Easy Truth

But didn't he already go through his position in a previous presentation, I have qued it up you can just click on it

Then we can wait for the Democrats to punish the Republicans (although I don't see that metaphor to fit the actions). It will just go back and forth. Neither side actually has the authority to punish, punishment implies that will not be retaliated against, as in when a judge punishes. McConnell is simply expressing the position of the Republicans, not the US as a whole and that is the weakness of the speech. The same things could have been said by Democrats in the Clinton impeachment. When Bill Clinton became president, Republican wanted to impeach him on day one. That is nothing new. Multiple years of investigation of Clinton exonerated him on the original investigation. It was only when the Lewinsky stuff happened, they had something on him and it was used. He does acknowledge that Trump does not have to break the law to be impeached, just that it should not be due to "mal administration" as in bad judgment. The problem is is one looks at how Trump obstructed justice it's hard to not see him NOT crossing the line. Wasn't Nixon being impeached for obstruction? It's too obvious. Claiming impeachment without proof is not what is going on. We know what happened, Trump admitted it, Mulvaney (chief of staff) admitted. The question at hand is not that there was no proof, but that the actions can be interpreted in different ways, meaning the testimony should be ignored. He criticizes Pelosi in that she made up her mind before the process. One can accuse Mcconnell and Graham of that too. So it plays to the choir rather than actually making a impartial point. The claim is that it is a low bar. Clinton's also had a low bar, lying about his sexual behavior. But since both will not have been removed from office, it implies the system has instituted a high enough bar. Impeachment has been used as a loud censure and my be used that way in the future. Furthermore, one thing that is never mentioned is the if Trump was removed, Republicans would not loose, they would get Pence.

The problem is that this is permissible. But keep in mind, on the whole, the process has NEVER removed any president from congress. So one can argue that in fact it works. Impeachment simply is a black mark on one's resume. I think when the day comes where they do remove a president that may be cause for concern ... or it may be a relief. As far as "punishing" Democrats, not sure how that metaphor gets played out? We don't have a dictatorship to do things like that. Certainly they have not committed a crime. Furthermore, that is how impeachment has to work. "The Opposition" initiates the checks and balances. They are the sensitive trip wire. Don't know what that means.

I wonder if you are focusing on the allegation of collusion with the Russians. My understanding is that there was not enough evidence of Trump personally doing it. Now on obstruction, yes, the Muller investigation found plenty that we saw in plain sight. This latest issue was the issue with Ukraine which had his direct involvement based on testimony. The call was just one part of the whole story. In addition there was even more obstruction and witness tampering that we saw play out in front of us too. My understanding is the Pelosi was aware that Trump can't be removed and impeachment last time greatly helped Clinton and the Democratic party. It was many freshmen that pushed for it. But I do agree that the most powerful issues were in the Muller report and could and should have been used. What I have gathered is that there were possibilities of losing votes if they did not do it the way they did it.

At this point, we are in it for the ride. From the behavior seen, it is very likely that the same thing that happened with Bill Clinton will happen here except with one major exception. In the Clinton impeachment no senator was openly saying that they will not take it seriously (even though they didn't, was partisan too). This time around, certain senators are openly stating that they will not honor the oath that they have taken, to be an impartial juror. It's possible that impeachment will become a regular event with no one taking it seriously. Pelosi was reluctant to impeach for the longest time, so Democrats may get some credit for self control. Ironically, due to the behavior of the republican disdain for the law in this case, impeachment may now, genuinely be abused. It is even more ironic because the rules that the Democrats have used were rules put in by republicans as Napolitano mentioned. In other words their disdain is partially for the rules they put in. Going forward, if the opposing party has a majority in congress, the moment they don't like the policies of the president, they impeach him. The old rationale for impeachment or defending against impeachment was to be part of the checks and balances based on impartial judgement. Now it is simply based on what team you are on, no matter what the facts are. Will that serve as some checks and balances or promote chaos? If it will promote chaos, will congress amend the impeachment process or leave it to be "experienced"?

I know Biden was his worst nightmare of a competitor, in fact if it had not been Clinton, Biden may have won 2016. I am not sure about the dates when Biden declared vs. when he made the call requesting the investigation. Or even when Giuliani was tasked. Trumps strategy was proper in throwing everything he had at Biden and possibly fatally (electionwise) wounding Biden. It was an accurate assessment.

True, but what alternative are you proposing?

One can also ask "Do you realise he prevented national interest to advance his career" or "He was investigating his political rival with our money". As an aside, do you realize trump who is corrupt, would be checking out corruption. "The notion that the founder of sham entities like Trump University or the Trump Foundation has suddenly transmogrified into an anti-corruption crusader is laughable". (The Hill) These broad stroke statements don't get to the heart of the issue. He has a right to investigate where our money is going. "Yet the administration's man on Ukraine, Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, based on his conversations and dealings with the President, indicated in his testimony to Congress that Trump had no interest in corruption generally — only in Biden". (The Hill) The issue of identifying boundaries of proper vs. improper behavior all hinges on how important one thinks of "fair elections" in the United States. If elections are an unimportant formality without consequence, then the President's actions has little effect on this country and the impeachment process has been meaningless. If one considers the election process as being the foundation of our political life, as in if we can't have elections, then the country dies, fair elections are in fact a life and death issue for the United States. Without fair elections, the US is an Un-United States, a dead United States, a non existent United States. Once meaningless elections has become a normality, the country has died. A governance entity that protects individual rights disappears. One can say a benevolent dictator would be a better choice. If so listen to yourself.

The assertion in the OP is that the call was perfect. If we go through the call itself there are some imperfections. If Trump were investigating corruption in Ukraine he would be investigating if: The weapons will be sold to another country. The weapons will be melted down and sold for scrap metal. The weapons are not needed. The weapons will somehow not get to the soldiers. The weapons may be used against american interests. None of these have anything to do with an american citizen on the board of an energy company. It would also indicate that an investigation would be about corruption in the US, not in Ukraine. The Trump defense that it was about Ukrainian corruption becomes a false statement. Then there are questions: If this is an investigation of an American citizen, why is this not going through relevant agencies that have checks and balances? Why is it being couched as internal ukrainian corruption? If american citizens are corrupting Ukraine, why is it limited to a single political rival vs. a list of people? Unlike what the OP states as the quid pro quo being for an investigation, after testimony it was revealed that the thing of value was not the investigation, it was an "announcement" of an investigation. As testimony came out, the shakedown was not for an investigation, it was for an "announcement". Biden is known to be an "electoral college" winner, he is strong in the swing states that Trump won and the cater to a similar population. Such an announcement has a direct influence on a pending american election. So the context of the call when taken into account is what makes the call illegal. The trade was an "announcement" in return for defensive tools needed for survival. An investigation can be done privately through proper channels. Proper channels means people can be held responsible when an oversight investigation is done later on. If the FBI of DOJ had done it, there are rules about being quiet. But one can get around checks and balances by having a leader of another country make the announcement. As far as Biden enriching his family i.e. nepotism, it is repugnant to the public. Just as it is when Trump is doing it openly, not only his family but himself. It is also the case with the Clintons. There should be consequences for all of them. (but it's not illegal)

Yes. But a problem arises with "intense emotions" and rational discussion and behavior. Yes but the threat of irrationalism is a far greater because one cannot right the situation with rational discussion. Once contradictions are okay, anything goes. Once words are meaningless due to the blindness that panic or fury brings, "man" becomes a simple animal.

It was not a prediction but an explanation that those could be used and I think 2 of what he mentioned have been used. In his defense, he does say that legally, this impeachment (as an indictment, not removal) is sound but has no moral justification. That impeachment is meaningless from a legal standpoint, that it is purely political. He mentions the fact that every president from Wilson on can be impeached from something or another. He laments that the power of the presidency has increased and will go on. Ultimately this whole exercise is in fact a "super censure" because of the majority in the Senate. Nothing of consequence will happen, in fact it may be good for Trump politically. But the danger is that if the bar is low and the congress is controlled by the opposing party, any president can be in danger of impeachment. If Trump had done "what he did" before Biden had announced his candidacy, there would be no optics that the Democrats could have latched on too. Furthermore, Biden's actions also have bad optics, I believe nepotism is not illegal but politically repugnant. From a practical perspective, another question that never gets mentioned is: Would Pence be better or worse? Could he have won? If republicans had thought so, the results may have been different because this is politics.

Napolitano goes through multiple angles, both constitutional and moral.

The problem with that is: intense emotions attract irrationalism, it makes it more likely. It's just the way it is. The arguments have to be made with minimum emotions to increase the likelihood of a rational conversation. Currently as you have expressed, the descriptive phrases are changing which means one's criticism may not apply. I noticed on the "survey" in the OP, it was not socialism, it was "radical socialism" that was mentioned. That is an emotionally loaded phrase right out of the box. The fact is that Sweden went through a socialist period, were taxed excessively (even for those who like socialism). Because of their institution of free speech, they were able to come out of it in the last 20 years. In some ways they are now more capitalistic that the US. They did it based on reasonable discussion of the issues not fraudulently taking over the government and forcing capitalism down people's throats. So honest discussion can save a country. Now, I don't want socialism, I don't want mandated altruism, but I also want words to be treated as meaning something. At some point the political environment will muddy up the waters where leaders can say things that don't mean anything in particular. I find the OP to be that type of confusion mongering. If we want to attack socialism (which would be singing to the choir in this forum), then let's be clear about it. The way the OP puts it forth is: "That which is Capitalism, is Trump, and that which is NOT Socialism is Trump" which is nonsense! Again, no one here disagrees with you that socialism is bad.

That argument is convoluted. So Trump is willfully not enforcing the law and letting illegal aliens get welfare. If lack of enforcement is the issue, then Trump is at fault, he is in charge. Is the argument "vote for Trump because he will enforce the law even thought he failed to do it all this time"?

There is a fundamental problem with that argument. On one hand none of us are the fly in the office so none of us know what exactly goes on. Yet you make all these statements about what he does. That implies you are a fly on the wall. Are you? Bottom line, this is all deductive. We all see, no just me, that he frequently rebels against advice and turns on most of his former "adults in the room". Your claim (OP) is that Trump is some sort of champion for Capitalism and the survey is a vehicle to support that. Problem is that it is simply a propaganda/marketing ploy. He is against individual rights when the polls indicate a benefit, and if you want to drop names like Adam Smith to exonerate him, you have to indicate the specific argument. There may be actual benefits to voting for Trump over someone else, but we should not support based on false information.

Objectively yes, that is the history. Ethically speaking, they should have "clean hands". If you are saying that dirty business is the inevitable norm, then it is an invitation to more of the same. As far as philosophical leanings, Trump is closest to pragmatism. According to your analysis it makes him a socialist? To say something in support of individual rights is protecting our own individual rights and indicating a preference for it. The problem is that "his smart advisers" are mostly in the business of cleaning up after him instead of him listening to their smart advice. And given time he fires them and disparages them. Which smart advisers are you thinking of? What difference are we talking about now? If you water it down enough everyone is a Capitalist country. Did you hear, Saudi Arabia is having the worlds largest IPO, and China is renting ports in Greece, North Korea Sends arms everywhere, and Cuba sends doctors to be paid en masse. Next thing you know Bernie is a Capitalist too. And then your survey ends up having no meaning. It's just this team against that team. Kind of like sports.

Several issues have been mentioned, not just Hong Kong. It is clear that he does not value individual rights, his Howard Stern interview before he was elected, his pro evangelical positions, his behavior both with Saudi Arabia and Hong Kong adequately demonstrate an absence of valuing individual rights. Admittedly we can't know precisely (and for how long) what he thinks, but The only thing we can be sure about his thinking is that getting reelected is the most important thing in the world. If the polls supported return of Slavery, he probably would support it (assuming none of his family and friends would become slaves). One can predict more immature behavior on his part. He believes he is the great victim, never acknowledging his behavior has created predictable backlash. He is not committed to protecting us from socialism, in fact if the polls support socialism, he will support socialism to get elected. Bottom line, the OP was about supporting his bid to be a champion of Capitalism against Socialism. Depends which democratic candidate we compare him to and what kind of Capitalism you are talking about.

You proved Eiuol's point. If trade talks had gone well, he would not have supported the protesters. Correct, he does not value individual rights. One can also see that in his support for Saudi Arabia and some other places.

Propaganda aside, Bernie has a Marxist bias. Both in his personal behavior of having his honeymoon in the Soviet Union and his Support for Chavez. Mandating employee ownership? Redistribution of wealth of non criminals? There are others I can't remember right this second. Now there is some of that authoritarianism in Trump too, but there more of a pro-individual-ownership tendency that Trump has. (maybe minimal and perhaps unwittingly) Having said that, who knows how he will "morph" based on childish emotional reactions that he displays. I am not a pro Trump apologist. He is truly horrible simply regarding law lessness which could cause this country to collapse on our life time so he is a serious risk. Claiming that Trump cares about Chinese in Hong Kong is propaganda when he has never said anything in support until after he saw a bipartisan support that he could not challenge. If it comes to laissez faire capitalism, that is probably true. So then the comparison is between crony capitalism or socialism and something they are very similar. But if we were going to compare based on human rights, Trump comes out ahead, just a little. He supported right to choose which has been a Libertarian wish and looking into how insurance companies could be allowed to sell insurance across borders. You forget Taxation is forced through regulation and against individual rights. You are arguing that higher taxation on this area of the economy is good taxation but lowering taxes is capitalistic. Also, welfare, any form is a forced redistribution of wealth, which you are arguing as favorable.

If Elizabeth Warner or Bernie Sanders were the democratic candidates "any republican" would be better. In relations to them, Trump is more pro capitalism. But as you say, that does not make Trump a Capitalist within our context on this forum. There is a fundamental problem in the country and that is the hijacking of language. Sanders and other socialists are saying they are not Marxist. Most people in the United States think that we are Capitalists. Republicans are considered the pro capitalism party. The words have lost their meanings. Trump may be for Capitalism, but a Crony or Fascist type rather than Laissez faire Capitalist. Decreases regulations? Tariffs don't mean regulation? Using depression era welfare for farmers is not regulation? Decreasing taxation without spending means increase in deficit, each man's imposed debt. Nothing Capitalist about that. China is a horrible trading partner? Is anyone forcing us to trade with them? Both parties will enlarge government. Neither can accurately say they are Capitalist, Trump nor Pelosi, even though both claim it. Lets not add to the manipulation of language.

Are you saying that mankind has had a mystical outlook but nevertheless has survived?? It is well known that Altruism is a way of life that cannot be full practiced. It can be preached, it can be claimed as a belief system and a moral direction, but when it comes to putting in action, fully and dogmatically, you get the Pol Pot type outcome. The problem is that people link Altruism to survival, meaning someone else will take care of "me", because they will put me ahead of themselves. At its core, this acceptance is an egoistic motive which also makes altruism meaningless, confusing the issue. Also, a subjective source of knowledge can sometimes intersect with the objective. Sometimes (many times) what we feel does correspond to the truth, that our fear does indicate real danger, that our joy does indicate a life enhancing environment etc. And also when we go overboard, our feelings do help stop the bad behavior. But a spelled out standard of value that is based on "man's life" and yet which incorporates the "right to die" is contradictory on its surface. Something has to separate the two directions or to explain it simply.

Can you please elaborate? I ask because if this is true, if it was predominant, wouldn't the species have died off? (or close to it)

Yes longevity meaning what you said. No. was not connecting to procreation. I was just trying to get on the same page. (getting one thing out of the way so it would not confuse me)

But biologically speaking, survival means some sort of longevity, its existence. That basic alternative does not change. Would you at least agree to that? So survival changes meaning depending on what type of living entity. A human has the capability to go against the basic "bias" toward life. A standard of "man's life" also includes survival or does it mean a choice to die sometimes? Seems contradictory.

I always wonder what in objectivism missed the potential dangerous consequences. There was financial and emotional consequences. People never saw both Rand and Branden the same way after it all came out. Regarding the virtue of honesty, even being honest with oneself has caveats, as in going into shock (repression as a way of lying to oneself). Most people don't know how they really feel or what they really want. Some can't admit they want something because fear of disappointment or maybe shame. Honest as an all encompassing directive does not solve the problem.