Yep, agree with your initial thoughts there! Because Dumpertrumper lacks the discipline and temperament necessary in communicating sensitive subject matter, I agree he'll make and ass out of himself. Which all of that goes back to why his lawyers were not wanting him to testify in the Mueller case, as well as Barr admonishing him for his rampant tweets.

Speaking of that, what is your take on Barr's comments on Dumpertrumper's tweets ? Do you think there is an ulterior motive of sorts?

Yep... can't wait till the Dumpertrumper debates...I'm sure someone like Bloomberg will expose Trump's record of loan defaults viz our national debt. It's really scary. I remember when he campaigned and said he was the king of debt. What happened to the fiscal hawks of old/GOP party ?

And good job of speaking the truth y'all... !!

"If there is a conflict of interest then it puts doubt on the whole process of justice."


Dumpertrumper,

Wow, we have a way to go, but that's okay. I will demonstrate that your character is in question and like Trump, what you say is highly suspect. For instance, we haven't even answered question #1 and already I see discrepancies/contradictions in your reasoning. Are you being truthful to yourself and other's here? Is this the way most of your base thinks? LOL.

Okay, so here's what we have thus far. Help me understand which interpretation best describes your attack (in quotes) on the prosecutors:

1. What does it mean when someone say's, "Both prosecutors who left the case were Obama stooges. Sounds like justice to me".

a. They were partisan Obama hacks and assumed to be biased, and now that they're gone it is likely fair/impartial justice will be served.
b. If there is a conflict of interest then it puts doubt on the whole process of justice.
c. I’d hope that their political affiliations did not come into play, that’s for sure.

Only one answer is correct. Which answer more closely describes your quoted attack on the prosecutors?

The answer you give will provide us a little insight into your character and honesty and/or lack thereof. LOL

You're dancing. I know the article that was linked and I read it. Let's examine your reasoning:

a. If they weren't there, then would Justice have been better served ? Why or why not?

You are evading the question once again. We already know that their job as prosecutors is to recommend sentencing. Again, why was it justice they left the DOJ?

You're evading the question again. In your words, why was it justice that they left the DOJ?

Don't Mind if I do. We will get to that shortly. Let's get to your own statement credibility issues first, where you seem to be evading the question.

You said: "Both prosecutors who left the case were Obama stooges. Sounds like justice to me."
— NOS4A2

Explain what you meant by that?

Both prosecutors who left the case were Obama stooges. Sounds like justice to me. — NOS4A2

(This might read a little better.) Let's parse these questions very carefully one at a time. What did you mean from your quote above?

have never supported POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes. The question is loaded because it assumes, without evidence, that POTUS was influencing DOJ. — NOS4A2

Then we will get to Dumpertrumper's tweets that influenced public policy (the second part of your above answer to question #1).

I think Dumpertrumper met his match with Bloomberg, as well. Interesting irony there for sure...

This is round 1 of 2. Round 2 will contain about 10 questions from my Impeachment thread.

1. If you support POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes, would you also support POTUS influencing DOJ in stiffer sentencing for people who he hates?

2. In the other thread "Do the ends Justify the Means" You said, and I quote:

"The ends could justify the means but only if the means are just. If the means are just so are the ends."

What if the means are unjust? How does that square with your support of the Dumpertrumper?

3. You said: "Even the appearance of bias can be ruinous to the entire justice system". Would the appearance of bias in an Impeachment trial be ruinous to the constitutional system?

4. You said: "It looks like the trial against Stone is rigged. The jury foreman is an anti-Trump democratic candidate and Russia truther". Question to you from Mike: If they were Trump supporting Republican,
would it have been rigged in Stones favor?.

Excellent , we will start with the questions you are avoiding...be back shortly..

Ok, take a deep breath. Before I present my questions, here's my premise. I will prove, by way of the simple questions that are forthcoming, that your reasoning ( treating like cases likely, and different cases differently) is highly suspect and fundamentally flawed.

Now, taking it a step further and I suggest you put your big-boy pants on here, I will demonstrate that individuals like yourself, who have right-wing extremist views (and you are welcome to prove me wrong there) are not only dangerous to our democracy, but lack the common sense required to fully grasp what it means to have a good conscience, accountability, impartial ideology, and objective views and principles necessary to prosecute public policy.

So, basically, just like your Dumpertrumper behaves, I will spare the euphemisms and political correctness to directly attack you whenever the opportunity presents itself. For example, you seemingly are evading some of the preliminary questions already, and as such, you will get no hall pass from me. Not only will you be required to answer them, you will be required to have thick-skin. And by the same token, you are free to attack me in whatever method that suits you. You are even welcome to submit personal attacks if that makes you feel good, just like your boss does. Are you brave enough to take the challenge?

What's a loaded question?

...great! I'm going to add some from my other thread, so if you don't mind there might be a total of 20 questions or so. Is that alright?

Again it's not meant to embarrass you, but only to demonstrate where you're likely inconsistent in your reasoning.

In the meantime if you want to try to tackle those four questions I'd greatly appreciate it! If not that's okay, I'll add them to the running list.

Awesome! Would you mind if I check-in more than several times, just as a sort of friendly courtesy?

I'm sorry, I realize those questions are a little incriminating to you, but I wouldn't want to you to loose sight of them. Especially if it will give you the chance to exonerate yourself sort-a-speak. Otherwise, is there a better approach in helping you to answer those?

I hope you won't get too frustrated. It's OK to be wrong, don't be afraid of yourself!

I'll repost them later today if that's ok.

Awesome! Would you mind if I check-in more than several times, just as a sort of friendly courtesy?

I'm sorry, I realize those questions are a little incriminating to you, but I wouldn't want to you to loose sight of them. Especially if it will give you the chance to exonerate yourself sort-a-speak. Otherwise, is there a better approach in helping you to answer those?

I hope you won't get too frustrated. It's OK to be wrong, don't be afraid of yourself!

I'll repost them later today if that's ok.

Even the appearance of bias can be ruinous to the entire justice system. — NOS4A2

Dumpertrumper,

Would the appearance of bias in an Impeachment trial be ruinous to the constitutional system?

That's question #3. (I'll check in daily and repost my questions in case you forget to answer them LOL.)

Speaking of simple logic, I'm on a roll, so here's a bonus question. I want to test your consistency.

In the other thread "Do the ends Justify the Means" You said, and I quote:

"The ends could justify the means but only if the means are just. If the means are just so are the ends."

What if the means are unjust? How does that square with your support of the Dumpertrumper?

You've got two questions, and counting, that you need to reconcile!

LOL

You don't need to get inside someone's mind to clearly see that he or she is clearly wrong. — god must be atheist

Hi atheist!

I'm a little bit confused there between your sense of subjective truth viz right or wrong. And BTW, thanks for spreading the Love! To that end, maybe we should start with a simple question; if Love is right, do we want to be wrong?

Hahaha

BTW, come debate me on the Dumpertrumper Impeachment thread!

FYI-In this forum, you won't be able to hide. It's not rigged like the way you prefer other things. Let's test your logic please:

If you support POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes, would you also support POTUS influencing DOJ in stiffer sentencing for people who he hates?

tick tock tick tock

LOL

If you’re a star, you can grab ‘em by the pussy. But if you’re a President, you can grab ‘em by the Justice Department.’ — Wayfarer

Indeed. There's an irony here. With all due respect, I'm starting to think that NOS4A2 is a pussy too!

For some reason he's hiding from a lot of our questions to him! LOL



Yo NOS4A2,

Are you thin-skinned like your boss daddy Dumpertrumper?

Dumpertrumper,

If you support POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes, would you also support POTUS influencing DOJ in stiffer sentencing for people who he hates?

Dumpertrumper,

If you support POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes, would you also support POTUS influencing DOJ in stiffer sentencing for people who he hates?

How should the Dumpertrumper administration care to resolve it?

...yeah, I'm wondering if Dumpertrumper and Barr secretly bump-their-ugly's behind closed doors. Call me naïve, but I can't figure it out.. , are they in cahoots with one another ?

Yo Dumpertrumper,

Help me with this. The GOP is blocking legislation relative to foreign election interference. For instance, there is a Bill being blocked, sponsored by Democrats Warner/Blumenthal, that proposes/requires campaign's to report offers of foreign assistance, including donations or coordination, to the FEC and the FBI.

Does the GOP not want foreign interference? Can you correct me on that?

Sure that's one ethos. Another would be the mantra associated with the dangers of dichotomization. Life is not like engineering where it's either A or B. But rather, the phenomenon of living life is usually A and B.

And so we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Accordingly, the book of Ecclesiastes is arguably the first formalized version of Existentialism. And is part of the OT Wisdom Books and quite thought-provoking.

Off topic but worth noting.

If I understand the question correctly there would actually be no point or real import. Of course I'm biased because I'm a Christian existentialist. The Fundamentalist would likely interminably argue for the sake of arguing, which in turn helps no one.

I certainly don't mean to put the kibosh on your OP, but it does suggest that we all have to learn which questions are the best one's to ask ourselves and each other.

Sure, hence the metaphor relative to the tree of Life. As we read from the book of Ecclesiastes, as you say, it suggests there is indeed something wrong about this life's existence. Sad, but there is hope.

Perhaps the question there is what seemingly is appropriate to believe. In my opinion it's entirely appropriate to pick and choose which scripture has the most relevance. We can try to think reasonably by treating like cases likely and different cases differently.

What I'm saying is in the 21st century we need to give ourselves credit and be a bit more sophisticated about our interpretations of Christian apologetics.

See, you're better than you thought you were!!

We human's get all twisted up over these notions of God. I believe it's one of the greatest sins of pride.

If I can't get inside of your mind (or my own mind), how is it that we can get inside of God's...

With all due respect please don't take this as rhetorical questioning:

1. Why would you believe that God is omniscient?

2. Who (which theist philosopher) was it that assigned those attributes to God?

3. Is the Christian Bible a perfect book about God?

Is there a common theme there... (?).

26. 2/7/20: Lt. Colonel Vidman was escorted from the White House on Friday. He already informed the NSC that he planned to leave his position by the end of the month, but Trump opted for a public spectacle of it by humiliating him through security escort. ‘Vindman was asked to leave for telling the truth. His honor, his commitment to right, frightened the powerful,’ his lawyer said. Other notable’s from the Impeachment:

Vindman’s twin brother was also let go for no apparent reason, which begs the question of ‘retaliatory vindictiveness’.

European Ambassador Sondland who testified and told the truth about the quid pro quo, was also let go. ( He reportedly had donated a million dollars to Trump's campaign.) Was this punishment for telling the truth?

Marie Yovonovitch-The career diplomat was scheduled to remain until July, but Trump removed her when she objected to Rudy Giuliani's activities in Ukraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trump_administration_dismissals_and_resignations

Considering the behavior of the Trump White House, it bears revisiting the question concerning expectation levels of character and temperament in the White House. Sure, every President has the right to fire appointed position's, no exceptions taken there! However, it was known from the beginning that Trump was quite an emotional guy who had thin skin, and took many things too personal. I mean, no one has proved the Impeachment witnesses were lying about Trump. It almost seems as though he is looking for 'yes men'. He comes across as being highly insecure.

There's a bit of an irony here. Are emotions good or bad in this case? Are they good when they are appropriately used in a virtious way? When Clinton was Impeached, the subsequent Prayer Breakfast was more of an act of contrition, with apologies and a humble heart. In the case of Dumpertrumper, even though the GOP said he had learned a lesson from his Impeachment, the opposite appears to have happened, and I'm afraid it will continue to happen. Questions:

1. Do we want a President who is too emotional and has thin skin? Assuming the answer is no, can you blame critics who are worried about his behavior and the safety of our nation? Could his emotions be a dangerous vice or moral flaw?

2. Since he encouraged meddling in 2016, and 2020 for personal gain, could he be still trying to get back at the people who Impeached him?

3. What will he stop at doing, for his own personal gain? (He was quoted in a Rally that he could shoot someone, and no one would care.) Obviously, through social media, he has demonstrated a lack of character/restraint and continues to show his thin-skinned demeaner through his personal attacks and apparent retaliations/vindictiveness, whenever someone disagrees with him.

4. Does he only want people who ‘hear no evil, see no evil’? Should a President encourage opposing opinions to help streamline and vet public policy? In a free society, do we want freedom of speech in order to help critique our public policies? In part, isn't that what makes America great? We critique each other in business and in our personal lives and families in order to get better.

5. Should freedom of speech include daily ad hominem from POTUS? Do personal attacks help or hurt people? What should our expectations be?

6. Should any POTUS seek foreign assistance for personal political gain?

7. Should our Impeachment trial process include or exclude witnesses?

8. Should we have whistleblower laws and procedures? Does that make Government more efficient/better?

9. Do the ends-justify-the-means?

Bonus question: Should private individuals who have been on the receiving end of Trump's emotional tirades/vindictiveness, can or should they sue POTUS (at some point) for libel and/or defamation of character?

And so my fellow philosophers: ask not, what your religion can do for you; ask what you can do for your religion!

LOL

Do you have any arguments as to why he should be impeached. — Nonsense

Hi Nonsense!

Thanks for the concern. Yes, I believe it's called abuse of power and obstruction. Mueller and Schiff found obstruction; his campaign team from 2016 were meddling with Russia, many of whom were found guilty of the aforementioned/various violations, and of course the most recent Ukraine abuse of power Impeachment for personal gain; Parnas, Giuliani, ad nauseum.

With respect to your question #4, he consistently uses ad hominem attacks to anyone who doesn't agree with him i.e., Mitt Romney, Ocasio Cortez, John Cain, the list is endless. And of course his racism; Charlottesville, KKK involvement, found guilty of being a slum lord and not renting to blacks, and other nefarious behavior like was guilty in the now defunct Trump University scam. I can't remember everything right now but will be happy to dig them back up... . If you don't mind, I've listed 25 things that may include some of which you're concerned about (particularly if you watch FOX news/they don't report everything and down play the facts-they didn't even have live coverage of the House Impeachment hearings and ran regular programming) that speaks to his lack of character, consistent lying (which he did again recently about denying he knew Parnas-like he did with Mike Cohen/Stormy Daniels), so on and so forth.

I've got a list of things that go beyond the 25 that speaks to even criminal behavior and other poor character issues or so I had posted here, and would be happy to dig those back up too, if you want to debate... . (It goes all the way back to fact checking his narcissistic emphasis on crowd size.)

Fun question...perhaps the Subjectivist or Subjective Idealist would say something like : "No, you really don't know!"

How do you suppose we go about researching life after death? — god must be atheist

Don't mean to interrupt while waiting for Commonsense's response, but just a couple of commonly widespread tools at our disposal, are studies in: phenomenology, Near Death Experiences, inductive reasoning, cognitive science (William James), etc.

Were you unaware of those kinds of things?

Hey IBB!

Don't be afraid of yourself; truth is beauty, beauty is truth. That is all ye know and that is all ye need to know!!

Welcome to the forum!!

The Republicans in the room were not allowed to call any witnesses of their own, and were restricted in their questioning of the witnesses who did appear. — aletheist

Do you mean 'moderate' questioning like any other Majority leader would moderate?

Says the person who refers to the duly elected President of the United States as "Dumpertrumper." — aletheist

Well, I wanted to say a misogynist or liar (Stormy Daniel's denial, TMZ audio tape, Parnes audio tape, denial of Russian interference-campaign team violations/incarcerations, crowd size, ad nauseum), but that would only be stating a fact.

Oh, wait, taking a dump is considered one the facts of life, so you stand corrected!! LOL

There was seventeen witnesses. — NOS4A2

Were any of them in the Senate ? LOL