Fighting back
[NOTE: It always amuses me (in a bleak sort of way) when I read liberal or left-wing sites where people are complaining that the Democrats don’t fight dirty enough. This is generally accompanied by the claim that it’s the Republicans who fight, and who fight dirty, and that the Democrats must finally start to rise above (or perhaps the proper word would be “below”) their previous nobility – to finally “take the gloves off” – in order to fight against the right effectively and win.
And of course, the right says the same in reverse: that it’s the left that fights hard and dirty, and that a great many Republicans have been reluctant to fight at all. I happen to think that is closer to a description of reality, and that it’s extremely obvious that this is so – or at least, that it was so until Trump became president.]
Commenter “KyndyllG” writes:
…[P]art of me longs to live in a world where you can explain things, using facts and reason, to the opposing party and get results.
Long before I got into politics, I found that it’s very difficult to move someone from something they believe. They don’t believe it because of facts and reason, and facts and reason alone are very unlikely to change their beliefs. Experience to the contrary of those precious beliefs is almost the only thing that works – a wakeup call that makes someone question something they’ve always believed and assumed to be right. And even that doesn’t apply to ideologues, like hardcore leftists, because they either shift the blame for contrary outcomes (eg, blaming conservatives for the failure of Obamacare) or simply because they are so sure that they are pursuing an ultimate rightness that it doesn’t even matter how much fails or is broken along the way.
As radical far left as the Democrat party itself has become, led by emboldened radicals and populated by normies staring at their shoes at the craziness but still voting D every time, good luck with “explaining” why our position is better. We are way past the point of “explaining.” We are at survival-of-the-Republic times. I know that there are NTs [NeverTrumpers] who in their heart would rather be dead than sullied, but the rest of us are not ready to die (figuratively or even literally) because you don’t want to get your hands dirty while fighting with vile people that have no standards at all.
That’s a good summation of a lot of things that have been discussed on this blog before. One of them is how difficult it is to change other people’s minds – or even to change one’s own. I’ve devoted this series and many of the posts in this category as well as this one to that topic, and I heartily concur with KyndyllG’s assessment of the difficulty and rarity of change.
I also agree that reasoning alone doesn’t cut it for most people, because there are huge – and I mean huge – emotional drivers of political opinion as well as political identity. And yet change does occur, and there are also those voters who actually do alternate between voting for one party and voting for the other. Whatever captures them tends to matter a lot, because of how evenly the divided the nation has been for a while.
The perennial question is: how low do you go? Those on the right who despise Trump feel he goes too low. Others who are sometimes offended by his approach nevertheless support him because of other things they like about him or because – and here’s the part that’s especially relevant in this post – they think his form of “dirty” fighting doesn’t cross any verboten line and is effective and perhaps even necessary at this stage.
The larger question, and one on which people differ greatly, is where to draw the line. At what point does the end not justify the means? At what point does a group of people fighting against an opposition that plays dirty become the very thing they hate? We all know that tyrannies and tyrants tend to justify the evil they do by saying they’re fighting for good and fighting an even more evil opposition, so how does one know when a line has been crossed?
Real tyrants probably don’t ask themselves that question; they don’t care. Or they decide there is no line they will not cross in order to make those tasty omelets.
My own answer (and it’s not a perfect one by any means) is that our Founders were well aware of the problem, and devised a constitution to try to make it difficult for a tyranny to take hold. Difficult, but not impossible. To avoid tyranny, try to focus on process, and keep to the standards outlined there. Pay particular attention to liberty, and you can fight hard (and even nastily at times) without crossing the line.
‘they are so sure that they are pursuing an ultimate rightness that it doesn’t even matter how much fails or is broken along the way’
This is the scariest thing of all. The tossing aside of decades, centuries of history and human nature in a short period of time without the slightest understanding of the long term consequences is truly society destructive.
“The larger question, and one on which people differ greatly, is where to draw the line. At what point does the end not justify the means? At what point does a group of people fighting against an opposition that plays dirty become the very thing they hate? We all know that tyrannies and tyrants tend to justify the evil they do by saying they’re fighting for good and fighting an even more evil opposition, so how does one know when a line has been crossed?”
I would say that Trump is crass, obnoxious, and pugnacious. But despite always being on the attack, he does go through the process. In spite of claims of impending fascism, he’s not using the FBI to blackmail Congress (that we know of), or pursuing any other sorts of tyrannical behavior. He’s doing a lot of things that the left doesn’t like, but that doesn’t make him a tyrant, no matter what their claims to the contrary.
So, to me, that’s where you draw the line. It’s okay to have a President who can be an a** at times, but not one who is a tyrant.
What about, some on the left, like Comey & Obama, are admirers of Theologian Rhinehart Neubauer (sp) . Comey actually posted using his name. My understanding of this man’s advice is that ANYTHING whatsoever YOU need to do to advance the agenda they subscribe to is perfectly acceptable. If you lie fine ( the agenda says it s ok) concoct phoney senarios, like the fusion dossier, fine you advance the agenda. So this religious individual Neubauer tells you, you are absolved of any culpability of sin or breaking the 10 commandments ( if I can be so quaint) because Alinsky like he says you further the cause.
It’s Reinhold Niebuhr. Never read him, but don’t think that characterization of his views will be the case. Leftist? Yes. BAMN type? No.
Look him up pretty sure he gave the left a carde blanche, they ll take it regardless.
Griffin, exactly. I am starting to see glints of the sort of fanaticism in people that would happily put society back to medieval times, as long as they though they would end up in the noble or priestly classes.
People who don’t read history, or somehow think history doesn’t apply to modern human beings, don’t understand why the “dark ages” were the dark ages. When you tear down civilization, what is left behind in the rubble is not shiny or good or noble. It’s muddy and bloody and involves short lives, squalor, violence, and abject lack of essentials (both physical and abstract), never mind nice things that modern lefties assume are a given.
Look him up . . .
Awww, nooooo, do I hafta? Nah, pretty sure I’ve avoided reading him or about him to this late date for a good if visceral reason. I’ve other timewasters aplenty.
RE: “We are at survival-of-the-Republic times.”
We are, indeed, at the crossroads.
I see several problems that are existential threats:
(1) The Left has turned the educational system into indoctrination centers. We teach dependency instead of self-reliance. And we don’t teach the values of Western civics. It is becoming very difficult to talk to young people about our system of government, why it works, and what is needed to maintain it.
(2) We are undermining ethics (religion). Our constitution was constructed for moral people. Prosecutors are sworn to uphold the Law: they aren’t. President Obama invented a new presidential power: vetoing a law by simply refusing to enforce it, even though the oath of office says that he must. What sort of government is suited to a people without morality? A tyranny.
(3) The Ruling Class has found it useful to divide us into groups. Human beings are good at this: we readily form groups to go fight other groups. This is a “divide and conquer” approach to keep us occupied, but it doesn’t bring us together as a country.
(4) Humans are not very good at noticing how they are being manipulated, and our failed educational system is failing to teach kids how to think for themselves. Further, the State has partnered with Big Data to rapidly improve the tools for manipulating the public. Big Data is already providing access to their data to the Deep State. In exchange, the State won’t move to regulate them or break them up.
(5) We have the worst Ruling Class ever. They’ve clearly stopped caring about the country, it’s people, or it’s place in the world. These clowns apparent goal is to rape, pillage, and plunder. They look at the country as a collection of assets to be exploited.
President Trump cannot save us.
[Yeah, I know, I’m going to get hell for that, but it has to be said.]
(1) The Deep State has been partially exposed, but as of this writing, no one has been arrested. Serious laws have clearly been broken, but there are NO consequences.
(2) Trump is a president. As such, he has limitations.
(3) His presidency has a time limit. I’m quite sure he’ll be re-elected, but four more years is all he’ll get.
(4) I suspect that Trump will win re-election but fail to win the House and eventually lose the Senate.
(5) He’s not fundamentally reshaping the GOP. As such, I don’t see the GOP being an effective force against the Left, especially in the long-term.
20-30 years down the road, I’d be very surprised if our Republic is still functioning.
Why is it so important that people have pretty much the same views? Does it have a survival advantage in our very social species? Did it have a survival advantage in our long history in the wilderness? Did we evolve to demand agreement amongst ourselves?
I noticed that in her deposition in October Fiona Hill was asked “Who was on the NSC Ukraine desk?” under her in 2017 (Eric Ciaramella) and she suddenly could not recollect.
Further, now, after some time to gather her thoughts, I also notice none of the HPSCI Republicans repeated the question today.
That is not the way President Trump would do this. He’d be right up in her bonnet bellowing, “Who was on the Ukraine desk Miss Hill!?“
Re: Reinhold Niebuhr
Back when I was a Chomsky kidsky I remember him going on about how the sixties Cold War Democrats were reading Neibuhr because he offered a way to justify hard choices and make them moral.
Yes, well, it’s not just emotional commitment, it is, whether it is overtly admitted or not, emotion mixed with a highly charged calculation of current self-interest.
Commenter Mike K said something some days or weeks ago that exemplified what some, perhaps many of us have been noting: the divergence of actual self-interest in the U.S., as government has grown larger, and as some of those in government or “public service” have begun to solidify a mandarin class through intermarriage and interconnections. At some point, notions of equality before the law, and what we once considered ‘the general welfare” diverge so much that they can be understood as antagonistic.
Mike K said he asked his government lawyer daughter if historic low unemployment, and a lack of foreign entanglements meant anything to her. He says, if I recall correctly, that her flat answer was “No”
This stands to reason. If the economic performance of the private sector has only a very indirect effect on your own well-being, one moves on to other concerns or projects.
If you know some people like some of the people I know, you will have come to the realization, or have been told outright by them, that they believe manufacturing and wealth producing are jobs for proles – who it is implied, only need be tolerated by the social engineering and management class, until they need not be tolerated anymore. Obviously the weight Garry Will’s “expert class” assigns to the continuing economic welfare of a class of people slated for replacement, will be minimal.
If one has adopted the idea that the people who were predominant in this country were just ignorant, a-social criminals who’ve not yet gotten their comeuppance, one will not really be too concerned about preserving “their version of America”.
Many here have friends and relations in academia. Many others have government employee friends and relatives. Many have seen the frantic efforts which some of these people have made to ensure that they will never have to face a world in which they must stand on their own merits and be subject to the criticism of the marketplace, or unsympathetic observers outside their circle.
That the achievements of the Trump administration fail to impress or move them should come as no surprise. Much of what pleases us dismays them as a road-bump on the way to utopia; and all of what might otherwise please them, they are willing (for you) to sacrifice as the price for restructuring society as they dream it should be.
You want your traditional heritage of freedoms, economic prosperity for your family, national preeminence, the preservation of legal, familial, and moral traditions. The world they aim for is a world in which you don’t have them, and eventually disappear.
What’s there to reason about?
Bingo Huxley !!! Sounds just like what I said.
Sure looks like the entire O bama crowd get their justification re: what they have been doing to the country & their higher calling from good old Mr Neuburh. I would love to hear testimony from Comey, Brennan et al about how they were good because they were saving the country. Beggars belief.
MollyNH: True.
When I read that Obama, then Comey were Niebuhr fans, I thought back to Chomsky. Even though those Cold War Democrats were, arguably, to the right of Trump, they do share that technocratic “We know best” ethos with today’s Democrats, which I don’t find as much with Republicans.
You can persuade people. You just need to give them a reason to WANT to change their minds. What’s next to impossible is to defeat people, beat them down until they admit they’re wrong and you’re right.
Oh, and I imagine somebody else hss thought about this but it just occurred to me. The majority of people currently working in and leading our politics and media today have lived through the Iraq War and its aftermath, the global financial crisis, the 2016 Presidential election, and the Russian Collusion hoax. Each case involved government officials and policy experts demonstrating profound levels of incompetence in addition to more than a little flat out lying. Yet they not only instantly believe EVERYTHING these government officials and policy experts are saying about Trump and Ukraine, they automatically assume each and every one of them is the next best thing to Jesus Christ when it comes to honor and integrity.
We really are doomed.
Mike
“KyndyllG” writes, in part:
“As radical far left as the Democrat party itself has become, . . . good luck with ‘explaining’ why our position is better. We are way past the point of “explaining.”
I remember an interview with Patrick J. Buchanan in which Buchanan pointed out that once you’re “explaining” yourself, you are losing / have lost the debate. His further point, as I recall it, was that we good guys should not fall into the trap of “explaining”, even when there are good rebuttals to be made that “explain” our position: the more effective response is to fight back, essentially, adopting the obamian approach of [rough paraphrase here] “if they bring a knife, we bring a gun”.
Brother Patrick was one of the very few waaay back in the 1970s who saw the futility of “explaining” ourselves. He went straight for the jugular. Some of his careless and impolitic statements landed him in some amount of trouble back then (and ever since?), but he saw clearly what many of us were slow to grasp*.
* such as M J R — in the 1970s I was “explaining” myself. Phooey.
For my take on Niebuhr and Obama, please see this.
…good luck with ‘explaining’ why our position is better. We are way past the point of “explaining.”
Personally, if I sense I am being verbally muscled, I turn right off. That was a big problem I had with Trump and his enthusiastic supporters.
Whoever is interacting with me and hoping to persuade had better have a good gear for explanations.
KyndyllG on November 21, 2019 at 5:49 pm said:
Griffin, exactly. I am starting to see glints of the sort of fanaticism in people that would happily put society back to medieval times, as long as they though they would end up in the noble or priestly classes.
* * *
Some thoughts.
(1) People who believe in reincarnation and somehow “learn” about their past lives are exclusively former kings, queens, high-ranking religious poobahs, etc. Nobody ever learns they used to be the slops-hauler in the castle.
(2) In the 70s I heard a radio (!) interview of Isaac Asimov, who told a story about his wife hankering after the good old days, when everyone had servants. HIs reply: “Remember my dear, in those days, we would have been the servants.”
(3) They know they don’t have to run faster than the bear; they just have to run faster than the rubes they are huckstering.
(1) People who believe in reincarnation and somehow “learn” about their past lives are exclusively former kings, queens, high-ranking religious poobahs, etc. Nobody ever learns they used to be the slops-hauler in the castle.
AesopFan: Not really. I’ve read a fair amount about reincarnation. Mostly those who believe claim average, even low-level lives, with some high points sprinkled in.
However, the worst case of what you describe has to be Sri Aurobindo, who is considered a major Indian spiritual philosopher-teacher of the 20th century. There’s still a city, more a town, in India designed on his principles called Auroville.
Every now and then I’ve checked into Aurobindo and, even as a hippie-seeker, I was repelled by the usual shallow Hindu gasbaggery of some guy going on and on about the amazing yogic states of consciousness he had attained and consequent insights about God and reality which he happily shares with the rest of us unenlightened souls.
As it turns out, Aurobindo and his wife, modestly referred to by all as “Mother,” have been reincarnating for thousands of years as VIPs guiding humanity at key moments. Aurobindo has been Socrates, Augustus Caesar, Leonardo da Vinci and others. Mother has been Cleopatra, Mona Lisa, Joan of Arc and Catherine the Great etc. Together they helped turn the tide of WW II by their psychic battles with the Axis.
I mean, really. Why are such people taken seriously? I give Aurobindo and his wife credit that, as far as I can tell, they did not become moral monsters as all too many spiritual types do when deified by large numbers of people, but still, isn’t their egoistic inflation obvious?
__________________________________________________
My favorite reincarnation joke was from the Brit sci-fi series, “Red Dwarf” (heartily recommended). It’s the Odd Couple in outer space. The fussy character claims he had been hypnotized to explore his past lives and proclaims to the slobby character, “Then I discovered in a previous life I had been Alexander the Great …
…’s Head Eunuch.”
A lot of the commentary at the post where KyndyllG’s comment appeared are “crossing” with the discussion here (not surprisingly).
This was a particularly interesting exchange to me, but the back and forth on morality and self-interest is worth looking at if you missed it.
huxley – thanks for the correction & the joke.
No one is more unenlightened than the person (me) who has read just enough to think they’ve read it all, eh?
I was looking at the link in the Iran post and clicked on this post, but can’t get past the paywall (FP is not worth $100/year to me).
Anyone else know what Gramer was saying?
I’m guessing he came down on the side of the careerists — such as the ones who think that the President himself is just a political appointee — but I could be wrong.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/21/impeachment-campaign-donor-ambassadors-gordon-sondland-diplomacy-trump-state-department/
U.S. Diplomacy’s ‘Gordon Problem’ Goes Way Beyond Gordon Sondland
With the ambassador’s headline-making testimony, the Ukraine impeachment inquiry shed unprecedented light on the difference between political appointees and career diplomats.
BY ROBBIE GRAMER | NOVEMBER 21, 2019, 6:29 PM
DNW:
Mike K said he asked his government lawyer daughter if historic low unemployment, and a lack of foreign entanglements meant anything to her. He says, if I recall correctly, that her flat answer was “No”
One of the last fights I had with my ex-wife before our divorce, back in 2016 before the election, was over how could I possibly vote for someone who didn’t prioritize women’s rights, aka abortion. I said — reasonably, I thought — that I was pro-choice but that’s not the only thing that I considered important and voting was a balancing act between priorities.
She told me that was a betrayal of her, our daughter, and all women everywhere because I wouldn’t consider only women’s abortion rights.
I asked her if she would vote for Hitler if he guaranteed abortion, and she shouted I wasn’t being fair and stomped off. “So you do consider other things, you just don’t want to admit it,” is what I said to myself at that point.
So, yeah, she was an example of lefties who consider only the one or two things they care about — abortion rights, the care/harm axis, whatever — and everything else is not just unimportant but pernicious.
“Even though those Cold War Democrats were, arguably, to the right of Trump, they do share that technocratic “We know best” ethos with today’s Democrats”
Rostow, Bundy, McNamara. The “best and the brightest”.
One of the last fights I had with my ex-wife
Hearing about other people’s domestic life is a great invitation to be grateful for what you’ve got.
It is insane how humans have perceived the world they have helped create.
23 hrs ago Pres. Trump tweeted (emphasis added –sdferr)
That’s a peek toward fighting back. The Pres.’s twitter account has been ablaze ever since.
1Hr ago:
Griffin on November 21, 2019 at 4:45 pm said:
They remind me of that scene from the first Blues Brothers movie..
We’re on a mission from God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4YrCFz0Kfc
how much disaster did THEY cause in that pursuit?
. . . But we are winning big, and they will soon be on our turf.
sdferr: That’s what I’m talking about with Trump. He has suffered through three years of this malarkey, while quietly collecting his ammo and keeping it dry.
Patience, confidence and strategic thinking. Not what one expects from an impulsive, foolish brute. How much of the “Mean Tweets” thing is a cover?
Patience, confidence and strategic thinking.
I have to agree at this point, that is what we’re seeing. Inherent in this method of procedure is an absolute demand that the strategist be brutal with himself regarding the truth of matters, most of all himself against himself, as well as against his adversaries. Failure to perceive can mean failure simply. Think Odysseus facing Scylla and Charybdis: walk the knife-edge right, make it to the other side. Walk it wobbling and everyone dies.
This is, however, only one aspect of the strategist’s problem. He also must deal with the dynamic and befouling interventions of both adversaries and allies in his plans. (Here I think of controlling blabbermouthed Lindsay Graham, say.) Hence the positive need for strategic deception at every hand.
So, for us looking on or in? We cannot tell!
Cleta Mitchell, The Federalist: Impeachment Charade Proves It’s High Time To End Court Deference To Biased Federal Agencies
One might think of Mitchell’s piece here as in the manner of an after action report, or lessons learned sort of thinking. It’s necessary: more than merely useful.
FBI official under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe
Used to have a few friends of friends on Facebook who were going on about collusion and then obstruction. No matter how often their deeply held beliefs were shredded by facts, nothing changed except…we have even worse things now. They insisted the Mueller report convicted Trump.
And their rage as I “explained” such things was incandescent. I think that having such things explained requires immense mental exertion and emotional exertion ro maintain the position, which leads to rage.
Process? Go through “process?” Really? The Left has gamed the “process.” There’s little in the way of “process” left. We’re down to our last few matches with which to light up the intended process. The Left won’t let us near the dying embers. They control all the approaches.
Try again.
It’s important to look at facts.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the US Constitution says:
The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
That’s it. There are no other official instructions as to how it is supposed to happen. The House decides.
Then
Section 4 of Article 2 of the US Constitution: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
There is no definition of a high crime or a misdemeanor. So again the House decides.
The Heritage Guide to the Constitution writes:
The Constitution does not specify how impeachment proceedings are to be initiated. Early in our history, a Member would rise on the floor of Congress and propose an impeachment, which would then be assigned to a committee. In recent years, Members of the House Judiciary Committee have initiated the proceeding and then made recommendations for the whole House’s consideration. If the House votes an impeachment resolution, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee recommends a slate of “managers,” whom the House subsequently approves by resolution, and who then become prosecutors in the trial in the Senate.
Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist Papers 65:
The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL [his capitalization], as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
100% correct. This is why I do not understand why anyone is opposed to the process of the current impeachment. The House decides and their actions are always political. That will not change. Only when it gets to the trail phase will we see something like a trial. But clearly it will still be political. There is no way around that fact. Hamilton and the Founders all knew this.
Why, yes, Montage.
That is why President Trump is practically double-dog daring the idiot Democrats of the House to continue through to an overwhelmingly partisan one-sided vote to impeach him, so that the Senate can apply justice to these fool Democrats, resulting, he hopes, in political humiliation and punishment of his tormentors at the voting booth next November. Carry on, idiots, by all means, carry on, he urges.
And like the fools they are, not knowing how to stop the train, the Democrats give every indication they will commit the most avoidable political error in many decades. More power to them, I say.
Montage:
Actually, “high crimes and misdemeanors” has a legal meaning. It doesn’t mean whatever the House says it does. That is, if the House is going to abide by what the Constitution says. Plus, there’s plenty of supporting documentation to explain what the Founders meant.
However, in practical terms, the House can define it any way it wants to even if if definition clearly goes against the Constitution, because who has the power to say the House is being unconstitutional in the case of impeachment? There is no precedent for SCOTUS to say it, as far as I know. So unless someone were able to stop the House, the House can define an impeachable crime as using the word “the” if a majority of the House cares to do so.
This is why I do not understand why anyone is opposed to the process of the current impeachment
Well, we can explain something to you. We cannot comprehend it for you.
sdferr on November 22, 2019 at 10:46 am said:
Cleta Mitchell, The Federalist: Impeachment Charade Proves It’s High Time To End Court Deference To Biased Federal Agencies
One might think of Mitchell’s piece here as in the manner of an after action report, or lessons learned sort of thinking. It’s necessary: more than merely useful.
* * *
Mitchell is a treasure, and absolutely correct.
The groundwork for the spying on Trump and his administration, for Mueller’s report, and for the Impeachment Imbroglio was laid very long ago, and became obvious under Obama.
Hence the wisdom of moving agencies and departments out of DC & its environs, into other parts of the country where there is a chance that conservatives will actually be hired, or at least the leftists will have to live among people who believe differently than they do.
Not that many of them will learn anything*, but maybe some of them will.
*Not picking on Bryan; there have been many such stories, but his was in this thread.
One of our kids had to break up with his girlfriend, although they got along very well and may even have loved each other, because she would not discuss their differing political opinions — the differing was maybe okay; the flat refusal to listen to his perspective and reasons was not.
Montage:
You write that you don’t “understand why anyone is opposed to the process of the current impeachment.”
Oh, really? Seems quite obvious to me, so I’ll try to (briefly) explain.
Something can be possible without being right to do. The House (as I explained a moment ago in my previous comment to you) can probably get away with a completely partisan process in which they charge the president with a crime on evidence that is laughable, a game of telephone, mind-reading, unproven thoughtcrime, accomplished in a thoroughly partisan manner with an unprecedentally one-sided process. But although they can do it, it makes perfect sense to object to it, particularly so near to an election in which the party doing the impeachment is probably motivated not only by hatred of the president since day 1 but also by the fear that they will lose in a free and fair election.
And you can’t see why anyone would be opposed?
In fact, everyone should be opposed, including Democrats. And I would say the same thing if it were happening to a Democratic president – everyone should be opposed.
sdferr on November 22, 2019 at 10:01 am said:
Patience, confidence and strategic thinking.
I have to agree at this point, that is what we’re seeing. Inherent in this method of procedure is an absolute demand that the strategist be brutal with himself regarding the truth of matters, most of all himself against himself, as well as against his adversaries.
* * *
Someone’s been reading his Sun Tzu.
“If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”
“For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom.”
* * *
Nitpicky grammaring.
“Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories.”
This shorthand quasi-quote can be found on graphic posters online.
It’s an okay version of the first part of the maxim, but the user doesn’t know his Early Modern English second person singular pronouns.
“Know thyself; know thine enemy.”
Clinging to pseudo authorities, since they support my assertions.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/2926/what-does-this-quote-excerpt-mean
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3329/what-is-the-difference-between-thee-and-thou
Neo,
What I specifically meant was impeachment is political. Therefore it should never be a surprise when one is initiated.
But to get into the weeds, I think everyone should be concerned about Trump’s July 25th phone call. In fact, many Americans are but not all of those are for impeachment. I’m not sure I am for impeachment but all the information that came from the transcripts and the investigation this week have shown mane in the WH knew Trump wanted Biden investigated and he held aid until the Ukrainian president acknowledged there was an investigation. Even from an optics perspective it’s problematic. He might be completely innocent. Fine. But the Democrats in the House see an opportunity. They have that right.
Lindsay Graham wants to now open an investigation of Biden. I don’t think he’ll find a thing. But – as noted – it’s all political all the time. So, if Biden becomes president and the House flips to Republicans then I totally expect it. If so, I’ll try to heed my own advice. I won’t complain about it. Instead I’ll just quote Hamilton: … there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
Montage:
Ukraine was investigating Hunter Biden back when Biden was VP and Trump wasn’t a politician. Then the investigation was closed at the request of Joe Biden. This is possible corruption of the highest degree and needs investigating, particularly since we have a treaty with Ukraine that requires us to help with corruption investigations.
Being in the running for the nomination (Biden has not been nominated, by the way) of the opposing party is no exemption, especially since this is not a made-up controversy, it is right out in the open what Hunter may have participated in and the threats Biden made. It is not 100% clear they are guilty, but an investigation is in order and given the circumstances is actually required.
The “evidence” against Trump about withholding the aid is the opinion of people who hate Trump, with no corroboration at all that anything of the sort happened. In fact, it’s been made clear that Ukraine officials were not even aware of the withholding, which was rescinded without any investigation having been opened.
The charges against Trump are absurd, in my opinion. Not only not worthy of impeachment, but baseless as charges of wrongdoing.
What I specifically meant was impeachment is political. Therefore it should never be a surprise when one is initiated.
You’re either playing dumb or it’s not an act.
But to get into the weeds, I think everyone should be concerned about Trump’s July 25th phone call.
Thanks for the motivated reasoning. Been an education.
… all the information that came from the transcripts and the investigation this week have shown many in the WH knew Trump wanted Biden investigated and he held aid until the Ukrainian president acknowledged there was an investigation.
Well now, that’s a tendentious lie right there. No surprise though, none at all.
This is not, strictly speaking, an impeachment thread, but York’s lastest column is too good to leave for later.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/ambassador-sondlands-slick-move
Labelling duds as bombs is what the media does, and the public generally never learns anything different, unless they are news junkies like the present company, and most of them aren’t.
That’s why it’s kind of amazing how well President Trump’s tweets get through to the undecided / independent voters.
UndercoverHuber @JohnWHuber:
Neo,
The “evidence” against Trump about withholding the aid is the opinion of people who hate Trump, with no corroboration at all that anything of the sort happened.
Gordon Sondland does not hate Trump. He gave a million to his inauguration and he got an Ambassadorship for it. The testimony he gave was not coming from a place of hate. He simply stated the facts as he saw them.
In fact, it’s been made clear that Ukraine officials were not even aware of the withholding, which was rescinded without any investigation having been opened.
This is not correct according to Laura Cooper deputy assistant secretary of defense for Ukraine and Russia.
She said in her testimony that as early as July 25 — the same day President Donald Trump spoke to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — her staffers received two emails indicating the Ukrainians were aware of the hold.
“My staff showed me two unclassified emails that they received from the State Department,” she said. “One was received on July 25th, at 2:31 P.M. That email said that the Ukrainian embassy and House Foreign Affairs Committee are asking about security assistance.”
She added: “The second email was received July 25th at 4:25 P.M. That email said the Hill knows about the [Foreign Military Financing] situation to an extent and so does the Ukrainian embassy.”
We learn more each day. I don’t think we should only trust what Trump says or only trust what the testimony says. That’s the challenge.
“He simply stated the facts as he saw them.”
Like when the President told him “I want nothing, I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo.”
Mike
Have you seen the Mark Sandy (five hour) deposition transcript, Montage? Did you see him testify in the open session hearings? No? No to both questions, Montage? Now why is that?
Enough already. Navy Secretary Richard Spencer should be removed from office immediately, before the weekend is out.
Montage, Montage. What do the crickets tell you to say?
But to get into the weeds, I think everyone should be concerned about Trump’s July 25th phone call.
Montage: I’m not keen on people telling me what I should be concerned with and you don’t really make a case.
Frankly, I’m not concerned. I don’t care about the QPQ argument. Strings are often attached to aid and a contingency on investigating substantial American corruption strikes me as well and good. Why shouldn’t the President do so, if he chooses? Apparently there is even a treaty which requires it.
The Biden corruption is obvious, no matter who is president. Big mouth Joe Biden bragged about successful QPQ from Ukraine to stop investigation of his son. One doesn’t have to tilt one’s head and squint to see it.
So what is your point? What law or moral principle has Trump violated? That he can’t call for an investigation of American corruption if he *might* personally benefit? Doesn’t this depend on reading Trump’s mind and motives? How does that work as a general principle?
Meanwhile, according to you, the House Democrats can set the impeachment inquiry any which way they want — including not letting Republicans ask questions or allowing exculpatory evidence to reach the public. Never mind, you say, that’s just politics and no one can complain.
Your problem with people like me is the whole impeachment process looks like just politics — a premeditated, dishonest, effort to get Trump, no matter what, from the very beginning, using whatever levers they can. RussiaGate failed, so on to UkraineGate. If that fails, well, maybe they can still crowbar loose Trump’s tax returns and set up another “inquiry” on that basis. Do you doubt this is what’s happening?
You seem to argue Republicans must be principled when it comes to a murky telephone call. Yet the Democrats can do whatever in their crusade (witch hunt) against Trump for as long as it takes. Hey, it’s just politics.
Look out! Democrat impeachment missiles launch! Incoming! Everybody take cover!
(video at link)
The strategy behind this move is laudable.
Progs are currently quite certain that it is perfectly legitimate to use mob tactics to drive conservatives out of polite company simply for being partisan. Perhaps a little tit-for-tat will change some minds.
The single biggest impediment to conservatives winding up the crazies and unleashing them against the progs has been geographical.
There is no angry, right-wing mob in DC. The people, the politicians and the police are all progs.
By moving the nodes of the administrative state out of the swamp and into the heartland, we can guarantee a regular kind of spontaneous *intercourse* between coquettish bureaucrats and the provoked, priapistic citizenry.
The strategy behind this move is laudable.
Actually, it’s dippy. Perhaps 20% of federal employees are currently found in the Washington commuter belt.
https://www.governing.com/gov-data/federal-employees-workforce-numbers-by-state.html
You have to put your capital somewhere. Greater Washington is a large coastal city with a comparatively large black population. Any place of that description will vote left in our current cultural moment. The comparatively large population of federal employees may intensify the effect, but that’s all.
If my own experience in public employment is any guide (and it’s peculiar and out-of-date to be sure), the generic public employee is concerned with his pay, benefits, working conditions, and job security (and so inclined to the Democratic Party to a degree as they fellate public employee unions), but are not otherwise notably inclined to leftoid politics. Social workers, mental health tradesmen, educational administrators, and college faculty tend to be leftist whether they work for the government or not. (As it happens, social workers, educational administrators, and college faculty generally do work for the government).
Note also that some of the bad actors here (e.g. Yovanovitch and Vindman) have (one might wager) spent 3/4 of their careers anywhere but Washington.
It makes sense to move ag department stuff to the closer to the breadbasket in Missouri. It actually saves money.
It makes sense to move BLM stuff to Colorado.
It makes sense to redistribute jobs from people in one place who do not and will never vote for you; to people in another place where people *do* vote for you. Many of the people employed in the bureaucracy in DC will not move to, live and work in flyover country.
It makes sense to move elements of administrative service closer to the “customer”. Bring too far out of arm’s reach leads to mischief.
Who knows why Trump is doing it but I don’t see it as “dippy” or a mistake. There are partisan reasons to do it, there are reformist, principal-agent reasons to do it.
The harvest is about ready, the time to separate the wheat from the chaff, and for people to see the rewards or not of what they have sowed.
If you want to go with the dark forces, become near Rasputin and Genghis Khan, gain divine power, even though it is torturing your fellow other/selves.
If you want to go with the Leftist alliance and Deep State, then polarize to the Left hand path (electrical negative). https://nationalmaglab.org/education/magnet-academy/watch-play/interactive/right-and-left-hand-rules
If that is your goal for the harvest, then become invested in the political infighting of Red vs Blue, study Alinsky, his teacher Satan, or Clinton tactics, and don’t get tired of winning. Only by winning through becoming better at Leftist tactics than the Left ever was, can you win easily. You will win another 75,000 years of cycle time with the Leftist alliance, on another world and place reserved for you (mansions).
If you want to enter a better place, subjectively, one of the 3 layers of heaven, then you must polarize and become 51% or greater towards the Right hand path, service to other/self.
Those that control the controllers of the Deep State, have a rather long term strategic goal. One that makes little sense to human politics and in fighting.
The ends always justify the means.
ALWAYS.
The trick part of that is that you don’t get to restrain the ends considered. You must consider them ALL.
Kills people? Check.
Creates despair? Check.
Destroys Rule of Law? Check.
Terrorizes the innocent? Check.
You don’t GET to say, “These ends don’t matter”. They ALL do.