USA has had enough of it -- it calls out Iran in a western-type shoot-out — god must be atheist

I would have voted for this, had it been written thusly:
"Leadership within the USA has had enough..."

We don't really know what real threats this may have averted, nor do we yet know how Iran will respond. I sincerely hope this was truly a product of reasoned judgment, but I'm highly suspicious of that. There will always be a cloud over this: what if we'd remained in the Iran-nucleal pact?

Congratulations! You have successfully proven to yourself something that you already believe. I hope you realize why such rationalizations are unpersuasive - they do not change minds.

Let's face it, anthropogenic global warming is an inconvenient truth. It is so inconvenient that many people seek, and find, reasons to deny it.

For those who accept it, this long-term global concern will usually take a back seat to everyday concerns like paying the bills or buying the latest iphone. And of course, each individual can rationally assert that their own little contribution to the problem is miniscule. Humans are not good at collective action that costs them individually. We rationalize and discuss what "they" ought to do.

What do I do personally? I'm big on energy efficiency - I drive a plug-in Prius hybrid, have smart thermostats, and led lights throughout the house. Ho hum , I know. I support political change; I'd welcome a carbon tax, and tax supports for wind, solar, geothermal, etc. And tax breaks for doing the right thing. In short we need government action to rig the system to make doing the "right" thing of individual benefit.

Is it hopeless? I agree we probably can't prevent some serious problems, but I don't think there's an upper bound on how bad it can get - so it's still worthwhile to push for as much positive action as possible.

Everyone's is unique, because no person has the same experiences or is exposed to the same environmental factors. Every mapped connection in the brain is engrained, and leads to how future interactions or experiences are processed, incorporated. and mapped, leading to understanding or often 'misunderstanding'. ...

.... The 'Medium' is always cloaked, unless we interact with each other through dialogue toward a shared understanding. This has all caused us to get further and further apart, encouraging divisiness, hatred, etc.. We are now dealing with screen infested, narcissistic demands, and less and less cooperation and dialogue. ..... I hope this explanation helps a little. This is 'ontological individualism'. — Mapping the Medium

It seems a reasonable analysis, but why is it called ontological individualism, when it describes individual's beliefs and belief-forming processes (i.e. it's epistemological). It also doesn't seem limited to the US.

You don't seem to have read the article I gave you. It references analyses that estimate impact of NAFTA, so they're referring to net increase in GDP and jobs vs where we would have been without NAFTA. I applaud skepticism, but I do not applaud dismissing analysis simply because it doesn't have the answer you want.

BTW, I looked at several analyses before I posted that link. The others reflected a rosier result from NAFTA. This one was more balanced - it discusses negatives as well as positives. Still, I acknowledge that it could be wrong, but I think it's stupid to insist it's necessarily wrong. The point is: what if it's right?

According to this analysis of NAFTA, there is higher GDP, lower consumer prices, and probably total jobs. Some sectors lost jobs, and some gained.

There are several different aspects of the current political landscape that need attention; some involving laws effecting/affecting different sectors; some involving the lack thereof; some involving basic housing and education and how those are affected/effected by political parties; some involving how political parties raise money; some involving how candidates are advocated for; some involving how candidates campaigns are funded; some involving income tax regulation; some involving who actually writes the legislation; etc. — creativesoul

I agree there are a variety of problems with the political landscape, and it would be great to address these. My questions pertained to your comment about maufacturing jobs, which you addressed here;

What are you asking me about?

Trade deals? The laws that incentivized and rewarded American companies to move production operations elsewhere? — creativesoul

I agree that trade deals have hurt US manufacturing, but they have helped other job sectors - and my impression (based on economic analyses I've read) is that they've been a net positive. But even without these deals, manufacturing jobs would have declined due to automation and imports, it just would have been quite as steep a decline.

AFAIK, the "incentives" you referred to are really just a reduction of disincentives, like tarriffs. This gets to my point about cheap labor in other countries. So what happens if we reverse this and adopt more protectionist measures? We save some jobs, and we keep assiciated product prices higher. It's that preferable? Maybe so, but is there no alternative that has less of a negative? That's where training displaced workers comes in: prepare them for alternative, good paying jobs. Let the manual labor get done elsewhere giving us cheaper products, while our people do more technical work.

What do you want?

Are you wanting me to specify exactly which pieces of legislation throughout the last forty to fifty years led up to and/or paved the way for the wealth disparity we currently see, including those laws and/or policies that directly undercut American workers and manufacturing? — creativesoul

Just describe the sort of laws that you believe caused this. I touched on a few things to see if that's what you meant, and you attacked me.

Listen, I suspected earlier on in this conversation that you were going to attempt to talk in meaningless rhetorical political gibber-jargon... — creativesoul

I don't understand why you're attacking me. You made a vague, general claim, and I've asked you for specifics while giving you my general thoughts. If you have some facts, present them and skip the insults.

American law resulted in losing American manufacturing, over the decades. — creativesoul

This is what's vague. What laws are you referring to?

I'm not just advocating for deliberate investment and cultivation of manufacturing jobs. It just so happens that those are the ones being spoken of at this time, because those are the ones lost by virtue of American elected officials not keeping their word to act on behalf of what's in the best interest of the overwhelming majority of Americans while simultaneously making America look like it's not willing to follow it's own rules. — creativesoul

What specifically did elected officials do, or not do, to cause or contribute to this problem?

So are you saying that it's still OK to take advantage of cheap labor in foreign countries? I hope you realize what a big factor that is. If that's not what you mean, then give me some examples of what you DO mean.

It would require a carefully staked out and principled course of action. It requires a "take it or leave it" ultimatum placed upon anyone and everyone who wants to benefit from following American law and being an active part of American marketplace. If you sell goods in America or to Americans, then the rules governing American business practices, including workers' rights, must be adhered to in every aspect of your business practice. — creativesoul

Suppose a US manufacturer wants to source parts from a Vietnamese company. Will this only be allowed if that Vietnamese company pays their worker at a scale similar to the US, they work a 40 hour work week, with annual paid vacation a year, a medical plan etc?

I favor providing opportunities to train for better alternative jobs - i.e. help people, not market segments.


Strawman. Red herring. Non-sequitur. — creativesoul

What makes you think that? Here's why I say this: Manufacturing jobs in the US have been on the decline for decades, and not solely because of competition for cheap foreign labor - automation was a big driver. But those lost jobs have not resulted in unemployment - they've resulted in people having different jobs. What's wrong with that? What's so special about manufacturing jobs that we must save them? As I said, I think it makes more sense to focus on jobs in general, not some particular types of jobs, like manufacturing. That sounds a bit like Trump promising to save jobs in the coal business, despite the fact that demand for coal is declining or flat, and automation is eliminating jobs. How is this different from saving the jobs of Blockbuster video clerks who rented VCR tapes?

The manufacturing sector is comprised of the people who've suffered demonstrable harm as a result of American legislation. There are other segments of people who've been harmed by different sorts of legislation. — creativesoul

What legislation is that? Do you mean the legislation regarding job safety, minimum wage, and other things that benefit them - but drive up the cost of labor in the US? Or do you mean the absence of the sort of legislation that you discussed that requires foreign companies to follow our standards?

Sure - these people jobs, but that doesn't imply they must have MANUFACTURING jobs.

Neither party stands with American manufacturing... both parties have spoken as if they do. — creativesoul

What would you do if YOU were President?

Personally, I don"t think it's possible to rescue manufacturing jobs (if that's what you're after). You can slow down the losses a bit, but the market currents are too strong to reverse the trend. I'm referring to automation and utilizing lower cost foreign labor. I favor providing opportunities to train for better alternative jobs - i.e. help people, not market segments.

I agree. If Biden were to appear, it would provide a stage for Republicans to make disparaging assertions.

There are no grounds for compelling Biden's testimony in the impeachment matters. May as well subpoena Oprah. — creativesoul

A subpoena would compel either Oprah or Joe. They can't ignore it no matter how ludicrous it is. Keep in mind Trump has decided his people can ignore subpoenas based on his judgment. If anyone can similarly ignore subpoenas, they lose their power.

I'd like to see what others on this forum have to say about Essentialism in general, and Gender Categories in particular. :cool: — Gnomon

If there were natural kinds, there would be a set of properties that are necessary and sufficient for belonging to that kind. That is the case for things like the elements of the periodic table, but not for living things like geese, koalas, and bacteria.

Individual essence is also problematic, because again - it would entail there being a set of necessary and sufficient properties for being that individual. There is no such set.

You mention gender, so are you distinguishing gender from sex? There's clearly a genetic distinction between animals with xy vs xx chromosomes (sex). Gender roles are less clear-cut, and I don't think we could identify a set of necessary and sufficient properties for being considered a male vs female gender role person - it's a spectrum.

The main reason we have not been able to replicate human conversation with computers is because we use mirroring in human speech. This means that we trust that our phrases cause almost the same associations in the minds of the participants of the conversation — Qmeri

You're kinda hitting on the reason we have communications problems with other humans: different mental associations. I'd say that no two people have the exact same associations, not when even moderately complex concepts are involved. The more unlike the people are, the less effective the communication. I agree that with aliens, the differences would be stark. On the other hand, it seems that some communications would be possible - I'd expect there'd still be recognizable referrents to objects and actions, and the relations between them. Discussion of art or politics would probably be hopeless.

Joe Biden said he would defy subpoenas to appear in senate impeachment trial. He’s not even the primary candidate and he’s already committing impeachable offences.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-says-he-would-defy-subpoena-to-appear-before-senate-in-trumps-impeachment-trial/ — NOS4A2

IMO, It would be unwise, and worthy of contempt of Congress, if Biden simply doesn't show up for a subpoena. On the other hand, if he took it to court he could get out of it - just like McGhan. There would be no ruling until after the Senate Trial is over, which would make it moot.

Nothing in there about restoring American confidence in the government to act on behalf of all Americans by virtue of eliminating the financial corruption that impedes that. Nothing in there about eliminating the legally paved path to bribery. Nothing in there about eliminating the unparalleled power of free speech afforded to those who are not American citizens by virtue of Citizens United. Nothing in there about eliminating the ability of unelected operatives of corporate interests to write American law. Nothing in there about adequate anti-trust laws. Nothing in there to fix the underlying systemic problems of today's American government. — creativesoul

Well, I didn't think my list was exhaustive, but it does seem you have some lofty expectations. Are you suggesting any Democrat would make all these things happen, that some particular one will, or are you just saying we have a shot at moving toward those (very fine) objectives?

It's grim if you think think Trump and Biden are equally atrocious. But if you're like me, and consider Trump to be the worst thing that has ever happened to our society, then it's pretty heartening that Biden seems to be standing a pretty good chance of defeating Trump - despite the fact that he's an incumbent during a high point in the economic cycle.

But it's the Party, all those superdelegates etc, that make the decision. — ssu

Superdelegates are 16% of the total number of delegates, and won't be allowed to vote on the first ballot. I'm comfortable with that.

Here's a few reasons:
- judicial appointments, particularly the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsberg
- Protection (or restoration) of the ACA
- rejoin Paris Climate Accords
- Resuscitate the Iran nuclear deal
- better chance of meaningful immigration reform
- restore standing with allies
- stop relaxing of environment regulations
- Terminate bully pulpit for a white nationalist/conspiracy theorist/overt narcissist

Sanders is very popular and polls better against Trump than most other candidates. — Baden

You must be looking at nation-wide polls. A New York Times poll of likely voters in 6 battleground states paints a different picture, with Biden ahead of Trump in 5 of the 6, Sanders ahead in only 1 of the 6 (plus one tie), and Warren behind in all 6. (NYT Pol)

Surprisingly, polling in Texas (deep red Texas, where I live) is all over the place. One poll has Biden beating Trump by 4 percentage points, and another with Trump beating Biden by 7 points. (Texas-Biden). Trump vs Sanders looks better for Trump (Texas-Sanders), while Trump would win handily over Warren (Texas-Warren).

FWIW, all 3 of them are miles ahead of Trump in California (vs-Biden, vs-Sanders, vs-Warren).

It's possible that Trump might lose the popular vote by an even bigger margin than last time, but still win enough electoral votes to win.

Several have jumped on me before for saying this, but I still believe Democrats' chances are best by nominating a centrist like Biden. At any rate, that's who I'm planning to vote for in the Texas primary.

Absolutely. And if they don't, I hope the House challenges Trump's stonewalling in court so that we get the full set of facts. This could exonerate him...or it could remove all doubt of his guilt.

I was hoping for a serious discussion about the facts relevant to Trump's actions. I thought this might help me more objectively view these facts, perhaps learn of some additional facts, or possibly just hear a different perspective. Obviously that's not going to happen since you just dismiss the facts en masse as "propaganda". OK, I give up - no meaningful discussion seems possible.

I'll close this out by giving my perspective on the situation. As I said, I am convinced the evidence shows it likely that Trump was asking Zelensky to investigate Biden for political reasons. I acknowledge this is based only on the limited facts that we have, but Trump's stonewalling is to blame for that. He can get away with this because of the devotion of his base - they won't even consider the bare possibility that Trump did something wrong. For that reason, they dismiss the evidence without even considering it. Trump provides the rationalizations (it's a witch hunt, or propaganda) and diversion (what about Hillary/Biden/Steele/Mueller? - tangents that have no bearing on evaluating Trump's actions) I remain convinced that the facts point to Trump being guilty of doing something he shouldn't have, and I also believe anyone who actually examined the facts would draw the same conclusion - not to "beyond a reasonable doubt", but at least to raising sufficient doubt about his innocence that they would support efforts to overcome the stonewalling.

I do not think Trump deserved to be impeached for his action with Zelensky. Rather, Congress should have censured him. Unfortunately this option wasn't available because Republicans in Congress are afraid to say Trump did anything wrong - he demanded they treat his actions as "perfect". This works because his base accepts what he says, and his base are their voters. I have concluded that impeachment was necessary because his base made it necessary. He will not be removed from office, but at least he'll go down in history as one of the few Presidents to have been impeached. It is hyper-partisan because Republicans are hiding from reality. -

The IG report revealed vast, systematic errors, and found the explanations for them to be inefficient. Mueller, with his vast investigative powers, found no such errors or malfeasance. He never mentioned that the Steele dossier was utterly false. The special counsel team had to know the truth about the Steele dossier and false FBI claims to the FISA court, but they chose to look the other way and keep us in the dark about it. Why? — NOS4A2

Mueller was not investigating the investigators, so it's irrelevant that he didn't uncover the FISA errors. Sure, the FBI placed more credibility on Steele's information than was warrranted, but it's false to claim it was "utterly false", since much of it has been substantiated. Your claim that "the special counsel team had to know the truth about the Steele dossier" sounds like something taken from the script of Mark Levin or Sean Hannity- negative speculation based on zero evidence.

Most significantly, it's the same old crap even bringing this up in the context of what Trump did - as I pointed out, two wrongs do not make a right. I pointed this out in my post, and you repeat the same absurdity. No errors made by the FBI or Mueller comprise an excuse for Trump to do something wrong.

According to the transcript he never asked Zelensky to open any investigations into the Bidens — NOS4A2

LOL! You're ignoring the Trump quote I have you in which he ADMITTED he expected Zelensky to open an investigation!

None of those points give evidence to political motivations regarding seeking dirt or influencing the 2020 elections. — NOS4A2

You're denying the obvious. Apply the epistemological process of Inference to the Best Explanation: there are two possible explanations (primary motive) for the available facts: political motivation or a motivation to address general corruption. Which of the two explanations is a better fit for the facts? If you're just going to emulate Congressional Republicans and duck the facts, then you aren't engaging in an honest debate.

Of course Trump doesn’t know about the obscure impounding Act. That’s why he has the OMB, the general counsel, advisors and others. They are tasked with following through on Trump’s policies in a legal fashion. And, according to them, they did so. — NOS4A2

The President bears responsibility - ignorance of the law is not an excuse; he has White House Counsel to advise him. I see you have no rebuttal to the points I made about his indifference to the law.

So Nixon was also prosecuted under criminal law? How does that work? And why, since obstruction of justice carries a criminal penalty, wouldn't the Democrats use the regular criminal process, which avoids the possible political blow back. — Benkei

No, Nixon was not prosecuted under criminal law.

Indictments are done by the Justice Dept, but that won't be done because the Justice Dept's Office of Legal Counsel has decided that a President may not be indicted while in office because it could impair his ability to do his job (this predates Trump). The only way to hold a President accountable for illegal acts is through impeachment.

what any of you are getting or hoping to get out of continuing — DingoJones

There's a potential he'll bring up something I'm not aware of, or at least I might understand his point of view a bit.

The mere "potential" that there is wrongdoing is not probable cause to investigate. Furthermore, the evidence points toward this being politically motivated, not a virtuous act to uncover corruption. We could review the available facts, if you like.


I’m glad you say this because this statement accurately describes crossfire hurricane and the Mueller investigation. Except Trump did not ask Zelensky to investigate anything, only to speak with the Attorney General and Rudy Giuliani, both of whom are doing investigations. — NOS4A2

That's the "two wrongs make a right" defense, which is ludicrous.

The IG ruled that there was probable cause to initiate the investigation, and no errors by Mueller have been identified. There was indeed malfeasance in the renewals of FISA applications for Carter Page, perhaps rising to the level of criminality - and if so, the responsible parties should be charged. Nevertheless, the IG did not find a political motivation for these. How widespread is the abuse of FISA warrants? Is it common, or was this the first time? Time will tell, but even if it does turn out to be something unique to investigating people associated with Trump (a big IF), that will not excuse Trump committing such errors.

Except Trump did not ask Zelensky to investigate anything — NOS4A2

According to the memorandum documenting Trump's call with Zelensky, Trump said, "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

What does "looking into it" mean, if not an investigation? We needn't speculate, because Trump told us, on Oct 3:

Q Mr. President, what exactly did you hope Zelensky would do about the Bidens after your phone call? Exactly.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I would think that, if they were honest about it, they’d start a major investigation into the Bidens. It’s a very simple answer. (source)

As for it being politically motivated, I would love to see those facts. — NOS4A2

Here's some, off the top of my head:

1) Trump named the Bidens in his conversation with Zelensky, which looks bad on its face.
2) Trump did not discuss corruption in general with Zelensky, in either of their phone calls.
3) Biden is a key political rival and therefore Trump stands to gain politically by a public declaration of an investigation into the Bidens,
4) Among the public facts, there is a lack of probable cause to investigate either of the BIdens. (numerous people make money off their connections, including Trump's kids and Rudy Giuliani; are they all to be investigated for this?) Contrast that with Trump's action, which has more than the mere on-its-face request to Zelensky). There is also no evidence to suggest Trump has non-public knowledge about either of the Bidens that implicate their involvement in corrupt acts in Ukraine.
5) According to Sondland, Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly declare an investigation into the Bidens - a political benefit to Trump, but of no positive benefit toward exposing corruption
6) The Defense Department certified to congressional committees on May 23 that Ukraine had met established benchmarks toward reducing corruption.
7) The Trump administration had approved sending aid to Ukraine nearly 50 times without holding it because of corruption concerns.
8) Testimony by David Holmes, and confirmed by Sondland that in a call between Trump and Sondland, Trump said, "So, he’s gonna do the investigation?” Ambassador Sondland replied that “he’s gonna do it,” adding that President Zelenskyy will do “anything you ask him to.” and in response to a question about the call, Sondland noted that Trump only cares about "big stuff" - which means things that affect him personally.
9) Fiona Hill testified that she and John Bolton perceived something wrong (the "political errand" of pushing for investigation of a political opponent of Trump's) was being advanced by Mulvaney, Sondland, and Giuliani - referring to Giuliani as a "hand grenade").
10) Sondland testified that he brought it to the attention of both Pence and Pompeo that Ukrainian aid had become tied to the issue of investigations, and neither of them denied it. If the notion of there being such a tie was so far fetched, one would expect some pushback.

Trump never told them to break any laws. In fact it appears they were trying to do everything by the book, as emails suggest, and not engaging in any efforts to break the law. — NOS4A2

Trump never told them NOT to break any laws. Trump appears unconcerned about what the laws are and equally unconcerned about breaking them (consider Rex Tillerson's comment about his interactions with Trump: “So often, the president would say here’s what I want to do and here’s how I want to do it and I would have to say to him, ‘Mr. President I understand what you want to do but you can’t do it that way. It violates the law,’" and Tillerson indicated that this frustrated Trump).

Mueller's investigation also supports this tendency of Trump's:
The President 's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.

Both of these are suggestive of Trump's general disregard for the law.

Sure, the OMB people didn't want to break laws, so they looked for legal ways to implement Trump's desires - at this point, it's not completely clear if they were successful. It would be great to get testimony and documents that would help us know.

There is hard evidence that proves Russian interference with the 2016 election. That is corruption of the most serious kind. Trump and the Republican party has done nothing to insure it does not happen again... — creativesoul

Trump welcomes interference, if it's in support of him. Did you read about Putin's recent press conference, and Trump proudly tweeting a positive quote of Putin's?

Why is a request to investigate potential corruption wrong? — NOS4A2

The mere "potential" that there is wrongdoing is not probable cause to investigate. Furthermore, the evidence points toward this being politically motivated, not a virtuous act to uncover corruption. We could review the available facts, if you like.

Trump is not the OMB. If the OMB violates the impound act, they should have been taken to court. They weren’t.

The evidence points toward this being directed by Trump.

At minimum, a preponderance of evidence supports the hypothesis that Trump engaged in wrongdoing. Do you deny that? If so, then we should definitely review the evidence. It seems to me that arguing for Trump's innocence depends on assuming the biggest conspiracy since O.J. Simpson was framed for murdering Nicole. ;=)

He never investigated any US citizen. The hold on aid was lifted before the expiry date. — NOS4A2

The request to investigate is wrong when the request is made; it does not magically become wrong only after the request is executed. It's wrong irrespective of whether it was tied to aid; that's a separate issue that makes it even worse - but again here, it's wrong to have ordered it and does not become virtuous when he's caught and releases it.

I had mentioned the impoundment act, which allows delays only for certain specific reasons, which must be documented. This is still under investigation, but preliminary reports indicate the letter of the law may have been broken.

Yes he does have executive privilege, which includes denying congressional subpoenas. — NOS4A2

Only selectively. He does not have absolute immunity from subpoena, as he claims. Do you sincerely believe that would hold up in court? Past precedent even shows that executive privilege is applicable most narrowly when there is an impeachment investigation.

Off the top of my head

According to testimony two of the three direct conversations with Trump contained explicit denials of a quid pro quo, including one in August, before the whistleblower complaint was sent to Congress. — NOS4A2

A guilty person denying a crime is not exculpatory evidence. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that is inconsistent with guilt. For that matter, the corruption of Trump's act is not contingent upon there being a direct quid pro quo.

The supposed victim, president Zelensky, has denied being pressured on countless occasions....Andre Yermak, a close aid to Zelensky, denied discussing quid pro quo with Sondland.

That's exculpatory with regard to a direct bribe, but only implies Zelensky and Yermak did not get direct pressure from Trump. However Zelensky clearly knew that it was in his country's best interest to do whatever Trump asked - so it's still consistent with an abuse of power. Trump's requested "favor" is abuse of power even if it wasn't tied to release of funds. Withholding funds, and then using them to reward Zelensky for that "favor" is even worse.

I'm interested. What's the exculpatory evidence?

"Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications."

The problem is that precedent only points to executive privilege being applicable only selectively. Trump has asserted absolute immunity from oversight. You could argue that this needs to be ruled by the courts, but that overlooks the nature of what the courts do: they don't make law, they just infer what the law is. In this case, it's a virtual certainty that a President does not have absolute immunity from oversight.

He was violating due process by asking for an investigation without probable cause.

Taking the action of initiating an investigation is wrong. It doesn't just become wrong when the next step in the chain is executed.

By acting contrary to his Constitutional duties. Investigating a US citizen without due cause violates due process.

Trump also seems to have violated the Impoundment Act, and to have done so for corrupt purposes, which violates faithfully executing the laws. For that matter, he violates faithful execution of the law whenever he proclaims the legal guilt of a political opponent (including claims they are guilty of treason).

Which part of the constitution did he violate? — NOS4A2

Oath of office, in Article II, Section 1: "I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and Article II, Section 3: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in conjunction with the 5th Amendment's due process clause.

What “actual crime” did Trump commit? — NOS4A2

Impeachment is not just for violations of statutes, as you seem to imply. In Federalist 65, Hamilton discusses impeachment and refers to "offenses which proceed from the conduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse of violation of some public trust."

Violating the Constitution certainly qualifies as an abuse of the public trust: the President is Constitutionally required to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

Big News! Trump utters a true statement!:

I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much. I’ve studied it better than anybody I know. It’s very expensive. They’re made in China and Germany mostly—very few made here, almost none. But they’re manufactured tremendous—if you’re into this—tremendous fumes. Gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything. You talk about the carbon footprint—fumes are spewing into the air. Right? Spewing. Whether it’s in China, Germany, it’s going into the air. It’s our air, their air, everything—right?

So they make these things and then they put them up. And if you own a house within vision of some of these monsters, your house is worth 50 percent of the price. They’re noisy. They kill the birds. You want to see a bird graveyard? You just go. Take a look. A bird graveyard. Go under a windmill someday. You’ll see more birds than you’ve ever seen ever in your life. You know, in California, they were killing the bald eagle. If you shoot a bald eagle, they want to put you in jail for 10 years. A windmill will kill many bald eagles. It’s true.
source

He is correct that the world is tiny compared to the universe. (That may be the only correct statement in his rant).