Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[Safe-Keeper]

Why is it that you hold them to some much higher standard than you hold yourself? That's a serious question. They're just people. Why should they be different from you? Have you seen enough to make up your mind? Well, they have seen at least as much, and probably more.

I miss the days when people had some dignity and tried to argue points and not just post whataboutisms or try to paint their opponents as hypocrites . You know, before populism, the post-fact world, and blind obedience to Great Leader.

It's just that you have already weighed the facts and have already reached a decision. After that happens, can anyone be called "impartial"?

im•par•tial ĭm-pär′shəl►
adj. Not partial or biased; unprejudiced. synonym: fair.
Not partial; not favoring one more than another; unprejudiced; equitable; just: as, an impartial judge or judgment; impartial favors.
Indifferent; not taking part.

All this sanctimonious blather about "impartiality" and whatnot is kind of tedious.

Yes, I see more and more of this kind of statement latelly. It seems that more and more, trying to hold politicians or other people to any kind of standard is virtue signalling, sanctimonious, and in general just irritating noise.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Yes. I'm fine with it. Just like I'm fine that you have already made up your mind.

In a regular trial, the jury has to be informed of the facts, and has to be instructed on the law. In this trial, all the facts are already known, and the jury members are either lawyers or they have lawyers on their staffs. You, and they, already have the information to make up your minds. I'm fine with it.

Why is it that you hold them to some much higher standard than you hold yourself? That's a serious question. They're just people. Why should they be different from you? Have you seen enough to make up your mind? Well, they have seen at least as much, and probably more.

Or maybe it's because they are on the jury and you are not? I think you're wrong about that. The real jury, for whom this trial is being conducted, are the voters in November. When you go to elect your senators, representatives, and president, you have a duty to be impartial, to weigh the facts and the implications, and vote for whomever you have decided is the best candidate. Are you living up to your obligations?


In truth, though, you probably are, at least as much as is humanly possible. It's just that you have already weighed the facts and have already reached a decision. After that happens, can anyone be called "impartial"?

All this sanctimonious blather about "impartiality" and whatnot is kind of tedious. I can remember a time when self-righteousness was primarily a right wing phenomenon, but in the last decade or two, the left has seized that ground and is solidly in control of it.


ETA: And I might add that until you understand the last sentence above, you will never understand why Donald Trump got elected president, and you will not understand why this impeachment process will be a political gain for the GOP.

It's hard to be unbiased if one side goes Total Obstruction. Trump has so many first hand witnesses - if any of them were exculpatory, he would have let them testify, wouldn't he?

And for the record, it is the Constitution that demands impartiality in this case.
Too bad you don't seem to care about that.

 

[theprestige]

For the record, I don't think Pelosi is undermining the process. I also don't think the House Democrats have been unfair with the proceedings so far.

 

[acbytesla]

For the record, I don't think Pelosi is undermining the process. I also don't think the House Democrats have been unfair with the proceedings so far.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Lol. Look at you pontificating like some puffed barnyard cock. You stick to **** posting lame propaganda.

That's in the other thread. Goodness, Sid, try to concentrate.

 

[Venom]

Adam Schiff should have really gone through with impeaching Trump for the findings of the Mueller investigation as well. That cushion is not there.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

For the record, I don't think Pelosi is undermining the process. I also don't think the House Democrats have been unfair with the proceedings so far.

Thanks for that.

 

[Sideroxylon]

That's in the other thread. Goodness, Sid, try to concentrate.

Yes, music is a common ground. On politics I am a pissed off idealist.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Why is it that you hold them to some much higher standard than you hold yourself? That's a serious question. They're just people. Why should they be different from you? Have you seen enough to make up your mind? Well, they have seen at least as much, and probably more.

It's not about changing the minds of people who clearly don't care about the facts. It's about building political pressure on immoral people, such that the prospect of losing their job convinces them to do the right thing.

I wish it weren't necessary, but pretending this is an ordinary trial is not going to fix the problem.

 

[acbytesla]

I miss the days when people had some dignity and tried to argue points and not just post whataboutisms or try to paint their opponents as hypocrites . You know, before populism, the post-fact world, and blind obedience to Great Leader.

:

I couldn't agree more. I'd like to add that I missed the days when we argued about the solutions instead of one side telling bald face lies about the facts.

This has become the Republican modis operandi. Spin, lie, gaslight. Don't base any argument on the facts. GOP use to mean Grand Old Party. Now it means Gish gallop On the People.

 

[Mojo]

In general - forget about Trump for a second - do you think it's good to have the greatest troll in human history, who doesn't give a flying ****, be the POTUS?

You probably do if you are Putin.

 

[Mojo]

But Trump is a thin-skinned, petty-minded narcissist. Not giving a **** is not characteristic of such people. He most certainly does give a ****, just not about the right things.

 

[Paul2]

Funny that you are trying to get me into some black-and.white answer.

I don't need a black and white answer, just a direct one. You could say "To some extent" or "in some circumstances" or any number of other qualifications that would get us into the gray areas and not at black or white.

It's a bit more difficult, Paul2. Aren't you too old for this kind of nonsense?

nwrt

And let me ask you: Do you agree with my premise that his sense of humour is a defining characteristic of Trump, regardless of how you value that kind of humour?

I must insist that you answer my question first. I asked my question first, so fair is fair, right?

Not that I care, but I can waste your time too.

Agreed.

 

[Paul2]

For the record, I don't think Pelosi is undermining the process. I also don't think the House Democrats have been unfair with the proceedings so far.

Thanks as well. I look forward to those areas in which people on different sides can find those places in which they can agree.

 

[DetectedMotion]

[imgw=640]https://i.imgur.com/uh0odfj.jpg[/imgw][/QUOTE

Ben Garrison is very convincing as a propaganda illustrator. It must be his forte.

 

[Ziggurat]

The more I think about it the more I think Pelosi is doing this so that the Senators in the presidential primaries can stay on the campaign trail.

Possibly. But that's an awfully long time to hold on to the articles. Maybe she's just hoping that Trump will lose and moot the whole thing.

But if he wins, how's that going to play? If Republicans hold the Senate and Trump wins re-election, then those Republicans are going to see his victory as a mandate to keep him in office. If Democrats gain the Senate and convict Trump right after he's re-elected, that's going to look like they're just trying to undo the results of the election. That, I think, would blow up in their face. President Pence wouldn't likely be any better for their agenda.

I don't see how this works for Pelosi unless Trump loses. Certainly the nominal reason of trying to force Republicans to run the trial in a way Democrats are happier with doesn't make any sense.

 

[Babbylonian]

I don't see how this works for Pelosi unless Trump loses. Certainly the nominal reason of trying to force Republicans to run the trial in a way Democrats are happier with doesn't make any sense.

You mean "run a trial" as opposed to McConnell's openly planned sham?

 

[DetectedMotion]

Pelosi is desperately trying to get rid of Trump before the Durham hammer comes down on the whole corrupt Democrat Party.

Describe the corruption of the Democratic party and then compare it to the Republican party;

The Merriam-Webster definition of corruption is this;

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corruption

 

[Ziggurat]

You mean "run a trial" as opposed to McConnell's openly planned sham?

No, I don't mean that. But it doesn't really matter how you want to describe it. Pelosi has no leverage. Her delay doesn't put any pressure on Republican senators.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

I couldn't agree more. I'd like to add that I missed the days when we argued about the solutions instead of one side telling bald face lies about the facts.

This has become the Republican modis operandi. Spin, lie, gaslight. Don't base any argument on the facts. GOP use to mean Grand Old Party. Now it means Gish gallop On the People.

I see the Democrats the same way you see the Republicans. That is because Democrats read and watch fake news and we don't. Recall that fake news said the "White Hispanic" was guilty, Darren Wilson was guilty, Trump colluded with Russia, and the list goes on and on. We're operating from different databases.

Oh, I think we did agree that Amanda Knox was innocent, but that did require ignoring fake news, as I recall.