Here's my definition of infinity, and for simplicity I'm only referring to positive infinity: infinity is a number, but it has a characteristic that all real numbers do not possess. Namely, it is a number that is greater than any particular real number. All the rules of arithmetic applicable to real numbers do not carry over to use of infinity. Examples: infinity plus a real number is infinity: infinity divided by infinity is not equal to one: infinity subtracted from infinity is not equal to zero. — Michael Lee

Notice what you're doing: you're defining an extension to real numbers and real arithmetic. This doesn't magically transform infinity into something it's not (it's not a real number) it just means that the concept of infinity within your extended system, is coherent.

In ordinary arithmetic, infinity is not a number to which arithmetic operations can be applied. It is false to claim that (1/infinity) = 0. Rather, one can abstractly consider where this series leads:
1/n, for n=1,2,3...
the series never ends, but it gets increasingly closer to zero. This leads to the (extended) concept of "limit". The misconception that (1/infinity)=0 is an inexact way of saying that the limit of (1/n), as n approaches infinity, =0. It's useful math, it's fundamental to calculus, but that doesn't "prove" infinity exists in the real world - not in the sense that "7" exists in any collection of 7 objects in the real world.

EDIT: Ok, how about this: by "belief" I mean assent, without warrant (i.e. falsified OR unfalsifiable) and by "knowledge" assent, with warrant (i.e. test but not (yet) falsified) -- clearer? :smile: — 180 Proof

I'm trying to understand what you're getting at, so I went back through some of your posts. This one seems relevant:

theistic claims about, or predicates ascribed to, g/G, according to scripture, creed, or dogmatic theology, are easily - like shooting fish in a barrel - falsified. — 180 Proof

I almost agree with this, except for one caveat: you can't falsify personal experience. If someone believes Jesus Christ is talking to them, and that he is affirming their beliefs, you cannot defeat that person's belief. Setting that aside, I completely agree that belief in a god of religion cannot be (otherwise) warranted....but...

Belief in deism (a generic creator who is the foundation of existence and having some form of intentionality), may be warrantable. I'm not sure, but I am sure defeating it is NOT shooting fish in a barrel.

If the country isn't ready for it, fine. At least we tried. — Xtrix

But If the country isn't ready for it, is it fine to have another 4 years of Trump? Does the self-satisfaction of having tried make that OK? Our only real difference seems to be one of priorities. My top priority is to get rid of Trump, and that leads me to choose the person who seems most electable.

It's possible that Bernie or Warren will be that person, or close enough to it. But it's up to them to convince swing voters, especially in swing states, to make that so. If they don't succeed, I have to support whomever has the best chance.

Except that he polled better than Clinton did in 2016 and continues to beat Trump in polls today and in key states in particular. — Xtrix

Sanders is doing better than I expected, but it looks to me like Biden is still the current best hope to beat Trump. Here's latest polling data for battleground states (each state name is a link to the poll):

Florida - Trump beats everybody, but Biden is closest.

Colorado - Trump losing to everybody, but Biden and Sanders are tied for size of lead. (poll was from August, 2019)

Iowa - Trump beats everybody, but lead is narrowest for Buttigieg (Biden a close second)

Michigan - Everybody beats Trump, but Bloomberg has the biggest margin

Minnesota - Everybody beats Trump, but favorite daughter (is that a thing?) Klobuchar trounces him bigly. Biden is #2

Ohio - 3 candidates ahead of Trump, others behind. Biden#1, Sanders#2

Nevada - Everyone beats Trump, but Biden is tops.

New Hampshire - Most recent poll has Trump beating everyone, but prior poll (Jan 25) has Trump losing to everyone, with Buttegieg tops.

North Carolina - Only Biden and Sanders beat Trump, with the edge going to Sanders.

Pennsylvania - Trump beats everybody, but Biden and Bloomberg are closest.

Virginia - Trump beats everyone except Biden.

Wisconsin -Only Sanders and Biden can beat Trump, with Biden having the bigger margin.

That's my point when I state that g/G is underdetermined (re: caveat A). Any scriptural or theological account can and will do. And does for most individuals & creeds. — 180 Proof

A Mormon could believe the Catholic god doesn't exist, but believe the Mormon god exists. These respective gods have some characteristics in common, but their differences make them unique
.

Loosely, for the sake of discussion, — 180 Proof

Please just state how you're defining it instead of referencing something else. My biggest issue is that generally, knowledge of x entails belief that x, but you are treating belief and knowledge as two different things.

I’ve read every testimony except for the one the house hid. And simply repeating the accusations of the House without any reference to the defense does not convince — NOS4A2

Of course you're not convinced. Faith is never defeated with facts.

We previously discussed the evidence you considered exculpatory, and I showed how it's consistent with Trump's guilt and therefore not exculpatory.

1. "god" is not defined
2. How are you defining "knowledge"? The strict philosophical definintion is justifed belief that is true and (somehow) avoids Gettier conditions. That doesn't seem to be what you're doing, given the way you distinguish between belief and knowing.

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction... — Frank Apisa

You must have some concept of "god" in mind in order to make these statements. What are you referring to?

This question pertains to my position, wherein I think it highly unlikely that a "god of religion" exists. That's fairly specific - it implies an intelligent creator who cares about humans, has interacted with some humans, and provided a life after death. It seems to me the evidence for such a being is quite weak, and therefore there's no good reasons to believe in such a thing. On the other hand, I'm a bit more open to the possibility of a being possessing intentionality and efficacy, that was capable of choosing to make a world of the sort that exists. However, since this being is probably not a god-of-religion, its existence is irrelevant.

Like I said, your entire argument was premised on the fantasies of the House and the admitted presumptions of one testimony. You didn’t show Trump’s behavior violated “government ethics standards”. You showed how Biden violated them. — NOS4A2

Labeling the House's inferences "fantasies" demonstrates your pre-judgment. There was much more than one bit of testimony, so you obviously just didn't pay attention. Lack of attention also explains why you didn't pick up on there being an appearance of conflict of interest by Trump on his Zelensky call, and this would call for a closer look at the surrounding facts. Instead of being forthcoming with those facts, he stonewalled the collection of facts. Contrast this with Biden, which I acknowledge has the appearance of conflict, but a closer look at the facts does not support it. And with Trump, it's more than a conflict of interest - he was violating his oath of office and due process by asking for an INDIVIDUAL to be investigated; due process directs investigation of crimes, not fishing expeditions of people. You ignore all this, because you like the spectacle of political dirt digging, and seem to have a quasi-religious faith in Trump's virtues.

I disagree, I do not think you gave good reasons, and in fact gave specious reasons as to why he engaged in wrong-doing. Worse, like the House managers, it was all premised on fantasy and presumption. — NOS4A2

You identified no errors in reasoning nor false assumptions that I'd made. On the other hand, you didn't understand federal government ethics standards and how Trump's behavior violated them. Your judgment seemed rooted in bias against Biden and in favor of Trump, whatever he might do.

I am giving Romney the benefit of the doubt. — NOS4A2

Claiming Romney displayed "pious sanctimony" does not sound like giving him the benefit of the doubt. Romney knew his vote would hurt him politically, and yet he cast it - that's an act of courage that you should applaud, even if you disagree with his judgment.

Romney was wrong because he falsely believed Trump did something wrong and, in a fit of pious sanctimony, betrayed his president. — NOS4A2

Falsely believed?

You should at least pretend to exercise objectivity. I gave you good reasons to support the judgment that Trump did wrong, reasons which you could not refute. Regardless of your personal judgment that Trump did "good" (setting aside your poor defense of that judgment), you should at least try to understand that reasonable people could indeed judge that Trump did wrong, and give Romney the benefit of the doubt that his judgment was sincere. For that matter, there were other Republicans who agreed with Romney that Trump did something wrong, they just didn't consider it a "high crime" sufficient for removal.

It's pretty revealing that you refer to "betraying" the President: loyalty to country OUGHT to come before loyalty to party, and loyalty to a person should come dead last. I Romney's case, I take him at his word that HIS first loyalty is to his God, and therefore felt bound by the oath he took. Contrast that "piousness" to Trump's comments at today's prayer breakfast.

What disagreement? I mean, when's the last time there was any policy discussion where you could have meaningful disagreement? — Benkei

True. I was trying to convey that many people demonize vocal members of the alternative party, solely because they belong to, and advocate for, that alternative party. It's shallow and chauvinistic.

Consider Pelosi. She's a smart, effective politician. No scandals. And yet, many Republicans demonize her.

If I am asked to check a box, where the choices are a list of religions and "atheist", I check "atheist". On a philosophy forum, I describe my position - which often results in getting more detailed than I gave you. And that's really my point: labels tell you very little, particularly among those of us who are not theists. Different people mean different things by the term - it can be defined narrowly, or broadly, and it's a waste of time to argue for one definition vs another. It's just a word.

It was hysterical, whatever it was. It proves to me the saltiness and hatred of the anti-Trump faction. I hate to accuse others of being “triggered”, but Pelosi’s very public display was the epitome of it. — NOS4A2

I also liked watching nervous Nancy get the snub. Quite a sight. — NOS4A2

This "spectacle" that you so enjoy seems very much like a football game, for which you are rooting for your team. When team Trump says or does something rude or obnoxious, he's "fighting back". When the other team responds in kind, it's something bad ("salty", "hatred").

Trump has dragged the game into the gutter. Sure, people hate him - he gives them many good reasons to do so (would you like a list?) I contrast this with the hatred many Republicans have toward people like Pelosi and Schiff - it's rooted entirely in political disagreement.

0 P

An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." — Frank Apisa

What would you call someone who believes it extremely unlikely that a God of religion exists? A "God of religion" is a being who intervenes in the world, reveals himself to some, and provides for a life after death. (I'm referring to myself, btw).

My point is that "God" is a fuzzy term.

Here's my thoughts.

Over the years, I've seen many pointless debates about the meaning of the term "atheist". For example, I've encountered Christians who insist that to be an "atheist", one must hold the belief:no god(s) exist, and argue that "lack of belief in god" doesn't mean much (they counter: "I'm a theist because I lack belief in God's non-existence"). Their motivation seems to be a desire to argue against a strawman.

I therefore think the the term should be only be used to convey a general, vague sense of a person's position. One should make no specific assumptions about what any self-labelled atheist means. It's fair to assume he probably doesn't think there is a God, in the traditional sense of the term. If you want to know more specifically what he believes, set the label aside and ask.

BTW, as a point of trivia, the Roman empire labelled Christians as "atheist", because they didn't believe in the Roman gods.

Imagine going through life running to a fact-check site to let some journalist tell you what to think. — NOS4A2

I prefer to know the truth, and there's no better way than to see what both sides have to say. During Obama's presidency, I'd often listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, and even Levin. I wouldn't accept what they say verbatim, but they occasionally had a valid criticism. (I realize this isn't quite the same thing, since none of these guys are journalists).

You seem content to accept whatever Trump says, which seems pretty crazy to me.

Trump is killing the State of the Union address. — NOS4A2

I'm surprised you'd even watch, since you don't care what he says. Perhaps you're turning over a new leaf, in which case you should be interested in fact checking his show, and his presidency.

Impeachment is the tool of enforcement. — creativesoul

So...you envision the House impeaching approximately 50 Senators, and then each of these would be tried in the Senate...and these Senators would then vote to remove themselves.

Sure, and voters could, in theory, take that into account - but it can't be adjudicated.

Rather, it can't deal with a President and Senate majority that, to all intents and purposes, ignores the Constitution and flouts the law, which is what has happened. Impeachment is eminently possible, if the political will and commitment to principle existed. — Wayfarer

They didn't do anything unconstitutional; that was the point I made earlier. They violated the oath they took, but the oath isn't enforceable. Senators have carte blanche to judge guilt and to judge whether or not the crime is a "high crime or misdemeanor", and this implies there is always sufficient wiggle room to acquit. They will nearly universally use this wiggle room to acquit when it's a President of their own party. Unless the opposition party has close to a 2/3 majority (which is hard to forsee ever happening), there will not be a removal.

My bad. I forgot about that oath (a Senate rule that is not required by the Constitution), but unfortunately - an oath is not enforceable

Donald Trump's impeachment trial was fully consistent with the Constitution. Article I Section 3 says this:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

By virtue of having "sole power", the Senate makes its own rules. Nowhere does it say how the trial must be conducted, and it doesn't even say it must be fair, that the jurors must be impartial, nor that they can't be bribed or threatened.

In short, the Constitution is flawed: impeachment and removal is, for all practical purposes, impossible.

.

Yeah, I just don’t understand how his actions can be misconstrued as “wrong-doing” — NOS4A2

Then you haven't made an effort to understand what I've told you.

It’s looking more and more like Trump is going to be acquitted by the senate, and another anti-Trump witch-hunt and conspiracy theory revealed to be a waste of time and taxpayer dollars — NOS4A2

An investigation that accurately identifies a serious wrongdoing is not a "witch hunt." The irony is that the wrongdoing consisted of Trump asking Ukraine to conduct a witch-hunt of a political rival.

One of the rationale Republicans have claimed for acquitting him was that the American people in the next election, not the Senate, should decide whether or not Trump should stay in office. Clearly, we need as much information as possible to judge him fairly. The impeachment and trial contributed to this body of information, and rational, open-minded person who considers all this information would surely agree that Trump's actions were wrong.

Watching the Senate Trial. The House managers are arguing testimony and documents are still required. Is this a tacit admission that they lack the evidence to prove their case? — NOS4A2

In a criminal trial, a prosecutor would be derelict if he failed to obtain every significant bit of evidence possible. On the other hand, the only credible reason I've seen to reject the seeking of more evidence is the one Lamar Alexander provided: Trump is obviously guilty, so it's not needed.

Last ditch deep-state effort to influence the Senate trial.

Trump Told Bolton to Help His Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Book Says — NOS4A2

Yeah, it would be outrageous for the trial to be influenced by facts.

Trump in 2016: "I love Wikileaks!". I know, that's different; the Wikileaks info was a product of Russia's efforts to help him.

That’s the problem with contextomy because all one has to do is look at what was left out to see the truth of the matter, and to notice the bad faith intentions of those who took it out of context. — NOS4A2

Your quotes do not dispute what I asserted, which is that there was a tie to investigating the Democratic server. I agree this should not be conflated with a tie to investigating Biden, although Trump himself made that tie on his call with Zelensky.

The whistleblower complaint had been made before this alleged motivation was given to him. There's no evidence this concern was raised prior to that - Sandy had tried to find out the cause of the hold in July, and Duffy didn't have an answer.

A rooster crows before sunrise therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise. The timing of these events is not enough to establish a connection. — NOS4A2

I didn't say it "established" a connection, but it circumstantially contributes to there being one, and it eradicates its exculpatory value.

In my defense no evidence shows trump was engaged in wrong doing, and evidence shows the opposite: good-doing. — NOS4A2

There isn't a shred of evidence that Trump was doing good. You have ignored the fact there was no identified crime to be investigated (Ukraine had previously announced that it was aware of no crimes having been violated), anti-corruption benchmarks had already been met, he wanted a PERSON investigated (violating due process and a failure to adhere to faithfully execute the law), and such an investigation would clearly benefit Trump politically. Even had there been a crime to investigate, the political benefit constituted a conflict of interest (contrary to the ethics standards of the federal government) that could and should have been addressed by personally recusing himself from involvement and letting the departments of State and Justice deal with it.

I truly believe this, because why the hell are we sending hundreds of million in aid to Ukraine? — NOS4A2

You can't be that ignorant. Ukraine is an ally, a weak one, and they are at active war with Russia. We have a long term commitment to assist them, and even if Trump disagreed with it - he was legally bound to provide the aid. If he was uncomfortable with it, he was at liberty to work with Congress at changing this.

He was corrected by Trump himself. — NOS4A2

You're playing the partisan game, ignoring everything that was said on the call with Sondland, other than Trump stating "no quid pro quo. Trump said those words, then outlined what he wanted -which constituted a quid pro quo. This article summarizes the context.

Mulvaney clarified that he was not in fact speaking about a quid pro quo, claiming the media misconstrued his statements. Of course no one includes the clarification in impeachment because that would be telling both sides of the story. — NOS4A2

His words were clear:

Reporter: So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?

Mick Mulvaney: (21:34)
The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.

Reporter (M): (21:42)
Withholding the funding?

Mick Mulvaney: (21:43)]Yeah. Which ultimately then flowed. ...

Reporter (M): (22:25)
But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is funding will not flow unless the investigation into into the Democratic server happened as well.

Mick Mulvaney: (22:35)
We do that all the time with foreign policy. ...

While it's true Mulvaney tried to deny saying what he said, his motivation for doing so is obvious. This his statements aren't dispositive, it's suggestive coming from the man who is both head of OMB and acting chief of staff.

Mark Sandy of the OMB testified that Duffey "attributed the hold to the President's concern about other countries not contributing money to Ukraine" in "early September". He does not recall the exact date. The reasons that were given to the OMB match up to the initial questions on Ukraine aid — NOS4A2

The whistleblower complaint had been made before this alleged motivation was given to him. There's no evidence this concern was raised prior to that - Sandy had tried to find out the cause of the hold in July, and Duffy didn't have an answer.

I'd like to see what Bolton has to say, yes. But I do not think it will establish guilt because, as we know, there is no crime. It could establish that the administration was lying or Bolton is lying. — NOS4A2

If Bolton's testimony is consistent with reporting from the leaked manuscript, it will show that Trump's guilty of wrongdoing. It's another matter as to whether of not that wrongdoing constitutes a crime or whether or not it is adequate reason to remove him from office. My complaint with you is that you refuse to acknowledge that the evidence shows it likely Trump engaged in wrongdoing.

Bolton lying? Who has better credibility - Bolton (particularly if testifying under oath) or Trump, who has uttered thousands of falsehoods since taking office. John Kelly, who knows them both, believes Bolton. Testimony has already established that Bolton strongly disagreed at the time with what was going on - terming it a "drug deal", whereas the President has taken extreme measures to avoid letting the facts get out.

I stand corrected. His minor children benefitting from his position would present a legal a conflict of interest, but his elder son benefitting from his position doesn’t. Quite odd, but you’re right. — NOS4A2

Except in the case of Biden’s son. As we now know according to Vindman’s, Jeniffer Williams’ and George Kent’s testimony, questions of Biden’s conflict of interest were a concern, but these same stringent ethics policies didn’t apply. They were legal, as you’ve shown, but they didn’t pass the appearance test apparently. — NOS4A2

The regulation calls for ethics investigators examining such situations on a case by case basis:
"For situations that involve appearances of conflicts, provides that the circumstances be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts."
The relevant facts do not demonstrate a conflict of interest.

This proves Trump was NOT doing his duty to call for the investigation, as you claimed; he was doing wrong.

Sondland was wrong, as his own testimony shows. They did not all “understand” there was a quid pro quo. Sondland only presumed it. — NOS4A2

He assumed it because he could see no other explanation, and he kept the State department and NSC apprised. " The State Department was fully supportive of our engagement in Ukraine affairs, and was aware that a commitment to investigations was among the issues we were pursuing." Sondland also testified he told Pence that he believed there to be a tie. Why did no one correct him, if his assumption was wrong? Why has Trump blocked all testimony and documents? If these were exculpatory, why not release them?

Also recall that Mulvaney admited a quid pro quo in his famous "get over it" press conference. He only specifically attached the investigation into the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory, not the Bidens, but it seems clear that Bolton can connect the final dots. Trump's defense is to claim he's lying.

With these facts in mind, I see no rational basis for claiming it likely there was no quid pro quo.

Everytime The GAO says the administration violated the Impoundment act, the administration says it disagrees, as did the Obama administration, the Bush administration, and so on. They have no binding power over the Whitehouse and the world goes on. The aid was sent nonetheless. — NOS4A2

You're missing the relevance: the excuses that were used to hold up aid were contrived and do not reflect Trump's post hoc rationalizations (general corruption concerns and aid from Europe).

But there is evidence of Trump’s motives here. An article compelled Trump to put hold on the aid according to released emails. — NOS4A2

You're assuming a motive based on questions Trump asked. No one involved, including Cooper, has testified that this was the reason for holding back aid.

What about Bolton's alleged claims? You said you'd like him to testify, and it seems he'll testify there was a linkage.

I’d need to read the manuscript or hear a testimony — NOS4A2

Do you agree that Bolton's testimony could potentially establish Trump's guilt? We have a right to know what Bolton has to say. This is particularly important in light of the Republican claim that removal is inappropriate this close to an election. Sure- let the voters decide, but give them the complete information needed for ab informed decision.

That’s not the case because there are conflict of interest statutes on the books, violations of which are criminal offences. — NOS4A2

The conflict of interest laws apply specifically to government employees, their spouse, and minor children. It does not apply to Hunter Biden.

As I’ve said before, investigations into various Trump administration employees resulted in resignations despite here being no evidence of a crime being committed. To say those investigations were not warranted because there is no evidence laws are being broken is absurd. — NOS4A2

Executive branch employees are required to agree to a stringent ethics policy, which includes addressing cases where there's merely the APPEARANCE of conflict of interest. This gives the government the right to look into these matters without there being probable cause to investigate a crime. The ethics policy is not applicable to asking Ukraine to investigate a non-government employee.

BTW, ethics regulations require all employees to recuse themselves from participating in an official matter if their impartiality would be questioned.  This supports my assertion that Trump's action looks wrong on its face.

They aren’t just Republican talking points, but facts — NOS4A2

They are partial facts that ignore extremely relevant context:

No investigations. No public statements. Aid was released on time.

- This was the reprise from virtually every Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee, and all these ignore the damning context: there was no investigation, no public statement, and the aid was released ONLY AFTER the whistleblower complaint was made. Trump still did the misdeed.

No quid pro quo.

- Testimony shows there was a quid pro quo:
Gordon Sondland tells House impeachment panel ‘we all understood’ there was a quid pro quo

We also know that OMB held up aid without valid reason, in violation of the Impoundment act. Related to this is that Trump's post hoc claims about "pausing" the aid because of corruption concerns or concerns about what other nations were giving are not reflected in the documentation, and there is no other evidence that these were established priorities.

What about Bolton's alleged claims? You said you'd like him to testify, and it seems he'll testify there was a linkage.

Ukrainians say they were not pressured and were unaware of pause.

False.
Ukrainians Contacted U.S. Officials in May About Aid Fears
Trump pressure weeks before July call: reports

I say it’s “required” because the president has a duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. So it is clearly right that he make sure government officials weren’t engaging in corruption. — NOS4A2

Faithful execution requires being consistent with due process and equal protection. Criminal investigations are predicated on there being crimes to investigate. There is no evidence of a US law being broken (and only US law is pertinent) and the Ukranian prosecutor said he's aware of no Ukranian laws being broken. This leaves only two possible reasons to investigate: a fishing expedition to see if some crime can be pinned to him, or simply an effort to dig up dirt. Fishing expeditions are unconstitutional and dirt digging is an abuse of power.

The only “real damage to Ukraine” is the mess Trump’s accusers have brought upon them. — NOS4A2

Had this not come to light, Trump would have induced Zelensky to engage in a corrupt act: announcing a Biden investigation solely to please his benefactor. This would be apparent upon announcement, and it would have been politically damaging for the anti-corruption Zelensky to be exposed. Trump's failure to publicly support Zelensky also hurt his standing in his discussions with Putin.

The facts favor Trump. No investigations. No public statements. No quid pro quo. Aid was released on time. Ukrainians say they were not pressured and were unaware of pause. — NOS4A2

You're parrotting Republican talking points and emulating their ignoring of evidence. I've addressed all those with you before, and yet you repeat your statements without rebutting what I said.

Stopping a crime in progress does not exonerate the criminal. A quid pro quo was established, and Bolton will likely add credence. There were indeed Ukranians who expressed concerns, and it's obvious why Zelensky would refrain from stating it.

I’ve always said that Trump asking Zelensky to investigate Biden’s possible corruption and Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election was certainly not impeachable, and even a good thing, required by the office. Had they made this case since the beginning they wouldn’t have to argue for this or that interpretation of the constitution. — NOS4A2

Yes, I know you've said that, but you're wrong. In no sense was this "required", and it was clearly wrong because it did real damage to Ukraine. We could debate just how bad the damage, but there's zero evidence it was helpful to anyone in Ukraine or the U.S.. It's also further exposed Trump's low moral character.

Interpretation of the Constitution was inevitable, and always will be in an impeachment. There is no Constitutional bright line, and I think reasonable people could reach different conclusions about that. Not that I think everyone in Congress is being reasonable. The facts have been against Trump from the beginning, and most Republicans have turned a blind eye to that from the beginning.

In light of the Bolton intervention, the Trump defense's best argument seems to be: It's not as bad as what Nixon did. — ZzzoneiroCosm

And/or the Dershowitz defense that this does not constitute a "high crime". I've always felt this was the backstop that Republicans could use, but would only use as a last resort. Reaching that point, and having some Republicans admit Trump did the deed- and that it was wrong, was as much as anyone could realistically hope for.

Public records and testimony state that there was indeed a smear campaign. According to these same public records and testimony it was started a full year after the Trump/Parnas convo. So I think any sort connection made between the two is specious at best, conspiracy theory at worst. — NOS4A2

The fact that Parnas was passing along the spurious information about Yovanovotch tells us the smear campaign was already in progress. How else can you explain Parnas' statements about her?

I’m not convinced. The context, the joking and laughter about her comments, suggests to me he was largely kidding around and playing it up for those he was having dinner with. — NOS4A2

So you're interpretation is that Trump was just kidding about dumping Yovanovitch, and it's a mere coincidence that he eventually did so.

This much is clear: there was a smear campaign against her by corrupt former officials in Ukraine, and Trump eventually gave them what they wanted. Further, Parnas was a part of it - at least in terms of being a conduit for the smearing - certainly thru Rudy and at least possibly directly to Trump, even if you aren't convinced of the latter. My point is that you're rationalizing Trump's behavior, and this rationalization depends on assuming a series of coincidences. Examined individually , each coincidence is plausible. But multiple ones are not.

The president can pressure and threaten whoever he wants. That’s in his power. He is just not allowed to do so for political gain, which is entirely unproven. But they cannot even prove that he was “pressured” to do investigations. — NOS4A2

Nearly a month before the July call, Ukranian officials expressed concern about the aid holdup and what to do about Giuliani, so a link was suspected by Ukraine.
(source).

Multiple witnesses testified there was an"irregular" channel to Ukraine in which Giuliani played a central role, and Rudy publicly acknowledged he was pursuing information about the Bidens and the DNC server.

Bill Taylor's testimony stated that Ambassador Sondland told Zelensky he needed to announce the investigation. Zelensky resisted, saying he didn't want to be used as a pawn in a US reelection campaign. Zelensky followed Sondland's advice on the phone call. So it was established that Ukraine was concerned about getting the aid, were concerned about Rudy' activities - recognizing it was political, they received confirmation from Sondland, Zelensky told Trump exactly what he wanted to hear, and he even scheduled an interview on CNN. After the scandal broke, Zelensky cancelled the interview and publicly expressed that he was tired of hearing about Burisma - which adds credence to the inference that he had just been telling Trump what he wanted to hear - and the only plausible explanation is that he thought it necessary.

Ukraine has publicly stated they want good relations with both Republicans and Democrats. If they were to acknowledge the pressure, it would hurt them with Republicans. It would also look bad within Ukraine, implying they were letting themselves be used for US political purposes - a bad image for someone elected for being anti-corruption.

Pam Bondi’s case against Hunter, complete with documents and congressional testimony, was pretty damning. — NOS4A2

Other than quoting people saying it looked bad, what else did she have? What's the damning evidence you're referring to?

That’s fair. Trump could definitely be lying. But given that she wasn’t fired for over a year later until after allegations from Ukrainian prosecutors, it appears he didn’t take it serious at all — NOS4A2

He took it seriously enough to react as he did ("get rid of her"). That doesn't seem like a reasonable reaction to a comment made by a casual acquaintance.

The idea that Trump should remember every conversation and every name with everyone he meets is a little silly. — NOS4A2

Parnas isn't just anybody. Still, it's certainly possible Trump doesn't remember meeting him, but it's also possible he is lying about it. In support of this being a lie: he's met Parnas at least 11 times; Parnas had a give and take with Trump about Ukraine (it's wasn't merely a photo op); sinceTrump was asking him questions he had to have some expectation that he could answer; Parna's claim about Yovanovitch was sufficient to induce Trump to say "get rid of her."

In support of it being the truth: Trump's word. I know you don't care about the number of untruths that come out of the guy, but surely you realize that it has an impact on his credibility. This certainly doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's lying, but Trump looks bad either way. Why would he take a stranger's claim about Yovanovitch seriously?