No, and please remember that I told you that I think the Dems should have taken Trump to court. I feel that way because it would remove all controversy.

That said, I'm also saying that it isn't really technically necessary, because they are free to interpret the Constitution themselves -and to apply past SCOTUS precedent. In the hypothetical case in which they were to do this, it would serve as a precedent for future Congresses to impeach a President if, and only if, both these elements were present: 1) That President issued a blanket refusal to reject any and all Congressional subpoenas. 2) The subpoenas are associated with investigation of the President's potentially impeachable conduct.

So yes, I think it would be reasonable to impeach any President who exhibited both elements.

Senate could interpret it that way, but they would be stupid to do so, because it would be ruinous to the constitution and any future presidency. It would blur the separation of powers and set up any future presidents (and all past presidents) for impeachment just for asserting executive privilege. — NOS4A2

Trump's invoking privilege to justify a blanket stonewalling of Congress is clearly outside the boundaries set by U.S. v Nixon. Therefore Congress would not be making a "ruinous" novel judgment. Nor is it a disastrous precedent to assert Congress will not tolerate a blanket refusal to comply with any all subpoenas.

Even if it's insane, we need some from the "insane" party to join in a coalition to make meaningful change.

Another bit of insanity I see on the Republican side is a "no-compromise" stance. If Democrats adopt the mirror image of that, then big change cannot happen.

It was never proven because it was never taken to court. That is where matters of executive privilege vs congressional subpoenas are settled. For instance Bolton said he would take the House to court if they subpoenaed him. The court may or may not have allowed Bolton — NOS4A2

The Courts interpret the Constitution, they don't make law. SCOTUS' interpretation is binding for matters that come to them. However, Congress is also free to interpret the Constitution - they do this all the time when passing laws. SCOTUS can overrule their interpretation and throw out laws when (and only when) a case comes to them. However, in the case of impeachment - there is no appeal to the Supreme Court, so the Senate could, in theory, interepret the President's blanket rejection of all subpoenas as unconstitutional and remove him from office for that.

Further, it's a reasonable interpretation. There's zero probability SCOTUS would agree that a President has the authority for a blanket rejection of all subpoenas associated with an impeachment inquiry - it would be contrary to US vs Nixon, which was a unanimous SCOTUS decision. In that decision, SCOTUS directly rejected Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."

One party says nice things about what they'll do about it, the other party denies it's happening altogether. — Xtrix

Not ALL Republicans deny anthropogenic global warming. This article mentions some (somewhat) positive things put forward by Republicans. The tone of the article is negative toward what they're doing, but it does at least show that they're accepting that its occuring.

That said, we all know that our current President denies it, and nothing meaningful will pass while he's in office - and his party enables this.

OK. But if Bernie isn't nominated, will you still vote in the general election?

They're fired up anyway. There is no ideal candidate. The Trump people will vote Trump. The swing voters, if there are any, greatly dislike this president. After four years, I think they've given him "a chance" and will now vote blue, regardless of the candidate -- like your wife. — Xtrix

Swing voters (both independents and never-Trumper Republicans) who don't like Trump won't vote for him, but if they also don't like the Democratic candidate - they'll stay home. My top priority is to oust Trump, and that priority is best served by picking the Democrat I feel has the best chance to win - and that entails being palatable to swing voters.

Hmm. Maybe you're right, I'll strike her from my possible vote in the primary. (although I'd certainly vote for her against the incumbent).

I think this misses an important point: we already have the numbers in this country. All we need is to get the vote out. We need organization and enthusiasm. I don't buy the fact that Obama won because he was moderate -- it's because people turned out for him, they were excited about his candidacy (foolishly, in my view, but that's irrelevant). — Xtrix

I don't think we do have the numbers in the swing states, and it's probable Republicans will be fired up if a "socialist" runs. I know Bernie supporters are enthusiastic, but not all Democrats are enthusiastic Bernie supporters. My wife can't stand him, although she'd vote for chicken poop over Trump.

Obama fired up black voters - their turnout was unprecedented. He ran against moderates (McCain and Romney), so there wasn't all that much space between them. There's huge space between Trump and any sane alternative, so choosing sides is pretty easy.

Beyond the incoherency of a dual endorsement, what's absurd about the NYT endorsing Klobuchar is that less than a year ago the Times published a story about how she is physically and mentally abusive to members of her staff and that she has the highest staff turnover rates in the Senate. — Maw

Her alleged abusiveness isn't disqualifying. It's apparently contributed to her problem keeping staff, but if she were President, it probably wouldn't have THAT result - there's prestige and power associated with serving a President, so I think most people would just buck up under the petty complaints she might make. A positive spin on her behavior is that she is singularly focused on getting the work done, and doesn't waste energy fretting about the feelings of her staff.

I want Pete, simply because he's moderate, and he's the most articulate (and possibly the most intelligent) of the bunch. Despite wanting him, I probably won't vote for him when my state (Texas) has its primary. I'll probably vote for Biden, unless Pete, Klobuchar, or Tom Styer, appear to have a good chance. My last choice is Bernie, and 2nd last is Warren, and it's not because I wouldn't be happy with them - it's just that I think they are less likely to win the general election because they'll turn off moderates and never-Trumper Republicans.

I've been challenged before on my opinion that a moderate has a better chance than Warren or Bernie, so I'll try to head that off. The pro-Bernie/Warren folks suggest they'll energize the base and bring more people out. IMO, this will result in them winning Blue states by a bigger margin than Hillary did in 2016 (which doesn't garner any more electoral votes), but it raises the risk of losing the swing states. The result could be an even bigger margin of popular vote victory than Hillary received, but still losing the electoral college. My view on this is consistent with state-specific polling in swing states - which show Biden has the best shot (and maybe the ONLY shot) of beating Trump.

Keep in mind that Incumbents rarely lose, especially when the economy is doing well. The only reason it's looking even CLOSE is because of this incumbent's off-putting behavior (I'll leave it at that, to avoid having this thread merged into the Trump thread).

Nice sentiment, but I don't understand why he's "proclaiming" it a Federal Holiday. Ronald Reagan signed it into law (despite initially opposing it) as a Federal Holiday in 1983.

Original sin isn't even mentioned in the BIble, so it certainly doesn't say this about Mary. I was mistaken about Mary being born without original sin; rather, Pope Pius IX declared that she was cleansed of this sin at conception; I doubt anyone but Catholics accept this. Neverthless, my point was that Jesus having an absence of original sin isn't at odds with him having the absence of original sin, since Adam & Eve were also humans who lacked it.

Perhaps it could be rationaled by assuming the Original Sin gene is on the Y chromosome. Jesus didn't get his Y chromosome from a biological human.

Was Jesus born with Original Sin?
...

If not, then he had no human side and was pure god — Gnostic Christian Bishop

That does not follow. Three other humans are said to have been born without original sin: Adam&Eve (who committed the original sin) and Mary (mother of Jesus).

If any GOP members "betray" the President, doesn't that mean they're setting politics aside and following their conscience? What a nightmare!

And the Ukrainian foreign minister. His recent interview pretty much refuted the entire case against Trump. No quid pro quo, no pressure, implicit or otherwise, refutes Sondland, says everything was routine... I wonder if they would be able to testify. — NOS4A2

Asking for an investigation of a political opponent is wrong even if there's no quid pro quo.

The foreign minister's comments suggest Ukraine wasn't aware of Trump conditioning release of aid on the announcement of an investigation, but the case doesn't hinge on that. There is a good bit of evidence that Trump did hold up aid to get an investigation announced, and that still constitutes an inappropriate quid pro quo (something for something). Ukraine was beholding to the US and its President and wanted to please him, and Trump appears to have tried to take advantage of that.

What's the point of testimony by Hunter and the whistleblower?

They are the start of this whole mess and would be useful to the defense. — NOS4A2

That's what I don't understand. They won't refute any of the facts, so how is it useful to the defense? Or are you just saying it's politically useful because it will be an opportunity to play to the base, like when they had Peter Strozk testify?

From the Ukrainian side there is exculpatory evidence that there was no pressure, that hold ups on the American side are routine, and that nothing amounted to any quid pro quo. This is direct evidence considering it involves people on the phone call, the supposed victims. It’s a shame their words were not even considered in the inquiry, but that’s to be expected in such a partisan inquiry. — NOS4A2

Are you referring to Zelensky' statements? That is something, but it is at odds with testimony by the diplomats. It would be risky for Zelensky to say he felt pressured, and to his benefit to convey to Trump that "he loves your ass". On the other hand, the diplomats took a risk by testifying, and they corroborate one another.

I do not think there was an explicit quid pro quo, but the nature of the relationship (they need our money) creates an implicit one, and makes it all the more inappapropriate.

I actually would like to hear Bolton’s testimony, and also Hunter Biden’s, Lev Parnas’, and the whistleblower’s. Let the chips fall where they may.

What's the point of testimony by Hunter and the whistleblower?

I’m glad we can agree it is deserving of scrutiny. Luckily there was no pressure, nor any call for criminal investigations from the president. — NOS4A2

There is testimony evidence of pressure, and documentary evidence the aid was held up illegally. If the requested investigation was not for criminal purposes, what else could it be other than simply digging up dirt on an opponent? The fact that Trump's position that his call was "perfect" is troubling, because it suggests we can expect more of the same.

Recall that I'm not convinced his action is necessarily worthy of removal from office, but that it was important to send him the message that it's wrong. My hope is that a fair number of Republicans will send him that message - voting to acquit solely because it doesn't rise to the level of "high crime" but noting that he shouldn't have done that.

I think where we disagree is whether Trump abused the power of his office. Considering that abuse of power is one of the articles of impeachment hopefully more facts will come to light in the upcoming trial. — NOS4A2

Yes, it would be great to have more facts. Do you agree it would be good to hear Bolton's testimony?

What about your standard, avoid any action that could potentially be perceived as unethical or illegal? Sounds like it’s not so much a standard anymore, at least when applied to the Bidens. — NOS4A2

I apply the same standard to Hunter: it looks wrong on its face, and he shouldn't have taken the job.
It does raise questions, and its worthy of scrutiny. But it's not probable cause for a criminal investigation. Trump's case is different: it's an abuse of his considerable power (he's arguably the most powerful person on the planet) and contrary to his oath of office to faithfully execute.

On the other hand, I don't see that Joe did anything wrong: he's not responsible for his 40+ year-old son's actions. Nevertheless, it makes sense to question Joe's getting the prosecutor fired in light of his son's job. When I first heard about it, I was concerned, so I looked into it and saw that the context of the action (which I've already described) doesn't seem problematic at all. The only things I've read that try to make a case against Joe for this have ignored that context.

Biden threatened to withhold over a billion dollars if the top prosecutor wasn’t fired. — NOS4A2

You're ignoring the fact that this prosecutor was widely regarded as corrupt, by US Intelligence, our allies, and by anti-corruption activists in the Ukraine. Further, he was not actively investigating Burisma.

Still I do not understand the argument that a Democratic Party candidate’s son cannot be investigated by Ukraine because he’s running for office. “It looks wrong” does not seem an adequate enough explanation, and in fact it looks like grasping for straws. — NOS4A2

I didn't say there was necessarily anything wrong with Ukraine investigating. I said there's something with Trump pushing an investigation of a political opponent.

If there is evidence of Hunter having committed crimes, it would be perfectly legitimate for Ukraine to investigate this. What crimes has he been accussed of? Do you understand the nature of the corrupt acts of Burisma? What reason is there to think Hunter was involved?

I get that it looks bad for Hunter to have taken the high paying job, but he's hardly the first person to profit from a name and connections (e.g. Giuliani; Trump's kids). You need something more than the mere fact that he worked for Burisma.

This doesn’t look bad? As someone who wants to be an informed voter it is in our best interest to sort out these conflicts of interest. — NOS4A2

Sure, information (even dirt) is valuable to voters, but that doesn't make it appropriate for a President to use the power of the office to dig for this valuable dirt. Merely looking bad is insufficient justification.

Remember that he only asked Zelensky to look into it if it’s possible—Burisma is a Ukrainian company—“so whatever [Zelenski] can do with the Attorney General would be great”. The attorney General is the head of the DOJ, which is responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice in the United States. — NOS4A2

Asking for investigation into the Bidens looks wrong on its face, which puts the burden on him to make a case for this being essential. He hasn't. He's thrown gasoline on the flames, by attacking those who criticized him, and stonewalling the collection of evidence. Further he has appealed to partisan loyalties, even "defending" his action based on rationale that seems purely partisan (e.g. Trump's referring to Biden's bragging about getting the prosecutor fired appears pure partisan, given the fact that his ouster was desired by so many).

Evidence that HAS come out adds even more reason to regard it as an act of partisanship, and that it harmed Ukraine (Zelensky looks like a fool).

So what about congressional Democrats pursuing investigations into their political opponent, POTUS, who is the man to beat in the upcoming election?

Congress has the Constitutional authority and responsibility to hold the President accountable for misdeeds. The partisan nature of the process is inescapable.

I use the standard I was taught during by 33 year career at <Major Oil Company*>: avoid any action that could potentially be perceived as unethical or illegal. Like with politicians, MOC always had a target on its back and knew that perceptions impact reputation. You could be fired for violating the standard even if nothing illegal or ethical was actually involved.

So under no circumstances should a President,
acting in his official capacity, pursue investigations into a political opponent. If the President has good reason to believe a crime was committed, the FBI, other investigative agency, or a well-regarded independent investigator can be appointed. But his hands should be off of it; the subject should be treated as radioactive.

This doesn't make it illegal for a President to push a rival's investigation, just like an MOC employee has not necessarily committed a crime. But it is grounds for suspicion, warrants scrutiny, and imposes a burden to show that the action was necessary and appropriate.

*note: I originally stated the name of the major oil company I worked for, but edited it out. It's against company policy to use their name. If I still worked there, I could be fired for it.

He didn’t do anything wrong seems a sufficient standard to me — NOS4A2

That's not a standard, that's a judgment. If you can't show that your judgment is based on some objective standard, then it would appear to be purely partisan.

You still aren't getting it. What should be the basis of pursuing an investigation? Is a hunch that's rooted in animosity sufficient?

I know you don't believe Trump was doing this for political gain, but would it be OK if some future President actually did something analogous for personal political gain? If not, then on what principle do you allow the just investigations while disallowing the unjust?

— Relativist

The basis is the evidence. — NOS4A2

I'm asking you do define a principle you would apply - in general. The principle should apply to this case, of course, but I'd like to know what that is. If you don't have a general principle, it just seems a partisan judgment. One possible principle might be the same sort of standard that would be used to decide to conduct a criminal investigation. Would that work for you? i.e. A president should only use the power of his office to directly influence a foreign power to investigate a political opponent if there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed to warrant an investigation. You don't have to agree with that, but I'm asking you to provide the standard you consider appropriate.

There is a huge switch. Switching to a belief may be a switch to a bad belief. — god must be atheist

Ok, that's a good point that negates the bet. But we do not switch on beliefs.

I think there's a bit of a logic flaw in Pascal's wager. You have to not only believe in God, you have to believe in a God that condemns you to eternal hell or promotes you to eternal heaven, based on whether you've been bad or good. In effect, God is conflated with Santa Claus. "He knows when you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake" is an expression of Pascal's wager! — fishfry

The wager isn't a logic flaw. If one could form a belief by flipping a switch, it would make sense for anyone who thinks there's at least a small chance of a god who rewards us after death for believing in him. Switching to believer costs you nothing, and it at least has that small chance of benefitting you. So the problem is that beliefs don't work that way.

The identity of an animal is determined by billions of base pairs of DNA. A creature's identity, once composed, is fixed — Bitter Crank

Not true. An individual's DNA mutates over time.(reference)

You still aren't getting it. What should be the basis of pursuing an investigation? Is a hunch that's rooted in animosity sufficient?

I know you don't believe Trump was doing this for political gain, but would it be OK if some future President actually did something analogous for personal political gain? If not, then on what principle do you allow the just investigations while disallowing the unjust?

They're both wrong, and you're wrong. We can change internal features as surely as we can change external ones. So if sex is constitutively determined by some arrangement of physical features, then a person's sex can be changed. Not just apparently changed, but actually changed. — Bartricks

I think you're missing my point.

The fundamental question is: what are the necessary and sufficient properties for belonging to the set "human female sex" and "human male sex" respectively?

There is no objectively correct answer to this question. That's why I said they're both right- they simply have different views of which sets of properties are necessary and sufficient.

When that political opponent may have abused his office for personal benefit by letting his son reap vast sums of money from a corrupt company in a destabilized country he just helped destabilize. — NOS4A2

If I take you literally, and extrapolate to any serious wrongdoing (you were too specific to the Bidens; makes it sound like a special pleading), it suggests you think a President can investigate anyone because anyone "may" have done something seriously wrong. Can you provide a reasonable, nonpartisan generalized standard that you'd be fine with applying to someone of either party?

Please expand on this by answering two questions:
1) are you saying it doesn't look bad to YOU, or do you feel that it shouldn't look bad to any reasonable person?

1) it doesn’t look bad to me. In fact, to me, it looks like the president is doing his job. — NOS4A2

OK, do you think reasonable people could think it does look bad (on the surface, at least)? Bear in mind that a September poll showed that 63% of Americans (including 32% of Republicans) considered it wrong (source)

)
2) It is always ok to ask another leader to look into possible corruption between two countries no matter who is involved, but especially when it involves the conflicts of interest of high-ranking officials, their family, and corrupt energy companies paying vast sums of cash. — NOS4A2

That's not what I asked. I asked when it is OK for a President, utilizing his office, to push for the investigation of a political opponent.

Can you offer any evidence that Trump was actively battling corruption in Ukraine -other than the Biden matter - that predates the whistleblower complaint? — Relativist

Trump has no jurisdiction in Ukraine so I do not see how he could actively battle corruption there. He was clearly concerned about Ukraine’s involvement in the Russia hoax, their election meddling with the DNC, Biden’s involvement with the Burisma. — NOS4A2

He could have established more, or stricter, benchmarks and held up funding if they weren't met. There were, in fact, benchmarks and these were met in May. Do you surmise that Trump considered these inadequate? — Relativist

There are no explicit statements regarding benchmarks that I am aware of. — NOS4A2

OK, but the point is that going after Biden wasn't the only thing he could do about Ukraine corruption. A process was in place, and if he deemed this was inadequate he could have addressed it. He didn't. Which gets us back to this:

Do you agree that on the surface it looks bad to pursue the Bidens in this way, since Joe is a political opponent? — Relativist

No, I do not. — NOS4A2

Please expand on this by answering two questions:
1) are you saying it doesn't look bad to YOU, or do you feel that it shouldn't look bad to any reasonable person?
2) Under what circumstances is it OK for a President, acting as President, to push an investigation of a political opponent? For example, is it always OK? OK if there's an objectively good reason to think the opponent committed a crime? OK if he has hunch that the opponent committed a crime?

Trump has no jurisdiction in Ukraine so I do not see how he could actively battle corruption there — NOS4A2

He could have established more, or stricter, benchmarks and held up funding if they weren't met. There were, in fact, benchmarks and these were met in May. Do you surmise that Trump considered these inadequate?

— NOS4A2

Fiona Hill opined that the efforts to look into the Bidens was a "political errand." Was she lying? Was she simply mistaken? Is there no possibility she was right?

There is always a possibility she could be right. — Relativist

Ok, but you obviously do not believe she is right. So what's your take on it: Mistake? Lying? Something else?

I doubt this will change any minds:

The GAO has determined the administration violated the Impoundment Act.

This negates the claim that Trump committed no crimes. I suppose some might say the crime was committed by OMB, because they failed to defy Trump's order.

I would go further than presume he is innocent. I believe he has done nothing wrong, and more, I think he was right and obligated, morally and as a public servant of the country, to look into possible corruption between US and Ukrainian officials. — NOS4A2

Thanks, but I hope you can clarify a few things.

Do you agree that on the surface it looks bad to pursue the Bidens in this way, since Joe is a political opponent?

Fiona Hill opined that the efforts to look into the Bidens was a "political errand." Was she lying? Was she simply mistaken? Is there no possibility she was right?

Can you offer any evidence that Trump was actively battling corruption in Ukraine -other than the Biden matter - that predates the whistleblower complaint?

There was no wrong doing. — NOS4A2

You are aware there evidence of wrongdoing., right? Are you just saying the evidence is inadequate to meet some standard of burden of proof?

You started out critical of me for not basing my personal judgments on the legal standard. I think you came to accept that outside a courtroom, such personal judgments are reasonable as long as one remains open to reevaluating as more evidence is available. But given your initial reaction, I'm wondering if you are simply presuming Trump innocent (you labelled this a basic human right) because you feel he hasn't been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Is that it?

Why are you calling the Senate trial a "show trial"? I'd have expected you to consider the Republican-led trial to be a REAL trial. If you think he's innocent of wrongdoing, a trial is a perfect opportunity to establish that.

Through art a man can look like a woman, and a woman can look like a man, but through no amount of surgery, hormones, clothing, cosmetics, and propaganda can a man become a woman, or a woman become a man. — Bitter Crank

Of course sex can be changed, but these changes would be wholly artificial. — NOS4A2

You're both right. If we define sex solely in terms of external anatomy, then certainly the sex can be changed. If we define it in terms of the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, then sex cannot be changed.

Is there a right answer to the definition? No -it's arbitrary. Perhaps we could say it's a societal definition. The problem with that is that society is not united in that regard.

Psychologically it can be understood why most people do not want to consider conspiracy theories seriously: because they do not want to believe that individuals more powerful than them are working against their interests. — leo

I don't think that's it. Sure, conspiracies occur, but "conspiracy theories" have a bad name because many people have a tendency to jump rashly to the conclusion that a conspiracy has occurred. Conspiracies are complex, and therefore there should be a considerable epistemic hurdle to justify belief in one. O.J. Simpson's attorney's proposed to his jury that the LAPD conspired to frame him. Of course it's possible, but consider how many people would have to be in on it and that 100% of them would have to keep it secret. Good epistemology calls for finding the simplest solution to a set of facts, and since conspiracies are complex - it's rare that a conspiracy would be the simplest solution.

Not wanting to believe something should not blind us, but the other side of the coin is confirmation bias: some people unjustifiably believe the world (or the rich) are out to get them. When examined more closely, that rarely seems to be the case.

The scenario is somewhat different, but this link provides a detailed, but fairly easy to understand explanation of the Twin Paradox.

In the Op, you said:

BUT many physicists DO believe that she doesn't have a well-defined current AGE when he is separated from her (at least if he has accelerated recently). THAT'S the conclusion that I can't accept philosophically: it seems to me that if she currently EXISTS right now, she must be DOING something right now, and if she is DOING something right now, she must be some specific AGE right now. So I conclude that her current age, according to him, can't be a meaningless concept. That puts me at odds with many other physicists. — Mike Fontenot

The animated charts in that link suggest to me that it's perfectly reasonable to consider there to be simultaneous points in time between the respective inertial frames (they can be mapped to one another), albeit that they proceed at a different pace.