I think that his only crime is his brutal and unwaranted arrogance, which proves to be too much to be digested by others who are in the system. That is why they all make him pay. And personally, i do not mind that.
with love,
sanjay
What do you think about Trump’s sense of humor?
I do not see any sense of humor in him. What i see is only and only arrogance. he thinks, or atleast enable others to think that all are stupids and fools and he is only wise man that US has ever produced.
with love,
sanjay
I enjoy his sense of humor. He makes me laugh. I can’t think of any other Presidents who have made me laugh.
The job of a president is not to make people laugh. That is not why millons of people elected him. That is what a joker does. Of course, yes, sometimes Trump also acts like a joker.
with love,
sanjay
His sense of humor helped get him elected plus he calls out what he sees happening when no one else would dare do so. He’s a fighter and he’s sure in a fight now.
In that case, the only thing i can say(wish) that God bless America, because America will need the blessing the most.
with love,
sanjay
K: yes, there was an actual crime… the constitution is the law of the land…
violate the constitution and you have committed a crime…
thus by his violating the constitution by engaging with a foreign government
to influence the upcoming election is a crime…as I don’t have time to
research the actual clause of the constitution he violated, I shall list it
when I get home…….
a crime was committed, the constitution is the law…
Kropotkin
… and with that, Peter kropotkin slams the gavel, walks to the mirror to adjust his tie, and heads off to run today’s errands and/or go to work.
On U.K. news yesterday, they said that he most likely won’t be impeached, but there was some buts attached, but I can’t remember what conditional terms they were.
I’m Right-leaning British, so not as extreme as the US’s right-leaning Conservatives, but I do agree that the US’s Government needs to tighten the reins on mass immigration and unsavoury circles, whilst fostering a more prosperous working demographic… incentive via decent earnings/a decent living-wage ain’t a dirty word, ya know.
…just gotta sort out a better PR team, with a better finger on the pulse of the Nation…
Give the crime it’s legal name, Judge PK. Which is?
This court is in recess until judge K returns, madam. Please make your way to the lobby and await the baliff’s instructions.
Now we’re talking… Game on!
Don’t have to be singing from the same hymn sheet i.e. the same religion or ethnic group, to share a common narrative and end goal. You can do this, you’ve got this US!
It’s a split between Democrat and Republican. They don’t seem to be able to find a common narrative.
Once again, as per usual, you miss my point. What dueling objectivists do is to start with the assumption that there is in fact a “whole truth” here in regard to impeaching Trump.
Or in aborting babies.
Or the truth about the Jews. Or Homosexuals. Or Communism.
Theirs.
Then they go back and forth arguing with those who believe the opposite is true. And, sometimes [here in particular], the exchange will end up devolving into one or another rendition of huffing and puffing. If you are “one of them” you can easily become the hapless liberal or the hopeless reactionary…or a moron or an idiot. Even a chimp.
Sure, there are facts that can be established. But even if the Constitution specifically said that what Trump did is an impeachable offense, Trumpworld would come up with a rationalization that makes what he did the exception.
Or, instead, over and over and over again we see arguments torqued to accommodate the political prejudices of those involved. Even if Trump did what he was impeached for, it was merely one particular means to achieve that which is deemed by his supporters to be an end worth sustaining at all costs. Like, for example, keeping America white.
[size=50]It’s just that some of us intertwine all of the back and forth assessments here in the manner in which we construe “I” here as embodied in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. The parts that objectivists merely shunt aside as irrelevant to the fact that they are right. Period. And, boy oh boy, does ever feel wonderful to know that![/size]
Biggie wrote
Name the facts.
And you miss my point that there are some truths to be found and they are worth seeking. I don’t care if it’s a “whole truth” or not.
The thing is that Wendy really wants something to be true about Trump. She has a palpable bias.
I’m much more detached. I don’t live in the USA. I don’t have much interest in the Democrat/Republican positions. I don’t have any business interests which would cause me to favor Trump as president or someone else as president.
I see evaluate the impeachment with much less bias.
You don’t seem to recognize the value of that.
You put Wendy and me in the same “objectivist” category.
(I might have more bias than Wendy on another issue, of course. Oddly enough, I recognize this.) 
I think that this is true given the current state of affairs but it need not be so.
Right, like both sides above haven’t already accumulated their own set on this thread.
But: Why in regard to this particular conflicting good…as in regard to all of the hundreds and hundreds of others that have rent the species now for thousands of years…does one side never seem to accumulate just the right set of facts to settle the disputes once and for all. Philosophically, morally, politically or otherwise.
Well, not counting “in their head”.
You will either own up to the extent to which the points I raise above are applicable to you or you won’t. Just as you will insist that this is applicable of me in turn.
Or, sure, maybe this time on this thread one or another of you calculating objectivists really will have settled this fierce dispute once and for all. Before the election hopefully.
Then we’ll let Phyllo’s God decide.
Phyllo wrote
Everyone ends up being in the objectivist category, except Biggie.