He has made his case and so have members of Congress and the senate.

Biden threatened to withhold over a billion dollars if the top prosecutor wasn’t fired. Meanwhile his son was being payed vast sums of cash working for a corrupt Ukrainian gas company, and this right after a revolution.

In combination with his dealings with a state-owned Chinese bank, travelling in Air Force 2 and even getting old Joe to shake hands with his new CCP partners, there was a pattern emerging.

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.

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.

This is a pretty awkward interview for the pro-impeachment wing of congress.

I understand.

No, I do not think people are attacking me personally. Wrong. I just think it’s odd that with all the name-calling and hostility towards my posts that I am held up as an example of what is wrong with public discussion.

You said this before and I ignored it: that they deluged Trump, but were completely silent about the Uygurs.

It brings into view how meaningless the anti-Trump stuff really is.

History will not be kind to them. They will be demoted to its proverbial dustbin while the source of their ire will be remembered for centuries to come.

I can appreciate that. That’s why conflicts of interest warrant scrutiny and is grounds for suspicion.

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.

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

The problem with political correctness is its censorial undertakings. These undertakings help the far-right because when censored they can claim “free speech” and they will be defended on free speech grounds. If they claim power they might use their persecution as reason to persecute others. For instance, when Hitler was debating Otto Wells regarding the Enabling Act, he justified his suspension of civil liberties by saying that his own civil liberties were routinely suspended and his speech “verboten”.

The trend of PC’s emancipated terminology brings us to a consensus that does not welcome dissent. It makes differences on matters of principle almost unspeakable. This deadening of our language leads to a culture of euphemism and dog-whistle.

“ People in the grip of political correctness are in search of the one who has sown the hatred and rejection that they sense all around. They are experts in taking offence, regardless of whether offence has been given. They refrain from addressing the arguments of the one whom they accuse, and when they are offended by a remark they do not hesitate to take it entirely out of context, so as to dress it up as a crime. As judge, prosecutor and jury they are the voice of an unquestionable righteousness. Their goal is to intimidate their opponents, by exposing them to public humiliation. Like the Nazis and communists whose methods they copy, they impose their worldview through fear.”

- Scruton

Some babies are born black - other babies have different skin pigmentation.

Though, it's not all about skin pigmentation; it's about genetic build.

Race is not a social construct. Different, non-relative genetic builds occur naturally.

Animals in the Southern Hemisphere, are nurtured by the Earth and Sun a lot differently than those in the Northern Hemisphere.

The human vessel evovles differently in different parts of the world.

A human’s genes come from his parents, not from groups of people.

Philosophy Forum 2020 edition.

If it's all downhill from here, I wonder where the discussion will be in 2024.

Wagging your finger every time I defend myself, but never when I’m attacked.

Thanks for writing that. It was a really good read. It deserves more views.

Scruton got his job back after the New Statesman apologized for misrepresenting his views, the same misrepresentations haters are making in this very thread.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/jul/23/roger-scruton-gets-job-back-after-regrettable-sacking

The thought police are not a decent crowd, just opportunists. If you cannot refute his arguments you must resort to character assassination.

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.

Fair enough. Do you have an objective standard?

He didn’t do anything wrong seems a sufficient standard to me. There was an congressional inquiry and the accusations were not supported by the facts.

Perhaps a similar inquiry will do the same for Biden.

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?

The basis is the evidence. Hunter Biden was put on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian company making vast sums of cash while his father, the Vice President, just finished supporting a recent coup in the country. That’s at the very least a huge conflict of interest, and I think it should be investigated in case corruption was involved.

If any president did what Trump did I would be OK with it because he did nothing wrong. It’s just that simple.

Do you believe Trump is being impeached for political gain?

Phase 1 of China deal. Done.
USMCA. Done.

Pretty amazing.

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?

It applies to any public official or employee of the government. Conflict of interest investigations are routinely applied to members of Trump’s administration (Scott Pruitt or Ryan Zinke for example, both of whom resigned). If it uncovers corruption then justice should be served, if it doesn’t then so much the better.

I don't know what candidate he is, but really, have listened through a Putin-Trump press conference?

It's REALLY different (like Twilight Zone different) from let's say Trump speaking with an "NATO ally", who Trump can pummel all he wants.

But just listen to him speaking to his followers. Then Trump make sense and is consistent. It's a great Witch hunt against him lead by the Obama-Hilarites of the deep state.

Trump speaks the world goes wild. I’m well aware of the word-politics, mostly because that is all some people have.

Nos4's replies here say it all. On the basis of his many posts, he is a) playing games, b) is mentally ill, c) is in some way a paid troll. It is therefore an error to engage with him. The real clues are in his language. All of his arguments are fallacious. Not least because of their frequent categorical nature.

Tim Wood’s hysteria has polluted his reason, so much so that he see’s enemies in everyone who disagrees with him. His borderline McCarthyism reeks of paranoia and fear, and this while he touts justice from the other side of his mealy mouth.

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)

Plenty of reasonable people do think it looks bad, so yes.

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.

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.

You know, on this issue I just base my view just on Trump's obscene adulation of Putin, the utterly crazy propositions Trump has made (and has had to quickly backtrack) and the sheer devotedness on NEVER EVER saying one critical thing about his best friend Vlad. Listening through a Donald and Vladimir press conference was like listening to a leader of a Great Power and a proxy puppet government giving a press conference. Hence I reason that yes, we really can talk of Agent Trumpov in the White House. It's the biggest intelligence coup ever in the history of intelligence work.

That’s hilarious. There are, of course, more simple explanations for reserving criticism of a world leader, but sure, Trump’s the Manchurian candidate.

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?

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

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.

There are pictures of John McCain standing with the leader of Svoboda, a far-right neo-nazi, during the revolution in Ukraine. Also, Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, handed out cookies to protesters. Her leaked phone call, where she discusses possible candidates for the new Ukrainian government, suggests that the US played a little more than a supportive role in regime change. In their hubris we in the West backed neo-nazis in a Ukrainian regime change against a democratically-elected president, giving us the Ukraine we have today.

Familiar names appear throughout this episode: Biden, Brennan, McCain, Nuland (pictured below with the alleged whistleblower).



Nuland and McCain are connected to Steele and his dossier.

I suspect this is all connected to “Russian meddling”, and the current impeachment attempt against Trump is an attempt at a cover up. God forbid someone finds out what went on in Ukraine.

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?

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

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

I won’t infer any malicious intent so I will err on the side of mistake or misinformed.

"He was clearly." What does "clearly" mean in this context?

Simply that one can infer from his public statements that those particular situations concerned him.

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

No, I do not.

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.

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

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.

You could be right. Excuse my tinfoil hat, but I would even argue the CIA or at least the State Department had its hand in the Ukraine revolution of 2014. So I worry they would be more protective of what went on there than otherwise.

My point being that it was the role of the CIA to do the investigation, rather than the president, because the president could be vulnerable to accusations of political expediency.

It’s a Ukrainian company in Ukrainian jurisdiction. As for American government officials I think that’s up to the justice dept. The president was only asking the Ukrainian president to look into it

And what did the CIA have to say about Trump getting involved in the investigation of Biden? Or did Trump neglect to tell them. Presumably they were already aware of said corruption from their Ukrainian spies.

I’m not sure what they said.

Roger Scruton once said that it was an "impossible proposition" to think that a Muslim "from the hinterlands of Asia" could produce a child loyal to a secular European state. The guy was a rabid islamophobic, anti-semite (I've cover this in another thread), sexist, and homophobe. Ah, but he wrote so elegantly!!!

You merchants of offence are quite predictable. I get to watch you smear the dead because of your thin skin while you pretend to know what decency is.

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?

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. The notion that he shouldn’t do so because it might harm a Democrat’s political chances seems absolutely absurd to me and I feel I am living in Clown World for having to argue against it.

You once mentioned that Trump is violating Biden’s due process, so that’s why I brought up the presumption of innocence: to remind you of Trump’s due process in the hopes we could come to an understanding. Due process is not a legal standard for arbitrary reasons, but because it best guarantees justice. If justice doesn’t factor into your personal judgments, there is nothing wrong with that, but I I have doubts that you can remain fair and just while doing so.

Either way, I am prepared to be proven proven foolish in all of this. I could be completely mistaken, crimes might come to light, I could be proven a dupe, and I will admit that I was wrong if it happens.

Yes, artificially changed in the sense that you can remove, replace or alter the body, including parts of the body associated with sex.

But Sex is determined through natural development of an organism which begin at the earliest stages of life, not through alterations of physical features and body parts of an adult. Such development cannot be erased.

I'm gonna disagree with you there, I have changed my sex through hormones and surgery

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

That's just not true. First, nature doesn't 'decide' anything (nature isn't a person). And second, the whole point is that it is not 'disguising', but altering. That's a big difference. Someone who changes their sex has changed their sex, not disguised it.

I was speaking figuratively, which is common throughout language. By “decided by nature” I mean genes and hormones, not some doctor with a steady hand, determine and develop sex at the earliest stages of a human’s life. So no, they have not changed any sex, they have merely altered the body in such a way to convince themselves that they have.

That’s their prerogative. But I appreciate when someone such as yourself seeks clarification in good faith instead of assumption and accusation. So thank you.

That’s my only point. You can only alter or disguise, through force, what nature has already decided.

Of course not. It’s quite amazing what we can do as a species, especially when it helps people.

You: yes, but if you change your sex on a Wednesday, you didn't change it on a Tuesday

That’s not even paraphrasing what I said. I said sex changes are artificial, which your pretended was contradictory even though it wasn’t. One can also artificially change their hair color, their skin color. Sex change can occur naturally in nature, but the ones you propose are artificial, man made, and there is nothing profound about pointing out the obvious.

Clearly there was, and regardless of how much desire there has been for a Trump impeachment, the impeachment trial is in fact about justice. Trying to obfuscate Trump's crimes is unpatriotic at best...

What crime would that be?

No. I said I could drag them to the store if I want. That is a type of control over their bodies. It is not absolute control, but they do not have absolute sovereignty. You are referring to some type of sovereignty of will.

I’d like to see you try. Of course it’s not as easy as you say, and can only imagine yourself more powerful than everyone to do it. You have to fantasize because you lack control, you have no authority over anyone’s body unless they bestow it to you.

Again, this is only related to autonomy of will. If I am chained up, I can THINK anything I want. But my physical sovereignty (the power I have over my own body) is taken away.

The will is the body. Thinking is an act of the body, and you cannot make anyone think a certain way, speak a certain way, to be calm, to be quiet, to go to sleep...nothing. It is their choice, their responsibility, because they have absolute authority over themselves. You have no authority save for the one you fantasize in your head. Only through force, violence and coercion can you live out that fantasy.

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.

I call the whole charade a show trial because the process is for the purpose of politics and propaganda, not justice. They’ve been trying to impeach Trump even before he was sworn in. It’s an unjust affair. There was no crime. There was no wrong doing.

It’s less pointless than your observation that one can change their sex by altering their body. You can change someone’s skin color by giving them a tattoo. You can change their hair color by dying their hair. These are artificial, not naturally occurring.