The Trump Impeachment Thread

[PocketZeven]

You said yourself that you haven't personally seen evidence of harmful effects, and therefore there must not be any. That would be cognitive bias.

I suppose you read an article or watched a video that mentioned a physician in the '60s who had no background in chemistry, and who may have been a little bit racist, declaring that symptoms experienced by patients were a result of their lunch at a Chinese restaurant, and because there has since been no conclusive link established between Chinese food and headaches, the whole thing must be myth.

No, that isnt what I said. I meant to say there is no evidence at all for the harmfull effects. I run a business in the restaurant industry and did research into it. That has little to do with cognitive bias. You perhaps miunderstood it as an opinion from personal anecdotal experience.

 

[TexRex]

You said yourself that you haven't personally seen evidence of harmful effects, and therefore there must not be any.

No, that isnt what I said.

It actually is:

I have yet to see any evidence of that. I attribute it to the placebo effect.

I paraphrased it, but that is the gist of your remarks; "Because I attribute any supposed evidence of a link between MSG and adverse physiological effects to that of a placebo, I have yet to see any actual evidence."

Some people may experience adverse effects from consuming MSG.

...

In one study, people with self-reported MSG sensitivity consumed either 5 grams of MSG or a placebo — 36.1% reported reactions with MSG compared to 24.6% with a placebo.

...

The threshold dose that causes symptoms seems to be around 3 grams per meal. However, keep in mind that 3 grams is a very high dose — about six times the average daily intake in the US.

It is unclear why this happens, but some researchers speculate that such large doses of MSG enable trace amounts of glutamic acid to cross the blood-brain barrier and interact with neurons, leading to brain swelling and injury.

I went ahead and included the caveat that the effects linked in the study manifested after a large dose--six times that of average daily consumption--as it should be considered, but the study suggests that the link can't be brushed off as a result of placebo.

I meant to say there is no evidence at all for the harmfull effects. I run a business in the restaurant industry and did research into it. That has little to do with cognitive bias. You perhaps miunderstood it as an opinion from personal anecdotal experience.

I can't respond to what you meant to say. I can only respond to what you actually said, and I did.

 

[PocketZeven]

I went ahead and included the caveat that the effects linked in the study manifested after a large dose--six times that of average daily consumption--as it should be considered, but the study suggests that the link can't be brushed off as a result of placebo.


I can't respond to what you meant to say. I can only respond to what you actually said, and I did.

Fair enough. I worded it incorrectly. I should have added that I did a lot of research into it. That would have been more clear.

That study indeed used large amounts. 6 times daily doses of any or at least the majority types of food are potentially bad for your health. Even those considered healthy. You can die from water poisoning consuming excessive amounts of water.

There is no evidence at all there are any harmfull effects with normal use I have tried to look for it, but could not find any evidence for it.

In other news. A dutchman in ukraine has been accused of sharing information about yovanovitch to a republican politician Robert Hyde.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...-details-about-yovanovitch-movements-n1118226

 

[Biggles]

An illuminating vox pop article about Trump supporters' attitudes regarding his impeachment.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/09/trump-support-impeachment-096606

Another interesting article. However, I'm guessing that the correspondents to Politico are not representative of the majority of Trump voters whose views are much less subtle & conflicted.

I really believe that the bottom line is that the US economy is (purportedly) strong. This acts to "prove" all Trump's underlying assertions about how brilliant he is as a "negotiator" & as a "businessman". In reality, I don't think Trump is very responsible for the current performance of the US economy, anymore than Bill Clinton was in the '90's. If anything, I think Trump's failure to address underlying problems in the economy, especially the growing debt, will come back to haunt Americans in the coming years, in a way similar to the 2008 financial crisis. However, as it stands, most Americans are willing to give Trump credit for the improvement in the economy & that remains the issue of primary importance to many US voters & allows them to overlook his many unappealing traits.

 

[Kano Manel]

Another interesting article. However, I'm guessing that the correspondents to Politico are not representative of the majority of Trump voters whose views are much less subtle & conflicted.

I tried to read this article, but I couldn't... it is boring. Breitbart news are better written than this, honestly. This article stinks to some alter left liberal dude from Berkley, drinking organic coffee with organic milk and having a vegan breakfast in his feng shui oriented office. Trying to disguise his personal views in an article (allegedly) about the views of others. I couldn't read it, and I'm european. Pedantic and patronizing. And I can prove it.

Explain yourself, I asked readers (…) shortly before the holiday break.

We don’t care about your holidays...


….as I began covering national politics (after a stretch as local reporter)….

We don’t care about your career.


With sincerity, candor and even a measure of wistful idealism, people shared their views of a political and media culture…

What the actual **** is this dude talking about?


There is no reason anyone must justify his or her opinions to me. I was curious about how people justify their opinions to themselves.

Pedantic, judgemental…🤬

…two large themes in my journalistic career have collided in a seemingly irreconcilable way.

Again? We don’t give a **** about your career, dude!🤬🤬🤬

This dude writes for a news web like POLITICO? If everyone writes like this now I get why americans don't read news. In this article at Breitbart you will find many elements of true journalism (when you read the article is actually bonkers in its nature, like most of what Breibart publishes). It goes to the point, there aren't personal views, it uses sources to make a point. It is, undeniably, a better written article than the one from politico.
As a european liberal, it is painful to say this.

I'm not trying to be an arse I honestly don't know what you're talking about and I'm American. Can you or someone elaborate on what I'm missing?

There is nothing wrong with that, I can relate to this actually. I don't pay attention to anything happening in UK or Spain. I just don't. What is the point anyways? ANd also, considering how poor the journalism is in this days, I understand also why you wouldn't waste your time reading about the details.

I pay attention to this because I honestly believe that Donald Trump is not the problem, he's just a symptom. Is a very interesting case in development, from a sociological point of view.

 

[UKMikey]

Heh.

 

[baldgye]

Man this year has already been so strong with the insane posts. I hope we have enough interest this year for the GTP Awards!

 

[UKMikey]

Man this year has already been so strong with the insane posts. I hope we have enough interest this year for the GTP Awards!

Perhaps it's the new normal.

 

[baldgye]

Perhaps it's the new normal.

That'll make voting hard


Edit:

In this article at Breitbart you will find many elements of true journalism

This is perhaps one of the funniest things I've ever read

 

[TenEightyOne]

This dude writes for a news web like POLITICO? If everyone writes like this now I get why americans don't read news. In this article at Breitbart you will find many elements of true journalism (when you read the article is actually bonkers in its nature, like most of what Breibart publishes). It goes to the point, there aren't personal views, it uses sources to make a point. It is, undeniably, a better written article than the one from politico.
As a european liberal, it is painful to say this.

It's a magazine piece, more like an op-ed. I think the confusion is yours if you thought you were reading a news format, I'd say it's very obvious upon first landing at that page that it isn't.

With sincerity, candor and even a measure of wistful idealism, people shared their views of a political and media culture…

What the actual **** is this dude talking about?

Which part of that actual sentence doesn't actually make sense? I had no trouble with the words.

 

[Dotini]

Another interesting article. However, I'm guessing that the correspondents to Politico are not representative of the majority of Trump voters whose views are much less subtle & conflicted.

A very fine, informative and elucidating article from the founding editor of Politico. "He is our O.J." Read it.

My two favorite bits from many,

...a larger truth about how he survived the impeachment 21 years ago. He believed—and many of his supporters believed with him—that many questions of right and wrong in politics are relative, not absolute. A charge of presidential misconduct can’t be divorced from context—between who is making the charge and what their motives are, between who stands to gain and who stands to lose.

(emphasis added)

But let’s give the last word to a correspondent who didn’t vote for Trump in 2016, doesn’t expect to do so in 2020, and nonetheless is sickened by Democrats over impeachment.

“You may find my position neither consistent nor logical but there it is,” they wrote. “Consistency is certainly an essential standard of logical argument but it is, in my opinion, very overvalued as a measure of judgment. We live in ‘scoundrel times’ and when both sides prove themselves to be scoundrels, you may be forced to ‘pick your poison.’”

 

[Touring Mars]

I personally thought it was a brilliant piece - the 'He is our O.J.' thing was probably even more accurate than the guy who said it realised (given that OJ Simpson literally got away with murder...)

The take home message for me was that the very same people who are defending Trump on this would be convulsed with rage and righteous indignation if it were Hillary Clinton who had done this - and that's a troubling thought. The fact is that the GOP itself is also playing down the seriousness of what Trump has done because it is in their (short term) interests to do so, even though I believe that in the long term it is a terrible mistake to overlook the seriousness of it. Trump can get away with virtually anything provided a) the GOP controls the Senate and b) the GOP stand behind him. Trump, in return, needs to be playing the game too - so long as he doesn't diverge too much from what the party want, they will likely continue to turn a blind eye to his less savoury dealings.

 

[Biggles]

“You may find my position neither consistent nor logical but there it is,” they wrote. “Consistency is certainly an essential standard of logical argument but it is, in my opinion, very overvalued as a measure of judgment. We live in ‘scoundrel times’ and when both sides prove themselves to be scoundrels, you may be forced to ‘pick your poison.’”

I'm really not sure the times are any more "scoundrel" than in the past. When you consider the history of corruption & partisanship that runs throughout American politics ... & pretty much everywhere else ... I think you'd be hard-pressed to claim that things are worse now. I think the thing that is different now (as many other have pointed out) is the presence of the internet. In the past the "national news" tended to represent an overall, moderating interpretation of what was happening - think Walter Cronkite. That has completely gone out the window. People's biases are now massively amplified by the segmentation of the "news" & the dominance of social media.

Perhaps no political figure who rises to prominence is 100% "pure", but there are certainly politicians who are minor scoundrels rather than major ones. O.J may have been a hero to many African Americans because he "beat the system", but African Americans would be better off celebrating the many truly worthy black public figures rather than O.J.

 

[Dotini]

I'm really not sure the times are any more "scoundrel" than in the past. When you consider the history of corruption & partisanship that runs throughout American politics ... & pretty much everywhere else ... I think you'd be hard-pressed to claim that things are worse now. I think the thing that is different now (as many other have pointed out) is the presence of the internet. In the past the "national news" tended to represent an overall, moderating interpretation of what was happening - think Walter Cronkite. That has completely gone out the window. People's biases are now massively amplified by the segmentation of the "news" & the dominance of social media.

Perhaps no political figure who rises to prominence is 100% "pure", but there are certainly politicians who are minor scoundrels rather than major ones. O.J may have been a hero to many African Americans because he "beat the system", but African Americans would be better off celebrating the many truly worthy black public figures rather than O.J.

Gore Vidal famously said the first requisite for any politician is tact. Now that is out the window and any president to come could be a roaring, unchained monster. A scoundrel. You cite one of my heroes, I call him Walter Concrete, for his gravity and solidity on the outside. On the inside he was an unfettered individualist, a cross-dresser, sports car racer and believer in UFOs. A scoundrel.

 

[Rallywagon]

Gore Vidal famously said the first requisite for any politician is tact. Now that is out the window and any president to come could be a roaring, unchained monster. A scoundrel. You cite one of my heroes, I call him Walter Concrete, for his gravity and solidity on the outside. On the inside he was an unfettered individualist, a cross-dresser, sports car racer and believer in UFOs. A scoundrel.

Did someone call him a scoundrel? You seem a tad defensive here.

 

[Dotini]

The impeachment trial begins today.

The schedule calls for two 12 hour days of the case for impeachment to be laid out by House managers, then two 12 hour days for the defense to be presented by the President's legal team. Then comes time for questions. Beyond that, the process is TBD by voting. This is when the argument for additional witnesses may be heard. Depending on this, the trial could be over by the weekend, or it could go for perhaps two months, or even longer pending certain potentially important legal questions to be adjudicated in court, such as Executive Privilege.

 

[Rallywagon]

The impeachment trial begins today.

The schedule calls for two 12 hour days of the case for impeachment to be laid out by House managers, then two 12 hour days for the defense to be presented by the President's legal team. Then comes time for questions. Beyond that, the process is TBD by voting. This is when the argument for additional witnesses may be heard. Depending on this, the trial could be over by the weekend, or it could go for perhaps two months, or even longer pending certain potentially important legal questions to be adjudicated in court, such as Executive Privilege.

I am completely expecting a farce of a trial. I don't anticipate Republicans calling witnesses nor even taking it serious.

 

[Dotini]

I am completely expecting a farce of a trial. I don't anticipate Republicans calling witnesses nor even taking it serious.

I expect witnesses. It takes a vote of 51 to preclude witnesses. Among the 53 Republican Senators are approximately four known to favor witnesses.

 

[Dotini]

Hand-written changes to the rules were made at the last minute. There will now be three 8 hours days of presentation for each side. At least two weeks to reach a verdict, IMO.

 

[Danoff]

I expect witnesses. It takes a vote of 51 to preclude witnesses. Among the 53 Republican Senators are approximately four known to favor witnesses.

I'm seeing confused reports of no-witnesses. I don't believe them yet.

 

[Dotini]

Democratic political considerations on witnesses:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-bolton-trade-in-impeachment-trial/ar-BBZcdgW

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Democratic political considerations on witnesses:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-bolton-trade-in-impeachment-trial/ar-BBZcdgW

If they wanted more witnesses they should have called them. They should have subpoenaed who they wanted to hear from and enforced those subpoenas through the courts.

But, they say they already have incontrovertible proof of high crimes and misdemeanors. They were so convinced of that that they impeached the guy.

Where is that proof now? I mean they impeached, what, without enough proof?

 

[TenEightyOne]

If they wanted more witnesses they should have called them. They should have subpoenaed who they wanted to hear from and enforced those subpoenas through the courts.

But, they say they already have incontrovertible proof of high crimes and misdemeanors. They were so convinced of that that they impeached the guy.

Where is that proof now? I mean they impeached, what, without enough proof?

In any court cases it's possible to find further witnesses or evidence between a first hearing and a final trial. Doing so doesn't negate any evidence or witness testimony already collected.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

In any court cases it's possible to find further witnesses or evidence between a first hearing and a final trial. Doing so doesn't negate any evidence or witness testimony already collected.

Let them recall all of the witnesses that they had in the Schiff basement hearings, and in the above the ground public hearings.

That was all the evidence they needed to vote to impeach.

I don't know why they need any more evidence, if they did, they wouldn't have impeached him.

 

[Tired Tyres]

If they wanted more witnesses they should have called them. They should have subpoenaed who they wanted to hear from and enforced those subpoenas through the courts.

But, they say they already have incontrovertible proof of high crimes and misdemeanors. They were so convinced of that that they impeached the guy.

Where is that proof now? I mean they impeached, what, without enough proof?

You realise Trump admitted to it live on TV? What additional proof of a high crime has been committed is needed? Collision with a foreign power to affect democracy in the USA.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

You realise Trump admitted to it live on TV? What additional proof of a high crime has been committed is needed? Collision with a foreign power to affect democracy in the USA.

I watched that live TV clip, and read that stupid article about it, pffft.

There is video of Biden bragging about blackmailing the Ukrainian government, Trump asks Zelenski to look into it

 

[Kano Manel]

I watched that live TV clip, and read that stupid article about it, pffft.

There is video of Biden bragging about blackmailing the Ukrainian government, Trump asks Zelenski to look into it

So... for what you are saying... this is a story of a corrupt president, black mailing another corrupt president to get dirt in the corrupt son of another corrupt politician. And then a bunch of other corrupt politicians will judge the corrupt president without much proof, while the opposing bunch of corrupt politicians support the corrupt president and block witnesses, that may or may not corrupt by the time they testify ???????

 

[baldgye]

So... for what you are saying... this is a story of a corrupt president, black mailing another corrupt president to get dirt in the corrupt son of another corrupt politician. And then a bunch of other corrupt politicians will judge the corrupt president without much proof, while the opposing bunch of corrupt politicians support the corrupt president and block witnesses, that may or may not corrupt by the time they testify.

Calls out people for not having much proof, then without any proof himself, accuses a whole swath of other people


I can see why you appreciate the joUrNAliSm at Breibart!

 

[Kano Manel]

Calls out people for not having much proof, then without any proof himself, accuses a whole swath of other people


I can see why you appreciate the joUrNAliSm at Breibart!

Sorry, I should have added several ???? question marks at the end. It is a long question rather than a statement. Fixed it. 👍

PS: I like the new yorker much more than Breitbart, it was just an example. Look at this article, perfectly written, good journalism, better than politico

 

[Danoff]

Let them recall all of the witnesses that they had in the Schiff basement hearings, and in the above the ground public hearings.

That was all the evidence they needed to vote to impeach.

I don't know why they need any more evidence, if they did, they wouldn't have impeached him.

I don't know if you understand the fallaciousness of this argument. But I want to point it out. First, more evidence to convince people who are not convinced does not mean evidence was lacking earlier. It just means more evidence.

Second, you're literally arguing that evidence should not be permitted (always a dubious position to take), for a crime you know he committed, because he said so.

I agree that to some extent it seems unlikely that new evidence will persuade people who had made their minds up before anything happened. And to that end, more evidence seems almost pointless. How can you convince someone whose mind is closed? But don't blame people for trying.