind of speech CNN was engaged in) via bad faith litigation.

We're starting to surpass the already cartoon-esque levels of obvious villainy.

Did Devin think that threatening CNN with a half a billion dollar lawsuit would scare them into silence? (the article remains up after-all). Did he not realize that doing so would just accelerate the blaze?

Add cartoon-esque stupidity to the list...

And in tertiary news, Devin Nunes filed a half billion dollar lawsuit against CNN, seeking punitive damages for fake news/defamation. Specifically, Devin was accused via CNN of playing a role in the Ukraine scandal, which if true, would cut one of the most corrupt silhouettes in recent American memory (given his role as ranking douche-bag in the house intelligence committee).

Devin is probably aware that one of the many defenses in defamation suits is essentially an appeal to truth. CNN lawyers are currently earning their retainers in a mad scramble to find evidence that establishes the truth of the claims CNN originally published. If old-Nune was actually involved, this could backfire spectacularly.

That said, apparently he went out of state to file it where there are no 'anti-SLAPP' measures... Could be that he knows he is innocent and can prove it, or that he wants to use litigation as a way to silence/censor CNN on the subject while the lawsuit unfolds, possibly over the course of several years...

But damn, what an opera (albeit slow and uncomfortable)...

Why are these reasons not taken into account? — NOS4A2

Corruption huh? And not specifically Burisma investigations targeting Hunter Biden?

Not specifically public announcements of investigations?

We don't take Trump's denial of wrongdoing into account because, obviously, he would deny wrong-doing. Do you think Trump is honestly the most trustworthy source to refute the allegations of Trump's corruption and subsequent dishonesty?

I feel like accepting your argument would amount to sticking my head completely inside of my own ass-hole.

Nixon clearly stated he wasn't a crook.

Since there's evidence of wrong-doing (the WH report, the transcript (do us a favor though...), subsequent testimony corroborating Trump's intent, etc...) we're going to need more than trumps denial of guilt to find reliable truth. If anything, this just speaks to how important it is to continue the inquiry and begin a trial which can really get to the bottom of it.

Meanwhile, Trump obstructs the process daily, calling it a hoax witch hunt and forbidding WH staff from answering legally issued subpoenas.

But he has nothing to hide right? I mean, he stated as much. Why don't we just blindly accept every word that Trump says?

A favor? Oh my. Is it or is it not fair to ask a favor of someone you give weaponry and money to? — NOS4A2

But Trump doesn't give Ukraine money, the U.S itself does (via congress in this case), so not only is Trump leveraging US property for his own gain, he is compromising the national interests of America and her allies to do so. On top of that, the favor Trump wanted amounts to interference in the 2020 election, which is yet another impeachable cherry on top of it all.

It does matter if Zelensky said it in Trump’s presence because it refutes your claim that Trump “parading Zelensky around like a Stockholm syndrom'd toddler at their parents divorce hearing”. He’s not. — NOS4A2

How is Trump trotting Zelensky out like a leashed dog evidence that Trump isn't pressuring Zelensky? If anything it looks like Zelensky is just kowtowing to avoid a personal conflict with the most powerful man in the world.

This is like saying Trump exonerated himself by saying "no quid pro quo" after he learned of the whistle-blower report.

How stupid are we, really?

Rather, there was jokes and congratulations. — NOS4A2

Trump wanted Zelensky to do him a favor though...

Trump did obstruct the aid, Ukraine knew, knew they needed the aid, and they knew what Trump wanted. The situation Ukraine is in means that withholding the aid amounts to coercion.

Perhaps, but it’s even more silly to pretend there was a crime when the alleged victim says there wasn’t one. Zelensky said there was no pressure on various occasions, only one of which was said in Trump’s presence. — NOS4A2

It doesn't matter whether he said it in Trump's presence or not. That he made statement means nothing because Trump is still the president. The accusation is that Trump tried to coerce Zelensky into making a public statement in support of Trump by witholding aid and a WH meeting, and the evidence against this is a subsequent public statement Zelensky made in support of Trump? Don't you see the stupidity there?

Again, if it is true Zelensky was being pressured, saying so publicly would amount to a declaration of war against Donald himself, which would create too many complications for them. Why would Zelensky publicly attack Trump even if the accusations are true?

Trump recently (re)tweeted that president Zelensky repeatedly stated that there was 'no pressure' and 'no position of quid pro quo'...

I just wanted to take a moment to point out how silly it is to ask the person/nation being extorted whether or not they're being extorted, given that while Trump remains the president, he must still be worked with.

Why would Zelensky shoot himself in the foot by taking a stand against Trump? What if the impeachment fails (likely) and Trump wins another 4 years? Don't you think Zelensky would be a bit worried about future issues from the white-house for outing Trump?

Even if he could be sure that his involvement would result in a Trump impeachment, this sends the message to other western leaders that he is willing to *narc* on them given the opportunity. Because leaders do have to work together, backstabbing Trump could make other leaders much more reluctant to deal with him directly. Expediency seems pretty important to the Ukraine, which is why parading Zelensky around like a Stockholm syndrom'd toddler at their parents divorce hearing is just stupid.

Positive and negative ethics can be a seriously useful distinction when exploring moral systems...

Broadly, all humans have values that are important to them, and morality is roughly the process of promoting/protecting those values in rules/judgments/decisions that encode or enshrine them...

But because there are so many options before us (a seemingly infinitely expanding decision tree), it winds up being rather difficult to select just one rule or judgment or decision or plan or course of action that can be ranked above all others as valuable. Specifically, trying to argue that one decision or judgment is morally obligatory must be based on a proof that demonstrates all other possible courses of action are inferior.

But if instead of making a positive action morally obligatory, we argue that a positive action should not be carried out, all we must do to prove it is is show that there is some other action (or the absence of that action) which is more valuable.

Here's an analogy: It's computationally unfathomable to look at a chess board and determine the absolute best move to make (even thought it might exist), but it is extremely easy to look at a chess board and determine which actions should not be taken.

Positive ethics become functionally relevant when there are limited options to choose from (such that relative value is an explorable proof), but even then it should still be couched in the understanding that there's almost certainly a better, more morally valuable, course of action out there; if only we could find it. As such, positive ethics are more about agreement than justification.

I want to know what im potentially allowed/not allowed to say, thats all. — DingoJones

There are actually very few limitations on what you can say here in this forum. More important is how you say it, and that there is some philosophical value in the content. Hard limits pertain to things like racism and bigotry; we will not let people argue in favor of nazi policies and other blatantly harmful crap; that's a banning... So if you aren't nazi-esque, you really don't need to worry about having your actual ideas censored. You can explore controversial topics, and you can even take controversial positions, but if they even vaguely appear to border the pure hate ideologies that we refuse to see promoted, then you really should go out of your way to delineate your position clearly.

One of the consistent issues that leads to banning seems to be hostility... Conversations can quite easily become heated (anonymity disinhibiting our road internet rage). When hostility, ad hominems, and vulgarity are concensually reciprocated by two posters in an argument, it's not necessarily a problem, but when one poster is consistently vulgar without provocation, they become toxic to the forum. If such a poster refuses moderation, or is a prolific re-offender, that's a banning... If you can keep your verbal cool, this facet of the ban hammer is not a threat...

Finally there is post quality, which I'm guessing is the most consistent issue for the mod team...

Here there can be no precise rules or rulings, because quality of this nature is subjective and relative. When the grammatical/verbal quality of posts are too low, it's generally uncontroversial to delete them, but that said, non english natives should be given a bit more wiggle room when it comes to grammar and such.The important thing here is that people are actually putting effort into their posts.

So if your posts aren't bigoted, aren't unprovokedly hostile, and are amply coherent, why then could they have been removed?

"Philosophical value" is even more subjective than writing quality. When people post one-liner questions better fit for google, there's no philosophical value in the post. When people hastily smear their shower-thoughts onto our forum walls, there's no philosophical value. @Baden put it succinctly in one of his recent posts regarding how to build a quality OP: you can explore a subject, you can take a supporting or critical position, but you can't just thrust us all into a dark room; original posts must shine a light on the subject matter they address (otherwise you're leaving all the work to the respondents).

I think the most important thing is simply that effort be put into original posts, because it's quite obvious to veteran readers when posts are thoughtfully considered vs lazy afterthoughts. NOS4A2 is an example of a poster who toes the line of philosophical value vs effort. His posts are intellectually bankrupt, but they're also coherent and not poorly written. He genuinely seems to believe his ideas, and he definitely puts some degree of effort into posts. He could actually be a paid Russian troll, but even if that's true, his posts still meet that good-faith "effort" requirement, and he otherwise colors inside the aforementioned hostility lines, so even if we knew he was getting paid to write his posts, it might still be worth letting him stick around.

P.S: I'm not privy to the moderator forum or the going formula behind their decisions. My take is just based on what I've observed. Also, I don't mean to suggest that you're a nazi (I'm not aware of if or why you might have been censored); I intend this advice to apply to everyone.

So now that the public impeachment inquiry hearings have concluded, what have we learned?

We've seen nigh irrefutable proof that Trump did in fact try to extort/bribe/trade security assistance dollars for an investigation into his 2020 rival (Biden), thereby illegally subverting American interests and the rule of law for personal gain, and then covering it up with lies and obstruction...

Were this a democratic president, or were this pre-90's, I feel like republicans would seriously be calling for the rope. How ironically twisted is it that republican pundits are instead accusing people like Lt.Col. Vindman of being Russian agents? (Who is by all accounts save Trump sycophants, a war hero, and quintessentially American (son of an immigrant, dedicated to serving America; in love with the meaning of the flag)).

So we know democrats have found sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, what's next?



Aside from possible additional hearings with Bolton and others as witnesses (most likely closed door), democrats will find sufficient evidence of wrongdoing and congress the house judiciary committee will put it to a vote. The vote will definitely pass, which AFAIK, means we're definitely in for an impeachment trial in the senate?

Even getting that far will be a success IMO, if only as a symbolic gesture to Americans and the rest of the democratic world.

@NOS4A2 And hey, let's investigate the Biden's while we're at it, just for fun (a job for the justice department I reckon), but let's also not ask foreign governments to carry out those investigations (because it's unconstitutional, and stupid).

Nukes only protect against other nukes, and maybe homeland invasions (nobody has dared to use them offensively since their debut). Essentially they're useless in day-to day and year-to year tactics.

America could abandon the rest of the world and turn to farming, but I don't think that's what it really wants. (And the rest of the world doesn't want that either, because it would just serve them up to whichever strong nation has the least moral scruples, such as Russia or China).

Otherwise, and if America wishes to maintain it's economic trajectory, it's inextricably entangled in matters of geo-political stability.

I too want a world where there is less violence and conflict, but in some cases violence is a necessary response to force.

Sondland gets it:

Ukraine's political and economic development are critical to the long standing, long lasting stability of Europe. Moreover, the conflict in eastern Ukraine and Crimea remains one of the most significant security crises for Europe and the United States. Our efforts to counter-balance an aggressive Russia depend in substantial part on a strong Ukraine.

- Sondland, earlier today

Putin is hated about as much as he is loved, as far as I can gather (and seems to retain power by assassinating his rivals). What makes him so popular in Serbia?

Leadership standards haven't risen much since the collapse of their union (maybe it's just a low bar?):



But Putin aside, allow me to rephrase: better war in Ukraine than allowing Russia to become a rival super-power once-again. Ukranians and other ex-soviet territories may admire Russia's prowess, and wish to (re)join their strengthening empire, but the west has reason to prevent that (the cold war).

Russia cannot be invaded or attacked directly due to their hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons. That reality is what created the cold war, and it is what allowed the Soviet Union to safely extend its caustic influence across the globe. It's why Russian assets in Ukraine and Syria are so difficult for America to attack directly (it risks escalation).

Maybe the Crimean people got what they truly wanted, but at some point it doesn't matter; the Soviet Union lost, and the west should not be expected to be so good a guy as to allow Russia to rebuild it for a round two.

So we're still fighting the Cold War? — frank

We're protecting our ally against Russian invasion...

Americans are suffering so that 1) Europeans don't have to pay for their own defense, and 2) so somebody in the US can live in the past. — frank

America is in a very complicated strategic relationship with its allies, but in short, Europe's defense is actually America's defense. Allowing Russia to swallow Ukraine would be a stupendously bad strategic decision for America...

Moral premise. I think I understand the sentiment, but history shows that once the borrowed money is flowing into this moral project, the long term effects will be instability and bloodshed. I think it's time the US realized that each nation has to work out stability for itself. A culture has to evolve according to its own internal integrity. Trying to make USA mini-me's is not moral at all. — frank

Better to have a bunch of American mini-me's than one giant Russia. Better for America, better for Americans, and better for the would be comrades.

But more importantly, domestic stability cannot be achieved without international stability. Our economies and societies are so interconnected that "working out stability for ourselves" just doesn't make sense unless you want to be an isolated nation of farmers.

I don't understand why we are. — frank

It's mostly about a long-term geo-political strategy to counter the re-emergence of Russia as a rival super-power. To some degree it's also about making good on America's alliances.

How would it impact us if Russia defeated them? — frank

It would weaken western economic strength and strategic position, and strengthen that of Russia.

Wouldnt the lives of Ukranians improve in the absence of war? — frank

Maybe, maybe not. If we're to consider the Ukranian people (and if there's any validity to the moral premise of America as herald and protector of democracy) then the U.S might be right to counter Russian aggression/infiltration/influence. It depends on what Russia would decide to take as victory spoils, and the measures it would use to stay in control.

It's reasonable to assume that Russian control over Ukraine benefits Russian interests more than it does Ukranian interests. Maybe surrender would save lives, but what would it cost them now and in the long run?

In any case, it seems as if the Ukranians will fight with or without American help, and now is not the time for isolationism.

I dont think that's possible. — frank

So you don't think America should be giving military aid and assistance to Ukraine?

Given that Russia is pretty much trying to annex it, absolutely. I'm not too interested in allowing Putin to reconstruct the Soviet Union...

Taylor affirmed no such quote because no one said “I want Zelensky in a public box”. So we can quote it properly, or not at all. What we cannot do is pretend people said something when they didn’t. — NOS4A2

Earlier in the testimony, the counselor asked Taylor why certain terms, including "public box", were in quotation marks, and Taylor stated that everything in quotation marks were actually used in the conversation the notes pertained to. Maybe he Sondland did not state verbatim "Trump wants the Ukranian president in a public box", but the term public box was in fact used, and Taylor's understanding of Sondland's usage was in fact that Trump wanted Zelensky in a public box by committing publicly to investigations.

So yes, "public box" is a term Sondland used. Taylor has provided sworn testimony that "public box" did in fact come out of Sondland's mouth, and also that it was in a conversation about (Sondland's interpretation of) WH/Trump intentions.

So I'll ask yet again, has ambassador Taylor perjured himself (is he a liar)? Or was Sondland just confused?

There is no quote that says "I want him in a public box". — NOS4A2

It's Taylor quoting sondland. The quote is present in Taylor's personal notes, and he affirmed their accuracy under oath.

https://youtu.be/BpNl3b1SYtc?t=12279

So we're back to my question: Is Taylor confused or lying about the marching orders he received from Sondland? Is Sondland confused about the marching orders he received from Trump?

It seems like someone is either lying or incredibly stupid, and it might be worth continuing the inquiry to find out who the liars are, right?

Be careful, you’re making up quotes and attributing them to someone who never said them. That was something expressed by Taylor, quoting Sondland who was interpreting Trump’s desires. The fact that people are misquoting double-hearsay only attests to the fabricated nature of these accusations. — NOS4A2

To be fair, I'm not making up quotes, I'm quoting sworn testimony. Taylor's understanding was that the military aid hinged on investigations. This is backed up the summarized transcript the WH released ("I would like you to do us a favor though"). But why would Taylor have that understanding if it didn't represent WH intentions? Why would Sondland interpret Trump's desires that way? Was he just confused?

Americans are, by and large, feckless and too addicted to their screens to revolt. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I would tend to agree, but even bread and games eventually give way to mounting inequality and suffering (wide-spread and systematic wanting, whether it's for justice, education, or economic/political opportunity). Things have to get pretty bad for an actual revolution to occur (at least according to history). One thing I will say though, is that so long as there are yet enough deep-pocketed "elites" who can influence or control the flow of screens and sweeties (in the past it has typically been land-owning nobles, but today it's the enfranchised wealthy and super-wealthy), then we will indeed be stuck with nothing but our narcissistic rage in this digital and intellectually desertified wilderness.

I am reticent to conflate the GOP establishment (and it's gimp-slaves like Lindsey Graham) with conservatives at large. They're really not so bad, and when I see a regular person who is completely misinformed (convinced the dems are all liars, for instance), I will happily blame the absolute mockery of journalism that is Fox News, and the grotesquely contorted political-party that creates the milieu Fox News inhabits.

That said, I'm also of the opinion that the DNC is also featured in the freak show, making me a reformist. Election systems are fucked (along with the parties), health-care system is fucked, prison and judicial system is fucked, education system is fucked or at least fucks over the non-wealthy, industrial military complex is fucked, the wealth gap is fucked and promises civil unrest in the near future, foreign and domestic policy is now (and arguably has been) fucked by a never ending stable of lobbyists and interest groups, et cetra...

The party divide is not really on my radar as fundamental issue or threat. In fact, in a decade or two, unless there is economic change for the lower class, social unrest will dissolve any disunity between conservatives and progressives, and all that will matter is tearing down a broken system which has so thoroughly fucked them all.

I've been supporting Trump's impeachment since before he was elected, all because it is the perfect reform catalyst. I could not care less about the 2020 election or the dire need for each side to be the winner (it's complacency masquerading as expediency, masquerading as right and wrong).

Trump continues to vomit and shit on the resolute desk, just as I knew he would, and by god there has got to be a limit. Unless Trump's base actually does somewhat step back from their unconditional support (something you're saying they can't possibly do) then my hopes of reform are fucked, and America (and by extension the rest of the world which lives in its shadow) is itself fucked. I'll endure any amount of trolling just to find the one person who is open to evidence and reason. If in the end my hopes come to nothing, and the status quo carries on its current trajectory, then the term "Second American Revolution" is probably something we're going to be hearing in the future.

That is what you need to agree is the problem. — Wayfarer

Some people are incorrigible ideologues, for sure, but everyone has a limit, and everyone can be persuaded. If I assume that nothing can persuade my interlocutor, then I'll just probably wind up entrenching his position. In effect, it would amount to calling him stupid, and he would assume that I have no actual arguments or evidence. Instead (ideally) I can try to understand his position well enough to also understand how it has persuaded him into his current position. Ultimately that is the key to identifying which arguments and evidence will actually make a persuasive difference in the long run.

In this case, given Republicans derive most of their confidence from ideological principles and distrust of the left, the most persuasive argument is one which relies on agreeable ideology/political philosophy, and which excludes anything vaguely resembling leftist politics. "It's an uphill battle" is an understatement in many cases, but if die hard Trump supporters think that they care about truth, then the truth may out.

The fact that he wanted public announcements about the launch of investigations is basically slow motion video of the gun itself being fired (the election interference gun), but some people will have a hard time understanding the gravity of this because of the anti-corruption defense/rebuke.

They already believe that there is corruption that needs rooting, so even though Biden's son got found out: justice is justice.. I think it is more persuasive to start by showing just how out of the ordinary the move was in the first place. When ASAP rocky got incarcerated for assault/battery in Sweden, Trump sent out tweets of support; he's an American, and America has got American backs. But when it comes to a political rival, throw them under the foreign bus? No no no... It simply must not be permitted to work that way. It's not so much a slippery slope as it is a sudden democracy-killing pit-fall trap that is a favorite of corrupt strong-men; dictators.

There's the illegal compromising of American security gun (withholding the aid), there's the election interference gun (targeting Biden specifically, with the demand for public announcements), but I think it is best to start with the much humbler gun of undermining the constitutional rights of American citizens. I'm not entirely sure what the necessary legal implications of asking another government to investigate or prosecute an American citizen are (party connections not withstanding), but something tells me that it amounts to a gross betrayal of the American system (one in which the executive branch extra-legally attacks an American citizen, thereby subverting their constitutional rights, while also subverting the judicial branch).

There may be no strong legal argument or precedent to be had in this, but there is a very persuasive argument from ideology. Republicans believe that they believe in the rule of law, the American way, and the fundamental freedoms guaranteed them by the constitution. As much as they love Trump (which is to say, as much as they despise democrats), they love their principles even more. Removing politics from the equation (sticking to the philosophical side of things) is the shortest road to common ground between the poles IMO.

P.S:I am very keen to hear any insights you might have about the constitutional argument I've tried to delineate. I suspect it would be a matter for the Supreme court to rule on...

Prosecuted by a foreign government? No one asked for such a thing. . — NOS4A2

The evidence makes it pretty clear that Trump wanted actual investigations to be opened (by the Ukranian administration/government). The whole "I want him in a public box" thing is really unambiguous. Even if Trump didn't expect real investigations from Ukraine, he at least wanted the appearance of them (and if that is the case, then our discussion would shift to focusing on election and foreign policy interference)

But, can we both agree that if it is true that Trump tried to incite a Ukranian investigation into an American citizen, that there is a serious problem in and of itself? To be clear, America has no formal obligation to defend it's ex-pat criminals, but an American institution seeking justice against an American citizen via the proxy of a foreign legal system is in this situation bat-shit insane (Hunter Biden isn't some kind of cartel kingpin that is out of reach of the long American law-arm).

Let me continue to clarify: intelligence sharing isn't problematic, and asking Ukraine to share evidence of 2016 election interference (regardless of who's son it taints) is not a problem (although,how that evidence is handled, vetted,and disseminated could be problematic). But what IS a problem is when America ostensibly abandons the constitutional duty they have (to each and every citizen, criminals included) by asking another country to perform justice upon them.

I realize I'm jumping the gun a bit here: I still need to convince you that Trump did in fact want Ukraine to open actual investigations. Most of the other liberals here and elsewhere are focusing mainly on how targeting the Biden family amounts to 2020 election interference, and how withholding aid amounts to a treasonous abuse of power for personal gain (the personal gain being points in the 2020 election), but if we zoom in even further then we don't need any of that to see why this is such a problem:::::

As far as I know, the president is endowed with the power to pardon, but importantly, not the power to condemn. I guess this would go back to the whole separate and equal branches of government and a republic, if you can keep it shtick that the founders liked to bandy. There's really an important idea contained within those statements: we need impartial legal processes (both in the judicial system, and in the election system) because the whole philosophical basis for America's existence is anti tyranny. Tyranny is about tyrants: authorities who do whatever they want regardless of rules, tradition, or justification. Trump trying to pursue justice outside of the American judicial system, against an American citizen, is fundamentally a stab in the back of everything America actually stands for. American's aren't free under their own government if it can undermine the very processes that were designed specifically to guarantee that freedom.

Corruption is corruption, and it should all be investigated. I lose no sleep over Biden et al, and the possible exposure of their corruption (I sort of relish it).

There are two important caveats.

First Caveat: Constitutionally, the government is obligated to uphold the rights of their citizens (including Biden Jr.), but they can't do that if American citizens are being held or prosecuted by a foreign government (embassies and consulates offer assistance to legally entangled American tramps, and there are prisoner exchange programs for this reason). The law of the land is the law of the land (criminals abroad should be punished), but there is little to no reason for America to actively petition another nation to prosecute an American citizen. Ethically, if there is justice that needs getting (especially if American interests are involved), then it ought to be the American judicial system that renders that justice. I'm sure the anti-corruption and racketeering laws of the U.S have ample precedent and jurisdiction to accomplish that. In summary, wanting corruption to be investigated is not wrong, but asking demanding other nations to prosecute and incarcerate American citizens is. The fact that the main target was the Biden family just makes the motive obvious: winning points in the 2020 election by making Biden and the democratic party look corrupt (as if that isn't already clear anyhow. Would you like some coffin to go with these nails?)...

Second Caveat: The national interests and security of America (and her allies,where applicable) must be considered by the cardinal office charged with their preservation. In other words, the need for public investigations into the Bidens by Ukraine does not reasonably justify compromising military and foreign policy. Trump was more interested in preserving his seat in the office than the nation the office serves. That's a really serious problem, and doing nothing about it isn't an option. Even if the dems fail to impeach Trump, they will have at least sent the message that the oval office isn't a license to carpetbag American interests, whether at home or abroad (countering Russia in Ukraine is in American interests, and withholding aid to Ukraine is an intolerable risk to that interest).

Allow me to respond in chunks so we can address each point.

There is plenty of denying that the military aid was about winning points in the domestic election. — NOS4A2

In fact, as the transcript shows, it pertained to previous elections and previous officials in pervious administrations. So the part about it being about the 2020 election is completely fabricated. — NOS4A2

Don't you think that having the president of Ukraine make a public investigation our of Biden's son would benefit Trump in the upcoming election? It would be of undeniable benefit. Do you deny that?

Schiff’s assertion that Trump did such and such to “help his political campaign” is still without evidence, even after the Dems brought out their star witnesses. Schiff continues this lie. Another nothing-burger; another witch hunt. — NOS4A2

Don't you think it's strange that the president of America is asking a foreign government to investigate American citizens? We can take the view that Trump is just anti-corruption, but why then did Trump withhold military aid to Ukraine? (And why can't Trump use America's own justice system to pursue justice? Asking foreign governments to handle matters which concern constitutional rights of Americans (habeus corpus for example) is a slippery slope, don't you agree?). One of the biggest ethical problems here, even if everything Trump says is true (innocent anti-corruption), is that by making military aid dependent on public investigations (why did they have to be public?) Ukraine basically is being given the idea that unless they find Biden's son guilty, aid might be withheld in the future. (so not only are they asking what might amount to a kangaroo court to prosecute an American, they're introducing a kangaroo of their own that will spoil the verdict).

There's simply no denying that withholding the military aid was about winning points in the domestic election, and there's no denying that it is an unethical abuse of power that subverts constitutional rights. If Trump is allowed to abuse the power of the U.S to make sure he wins the next election, what does that say about democracy, or the state of the union?

Why is it more important that Biden's son gets investigated than it is important that Russia not takeover Ukraine?